Camera body and lens help

[antc]

Hi,

Currently making plans for the year ahead which include a new/2nd hand body and a prime lens. Need a 2nd body especially during the motorsport season as to keep changing lenses isnt really an option. Im having real trouble deciding which is the best way to go. Currently shoot with a 30d and my long lenses are the 70-200 F2.8L IS and 100-400L.

The Bodies

Canon 40d
Canon 1dmk2
Canon 1dmk2n

The Primes

Canon 300mm F2.8 L IS
Sigma 300mm F2.8

or

Canon 500mm F4 L IS
Sigma 500mm F4.5

I mainly shoot motorsports and wildlife and am getting into football photography, so in my mind I have a need for both prime lenths. I am struggling as much with the decision about focal length as I am with canon vs sigma. I have read quite a few reviews on both and have seen some great images produced by both.

Can anybody offer any guidance

 

[Darryn]

As the owner of the Canon 1dmkII and Canon 300f2.8IS.. and future owner of the Canon 500f4IS...

Id say imo, there isnt a lot between the Canon 1dmkII and 1dmkIIn... slightly larger screen, slightly better buffer and a couple of memorycard functions... Not enough to warranty the higher price... Personnally, id rule out a 40D for a bang off.

Then id look at the 2nd hand market and find a good looking example with low shutter count, i would be more interested in how well it had been looked after and low use than N or not...

As for lenses, the Canon 300f2.8IS mated with the 1dmkII is shockingly good...
Ive no opinion on the Sigma lenses, from what i remember Deigo has/had a Sigma 300f2.8IS and his sports photos were incredible, that said, some folk have a knack of getting the best out of a lens and Deigo is one of those people.

Id get the 300f2.8IS before the 500f4IS though and stick a 1.4x TC on it, making it effectively a 420f4IS... depending on what youre shooting that may negate the need for the 500f4IS.

 

[KIPAX]

As you say your looking towards football then 500 will be a bit too long IMHO. I agree about the camera body. I have a mkII and wouldnt even consider paying to go N. (MKIII yes!)

 

[CT]

I have a Canon 1DMK2n and a Canon 20D. As you know I primarily shoot wildlife, mostly small birds, and for that I'm using the 20D most of the time as it clearly out- performs the 1DMK2n in putting out a larger image of the main subject matter when viewing both images at 1:1 output.

I certainly wouldn't part with my 1DMK2n - the wider FOV is a distinct advantage in other fields of photography, but given where my main interests lay I doubt I would seriously consider the purchase of another 1 Series body unless it was a 1.6Xcrop sensor, and Canon don't look like making one any time soon.

As your interests are wildlife and motorsports my advice is get a 40D and spend the money on glass. The 40D is the best camera in the Canon line-up for giving the best reach with long lenses and will even out-perform the new 1DSMK3 in that respect. It's also a very well spec'd camera at a great price.

 

[moomike]

I also think that you'd definitely find the 500mm to long for most field sports - I'll agree with Darryn as I found the 300 2.8L IS was spot on for this kind of work.
Good luck with your choice

 

[antc]

Thanks for the replies so far guys. Just wanting to make sure I get and take some advice before I take the plunge as its going to be expensive if I get it wrong.
Think with regeard to focal length the 300 would cover both my motorsports and football/other sports pretty well. So for that reason I think thats the way im going to head. I could maybe look for something longer at a later date. Now would IS be beneficial on this 300mm lens in which case I would need to look at the canon or if not how do people rate the sigma version?

 

[grumpybadger]

I have a pair of 1DII's and 2 of the lenses you mention (the Canon 500 f/4L IS and the Sigma 300 f/2.8 - which is Diego's old one referred to above).

I love my 500, it is a stunning lens. However, it is a bit of a beast. It really is an effort to take out. Although it rewards with results, you need a decent tripod and head (probably a gimbal) and I find I can only hand hold it for short periods of time. I did take some successful gannet and puffin pictures earlier this year but it was hard work.

