Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 or Sigma 300mm 2.8 which one to buy?

jwsm · December 18, 2007

Hello Everyone Merry Xmas............

Canon 20D
Canon 40D
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8
Canon 1D Mark III (end of Feb)

Okay here we go; this will be long so I can provide everyone with as much info as possible. But basically I am trying to choose between the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 and the Sigma 300mm 2.8. (Not interested in the

Canon lenses yet $$$)

About two years ago I bought my first EOS camera and that was the Canon 20D. I was a novice and interested in shooting primarily sport. I asked for advice from the wonderful people on here in regards to a

good fast lense without breaking the bank. Nearly everybody said to get the Sigma 70-200mm, which I did and it has served me extremely well and I thank you all.

I have been very lucky in regards to access to some major sporting events, festivals and concerts. This will only increase in the future. I must point out I consider myself to be still a novice and as such I am not at the stage where I am making vast amounts of money and this is fine by me at the moment. I still have a day job and look at my photography as an expensive hobby. I would love to become a pro but that’s a long way off and if it doesn't happen it will be no big deal because I have been introduced to this wonderful science called "PHOTOGRAPHY" which will be with me until the day I die!

I now realise the severe limitations I face in shooting football games with just this lense. It has been frustrating at times but I knew sooner or later I would be getting a longer lense. IT IS NOW LATER

So I have been looking very closely at the Sigma 120-300mm and until last night had my mind made up. Then I stumbled across this quote (it came from a head to head review between both lenses)

"In many ways, the Sigma zoom is a super-sized 70-200mm f/2.8. Let's be honest: with telephoto zooms, no one's buying for the wide end; it's the reach you're paying for. If you've been thinking about a 70-200mm f/2.8 but haven't yet made the plunge, and pondered if maybe you'd like even more reach than 200mm for those birds in the backyard or the outfielders on the local baseball diamond, you should give serious consideration to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom.

If you've got a quality 70-200mm f/2.8 in your bag, you'd be duplicating a good bit at the wide end with the Sigma zoom. Go for the prime. It's a little sharper and a little faster in AF in both bright and dim conditions, and the difference between 200mm and 300mm, while not negligible, isn't dramatic."

I now am a little confused regarding what to choose. Also to balance the argument here is another quote:

"Before buying this lens I was shooting two bodies to cover the focal range of the Sigma 120-300/2.8. I had a 300/2.8 on one body and a 70-200/2.8 on the other for a total of around 20 lbs. When shooting a tournament for 12 hours a day you quickly appreciate the weight savings. The biggest bonus is not giving up any image quality over the 300/2.8 making it the most productive lens I have ever owned."

As I said above a primarily shoot sport, but I do shoot a few festivals which include bands, DJ's and drag queens. I found the sigma 70-200mm to be quite useful for me at when I am not using the Canon 24-70mm at these festival events. As for the sport side, I am going to start using to cameras just like the pros.

So I would like a few opinions on which lense I should get and would really like all your insights as well

Thank you ever so much for your time and for all the wonderful posts on here as I have learnt some much from all you guys over the past two years.

cecilc · December 18, 2007

jwsm wrote:

Hello Everyone Merry Xmas............

Canon 20D
Canon 40D
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8
Canon 1D Mark III (end of Feb)

But basically I am trying to choose between the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 and the Sigma 300mm 2.8. (Not interested in the Canon lenses yet $$$)

And Merry Christmas to you and everyone else, too .....

You know, I'm struck by your choice of camera bodies - 20D, 40D, and the Mark III - in relation to your opinion (or, at least, the implication) that Canon lenses are not for you because they're too expensive !! You're willing to plunk down some serious cash for those bodies but seemingly want to short-change yourself in selection of lenses ! Pardon me - but I just don't get that .... !

Those high-priced camera bodies will not be "new" technology for very long ... however, a good Canon lens will last forever and retain it's value for longer than those camera bodies will ... OR the 3rd party lenses that you're considering ....

