300mm f2.8 IS - Sigma v's Canon

swag72

swag72

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I am seriously looking at a long prime to replace my 100-400mm. I have got to be a bit sensible financially so while I would love the 400mm F2.8 there is no way I could justify that. I would want to keep IS, hence the larger price tag.

So, do I settle on a 300mm using tc's? I am looking at the price difference between the Canon and Sigma (a couple of grand) - Is the difference that much? Would appreciate comments and help on this.
 
If you want to keep IS Sara that rules out the Sigma which I don't think has it? If you get the Canon and both converters you get 420mm f4 and 600mm f5.6 options which can't be bad. I've no doubt the lens will be an excellent performer with both converters.

Prices have gone nuts haven't they? I wish I'd have bought the 300mm 2.8 a few weeks back now.

I've no doubt the Sigma will be a cracking sharp lens, but I don't think the finish is as good or as durable as the Canon.
 
Sara

I've actually owned both lenses so hopefully can be useful to you. The other thing I would add is that, looking at what you take, I don't think the 400/2.8 would be a sensible aspiration. The 400 is Canon's heaviest lens and is a beast. For wildlife stuff, I would always recommend the 500/4 or 600/4 as the ones to consider. The 500/4 is much lighter, which is a great benefit in my opinion.

Anyway, back to the 300/2.8s.

CT is right that the Sigma doesn't have IS. If you are shooting from a tripod, it doesn't matter, otherwise it's the Canon.

The Sigma I had here was easily as sharp as the Canon when shooting at 300mm. However, it didn't seem to be as good on focus speed or accuracy, especially with a teleconverter. It is a lighter lens, which was one of the appeals for me but, in the end, I stumped up the extra for the Canon.

Is it worth the difference, only you can decide really. I was never happy with the Sigma with converters and I am with the Canon (and Canon's own converters). I find the IS helpful and I think the focusing is a bit quicker - especially with converters, although you do take a hit on focus speed.

I don't know where in Bucks you are but we still have both lenses (Sue uses the Sigma when I'm hogging the Canon!) so if you want to try both back to back and can make the trek over to Cambridgeshire, you are more than welcome.

Paul
 
I bought the Sigma 300mm two years ago and historically it was the worst decision ever. I had the cash for the canon but went for the Sigma and only looking back at my stock do I realise the volume of images that the lens cost me. I was shocked when I started renting a 300mm 2.8 from Canon in that it did not miss a beat.
 
I would echo what has already been said, if your ruling the 400 2.8 out on price alone the 300 2.8 IS, is fantastic very versatile, and takes converters very well.

The 300 2.8 IS also easily usable hand held, the 400 2.8 is not.

I would suggest getting your hands on one and having a play, or hiring one from StewartR, to see if its what your comfortable in using / handling.

Mark
 
swag72 said:
I am seriously looking at a long prime to replace my 100-400mm. I have got to be a bit sensible financially so while I would love the 400mm F2.8 there is no way I could justify that. I would want to keep IS, hence the larger price tag.

So, do I settle on a 300mm using tc's? I am looking at the price difference between the Canon and Sigma (a couple of grand) - Is the difference that much? Would appreciate comments and help on this.
Click to expand...

A couple of friends have the 400mm f2.8 IS, one's either got rid or getting rid because it's too heavy (5.6Kg's) to handhold. My other friend loves his, handholds it, but has arms like popeye.

The canon 300mm f2.8 IS has the rep that its canon best lens and it's certainly impressive from the images I've seen friends capture with it, but prices have rocketed recently.

Can't really comment on the sigma 300mm f2.8 other than if price is your major influencing factor its a cheaper alternative to the canon, not as good but creditable.

Another alternative is the canon 300mm f2.8 non IS (secondhand market), slightly heavier than the IS version but optically the same. It really depends if you need IS, if you mount camera and lens on a tripod or monopod you don't need it.

I want the 300mm f2.8 IS, but not willing to pay the 22% hike in prices at the moment.

Peter
 
I have a friend who uses the 300 f2.8 IS for motorsport (and some wildlife with the converters) the images it produces with both converters are excellent........if you can stretch to it I would say the canon.
 
I have the Canon 300mm - I just can't fault it.

There are plenty of samples on my website - just check the exif info under the photos on the right - anything over 100mm was shot with this lens.

FYI - though I do own tripods - I can't remember using one for a long time so these shots will all be hand held - the IS is really good.

click back from this one for more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top