I bought the 300 to complement it as more of a "walk around" lens - primarily for birds in flight. The 2.8 gives better AF performance although the lens seems slower to focus than the Canon 500. It can also take a 1.4 and a 2x quite well giving you 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 if you need.

If money had been no object (or I'd not been abroad when moomike was selling his 300) then I'd have the Canon. However, it is twice the price of the Canon so a steep price to pay. The IS is great but probably not worth £1000.

I have a friend with the Sigma 500 f/4.5 and we shoot side by side sometimes. I reckon the Canon has the edge, but it is heavier and more expensive.

As I said, I have a 1DII. My girlfriend has a 40D and I wouldn't rule it out. I've been mightily impressed by the camera and the AF seems pretty accurate. Remember, the field of view of a 300 on a 40D is similar to a 400 on a 1D so it can give the feel of a longer lens.

For sports, I'd probably go 300 first and either 1D or 40D. For wildlife, I love my 500

 

[dod]

MPB actually have three 1D MkII's in stock at the moment, one of them being an 'N'. One of them's got about 10000 clicks on it, they're looking more of a bargain all the time.

 

[antc]

I have a pair of 1DII's and 2 of the lenses you mention (the Canon 500 f/4L IS and the Sigma 300 f/2.8 - which is Diego's old one referred to above).

I love my 500, it is a stunning lens. However, it is a bit of a beast. It really is an effort to take out. Although it rewards with results, you need a decent tripod and head (probably a gimbal) and I find I can only hand hold it for short periods of time. I did take some successful gannet and puffin pictures earlier this year but it was hard work.

I bought the 300 to complement it as more of a "walk around" lens - primarily for birds in flight. The 2.8 gives better AF performance although the lens seems slower to focus than the Canon 500. It can also take a 1.4 and a 2x quite well giving you 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 if you need.

If money had been no object (or I'd not been abroad when moomike was selling his 300) then I'd have the Canon. However, it is twice the price of the Canon so a steep price to pay. The IS is great but probably not worth £1000.

I have a friend with the Sigma 500 f/4.5 and we shoot side by side sometimes. I reckon the Canon has the edge, but it is heavier and more expensive.

As I said, I have a 1DII. My girlfriend has a 40D and I wouldn't rule it out. I've been mightily impressed by the camera and the AF seems pretty accurate. Remember, the field of view of a 300 on a 40D is similar to a 400 on a 1D so it can give the feel of a longer lens.

For sports, I'd probably go 300 first and either 1D or 40D. For wildlife, I love my 500

Yeah its a really hard to choice to make at the moment. Best retail price I have seen for the lens is from here -
http://www.martinscamerashop.co.uk/canon-ef-300mm-f28-l-is-usm-27-p.asp
£2695. I wonder if kerso could get it cheaper. Also it maybe worth looking into 2nd hand ones too. Have seen the sigma for £1450. So far I have gone pretty much 100% for L series lenses believing them to be superior to everything else. However the differences between these two lenses at least in terms of pic quality is a much harder choice.

MPB actually have three 1D MkII's in stock at the moment, one of them being an 'N'. One of them's got about 10000 clicks on it, they're looking more of a bargain all the time.

Yes this is the website im currently monitoring for the 1 series bodies, heard some good reviews about the company. Also know someone on the forum has recently purchased a low clicks example of a 1dmk2n from them and is very chuffed with it.

 

[grumpybadger]

That is a good price for the Canon. As I said, I got my Sigma used off here.

Tomorrow should be the first day it is used in earnest. Hopefully I'll have time to do a 300 Sigma and 500 Canon back to back comparison at some point.

I was looking for a 2nd hand Canon, when this Sigma came at a good price.

 

[antc]

That is a good price for the Canon. As I said, I got my Sigma used off here.

Tomorrow should be the first day it is used in earnest. Hopefully I'll have time to do a 300 Sigma and 500 Canon back to back comparison at some point.

I was looking for a 2nd hand Canon, when this Sigma came at a good price.