I've had the Sigma 120-300 2.8 lens. It's a good lens .... But, it's not a Canon .... and by that I mean:
1) that the Canon lenses work now (and will work later!) with all Canon AF bodies. Somewhere down the road, Canon will introduce a new body (and you may just have to buy it!) and a Sigma or other 3rd party lens might have to be "re-chipped" to be able to work with that body (if they can be ....).
2) the Canon lenses do focus faster than the Sigma lens does. And unless you're shooting something that's not moving, that may not be a big deal. But you're admittedly shooting "primarily sport", so the speed at which focus is achieved should be a feature that you'd like to look at.
3) Canon lenses hold their value .... When I bought my 120-300 (brand new) and decided to sell it, I took a huge loss in that investment because it wasn't a Canon .... But about three years ago I purchased a used Canon 400 2.8 Series I lens for $3200.00. I just sold that same lens for $3700.00 .... (and I only sold it because I got a great deal on a Canon 400 2.8 IS .... that Series I lens is a great lens and I really hated to part with it!).
4) quality control with 3rd party lenses for Canon bodies are "hit & miss" ... if you do a search for reviews of the Sigma 120-300, you'll find as many people hate it as like it - mainly due to quality control issues: the lens backfocuses (or frontfocuses); I've read reviews of the mount coming apart; not actually being a 2.8 lens .... and usually the reviews come down to whether or not you got a "good copy" or a "bad copy" of the lens ...

Now, having said all that, here's my advice for lenses: Buy yourself a used Canon 300 f2.8 and a 1.4x converter for it. The 300 is great for field sports - football, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. And during daylight with the 1.4x it'll give you a little more reach at f4.0.

However, if you just MUST get a Sigma, I'd recommend the 120-300 2.8 over the Sigma 300 2.8.

But, in my opinion, you'll be short-changing yourself if you go that route .... and I'll even make the prediction that in a year (if that long!) you will dump the Sigma and get a Canon.

These are all my opinions based on my own personal experience - and if you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me ....

Good luck with your decision .... I know it's a big one ....

mercphoto · December 18, 2007

Cecilc gave you some great advice. Please take it to heart. You have a 20D, a 40D, and soon a Mark III. While I can understand adding a pricey Canon lens can break the bank, I'd consider telling you to cancel the order on the Mark III and buy the Canon 300/2.8 IS lens instead. You'd be better off, IMHO. Get the Mark III later.

I would also have to agree with the comment you found about zooms and shooting at full-reach most the time. Especially in sports you will probably find yourself shooting at full-zoom so often that the extra expense and weight of the zoom is not worth it. The prime is cheaper, lighter, and has better image quality. What's not to like?

The Sigma lens might be a good lens, but the Canon 300/2.8 is sheer magic. I sold mine because I stopped shooting football (I was bored silly doing that) and seldom used it after that. However, I still miss that lens and regret selling it. You will not regret buying that lens.

johng · December 18, 2007

Of the two lenses you're considering, the 120-300 is the better lens. It is actually sharper than sigma's 300mm prime. AND IT'S A ZOOM.

I've had this lens for several years. It's my primary field sport lens and has made me a good amount of money.

It's a superb lens. The only lens better in that focal length is the Canon 300mm 2.8 lens.

Is the Canon better? Yep. The Sigma is about 90-95% of what the canon is in terms of sharpness and focus speed. For me, it was a non issue when I bought my copy - the 120-300 was selling for $1900 then - less than half the cost of the Canon. And, I didn't have a second body then. So going the cannon route would have cost me an extra $3200 (difference in lens price plus cost of extra body to use with my 70-200 2.8).

Now, Sigma has jacked up the price to $2700. No longer as easy of a decision.

As to the one quote you posted regarding duplicating focal length - the whole point is - with a 120-300 on a 1.3 crop body you only need the one lens and one body. You don't have to shoot with 2 bodies (unless you like a true wide angle) for the action. That's a huge bonus. The only way I would incur the penalty of shooting action with 2 bodies is if I was using the Canon prime. I dont think the Sigma 300mm 2.8 brings anything to the table over the others.

The Sigma 120-300 vs. Canon 300mm 2.8
Canon has a bit better IQ and is faster to focus in low light and is possibly the best telephoto prime in Canon's lineup.
Sigma has convenience of zoom and is still about $1300 less

maczippy · December 18, 2007

Some good advice here....

Invest in good glass, worry less about the MK3 (in fact, I had planned on buying two) but with all the fuss, I'm not even going to bother even thinking about it anymore until next year. My MK2's work fine, they still take photographs (fancy that...) and I know that they *work*

Andrew

johng · December 18, 2007

maczippy wrote:

Some good advice here....

Invest in good glass, worry less about the MK3 (in fact, I had planned on buying two) but with all the fuss, I'm not even going to bother even thinking about it anymore until next year. My MK2's work fine, they still take photographs (fancy that...) and I know that they *work*

Andrew

That's all true - assuming you already own a 1 series body. I don't know about the 40d, but the mkIII was a significant improvement over my 20d - especially for low light sports.

maczippy · December 18, 2007

johng wrote:

That's all true - assuming you already own a 1 series body. I don't know about the 40d, but the mkIII was a significant improvement over my 20d - especially for low light sports.

I can see that...

In which case I'd say see if you could pick up a good 1DMK2 or MK2N that might be going for a pretty good price I'd do that vs blowing a wad of moollah on the MK3 right now...

Bearing in mind that the OP is still speculating on getting business. A good camera body is a good camera body, thus to maximise profits it would make sense to buy a good used 1DMK2 (or stick with what he has) and buy good lenses.

I have the 300f2.8L and wouldn't part with it for the world...and this isn't a hobby for me either (photography for me never started out as a hobby actually..)

Andrew

jwsm · December 18, 2007

you are all wonderful peace to all of you
Everything that has been said here makes complete sense. I also have this question on another forum and I am getting the same advice as you guys here.

I should first explain my setup. I only had one camera (20D) until last week when I went out and bought the 40D. The 20D I may or may not keep. I was intending to you use the 40D with my sigma 70-200/2.8 and when I bought the MarkIII I was going to put one of the sigma 300's on it.

however with all the advice I have been getting I have had a serious rethink and i will probaly go with 1DMK2 or MK2N and get the canon 300/2.8 second hand. A lot of people have mentioned quality and long life in regards to the Canon 300/2.8.

Having said that I am still open to other opinins as everyone has be very informative and i really appreciate your help.

jwsm · December 18, 2007

thank you thank you thank you
I was just reading over the thread again and I just wanted thank all of you again.

thank you

maczippy
johng
mercphoto
cecilc

pathfinder · December 18, 2007

jwsm,

I wrote a brief comparison of the Sigma 120-300 with the Canon 300f2.8 IS [url="http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=45735]here[/url]

There is no significant weight difference. Sigma 5.7 pounds, Canon 6 pounds. But the truth is that the Sigma always seems heavier in my hand. Maybe, because it is black.:D

The lens hood of the Sigma is much smaller and less useful due to the wider view of the short end of the zoom range. This means a greater likelihood of flare with some backlit shots, than with the Canon lens.

The loss of IS is a significant factor, but for shooting people running, a bit less of an issue. IS is Great, of course, but so is the ability to step rapidly backwards with the zoom ring. I have lost more than a few wildlife shots due to the inability to step backwards fast enough. At a race track, where the cars are not coming toward you unpredictably, the Canon will be preferred.

The Sigma is a few mm shorter in focal length than the Canon, as I document in my review.

Both are great lenses, it ultimately comes down to whether you prefer IS, or zoom as your primary criteria.

The Sigma ( $2699) is more inexpensive than the Canon ( $3899), of course.

Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 or Sigma 300mm 2.8 which one to buy?

Comments