Sample shots would be excellent if you would be so kind

 

[Joe T]

I would consider the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and a 500 of some sort. This combo gives you most of what you need in two easy lenses

Seriously, the zoom on the 120-300 is invaluable both for wildlife and motorsport imo. Its probably about 90%+ as sharp as the Sigma 300 prime. Lack of IS/OS isnt too bad, as subject movement is key, and you will need a monopod anyway.

The 70-200 2.8 IS will be very useful when you need to handhold.

 

[antc]

Anyone else have any thoughts ideas or suggestions for me?
The 120-300 2.8 sigma is something im having a little look into now so thanks for that suggestion joe t, something I had overlooked. You say only 90% as sharp as the sigma 300mm prime? Any particular reason for this? How does the 120-300 function with 1.4 and 2x convertors ?

 

[StewartR]

You could always try hiring the 300 and/or the 500 and see how you get on with them.

If you want to buy, I can recommend Martin's Camera Shop - I got my 300 f/2.8 and my 500 f/4 from them. They're pretty consistently amongst the cheapest "mainstream" suppliers and the customer service is absolutely first rate. Kerso might be a bit cheaper, but I feel a little nervous about buying from him because there's some sort of VAT dodge (the lenses he supplies haven't had any VAT paid on them) that I don't understand.

 

[grumpybadger]

Anyone else have any thoughts ideas or suggestions for me?
The 120-300 2.8 sigma is something im having a little look into now so thanks for that suggestion joe t, something I had overlooked. You say only 90% as sharp as the sigma 300mm prime? Any particular reason for this? How does the 120-300 function with 1.4 and 2x convertors ?

I was never happy with the 120-300 with a 2x. The prime seems a bit better.

Sorry, couldn't get any samples of the Sigma 300 at the weekend. Due to bad light, I didn't really get anything suitable done.

 

[andrewc]

The motorsport 'togs love the 120-300 f2.8. May not be as sharp as a dedicated prime, but I don't think any zoom can be, but you gain versatility. Works very well with 1.4 TC and will accept a x2 without loosing af on a 40D, although people say IQ deterioates too much with the x2.

 

[mho]

Personally id go with the Canon but I have used the Sigma 300mm 2.8 and its a fantastic lens.

some more options for you

AJPurdy - USED - Sigma 500mm f4.5 EX HSM Canon EOS fit £1549
WHE - Brand NEW - Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX £ 1199

 

[sportysnaps]

For my pennys worth
i would go with the 1d mii/N rather then the 30d/40d every day - it's not all about MP and IQ the 1dXXXX are built to take lots of hard work, rain and knocks every day, the response times and focusing speeds are very good, and the additional custom functions (like using your thumb to focus, independently of the shutter) are worth having for fast moving sports.

The canon 300mm f2.8 IS is the one to get if you can - it’s worth remembering that the IS version will focus faster as canon changed the electronics in the lens when it brought this version out (compared to the non IS version). Many people feel the IS version is not as sharp, due to less optics (the additional lenses used for the IS function reduce total IQ)

The sigma lenses do not have a focus range limiter on the lenses nor do they have the focus preset buttons on the lenses - and it is for these reasons many people opt for the canon lenses, as the difference in image quality is small but still there (Canon better). The 120mm-300mm seems to be a really nice lens, and if they bring out a MK2 with the above functions then it would be a really nice lens to have as a single lens for football etc

The Canon 300mm works well with the 1.4x extender(mk2), and a 300mm + 1.4X on a monopod and the 70-200 on the second body handheld (strap on neck) works well for football/rugby etc – takes a bit of practice but you sort of “cuddle” the monopod when shooting with the 70-200 – and let the 70-200 hang when shooting with the 300+1.4.

I’m upgrading to 1dmk2 and also a 300mm f2.8 lens this year so I have been looking into some of the above options in detail.

 

[antc]

Personally id go with the Canon but I have used the Sigma 300mm 2.8 and its a fantastic lens.

some more options for you

AJPurdy - USED - Sigma 500mm f4.5 EX HSM Canon EOS fit £1549
WHE - Brand NEW - Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX £ 1199

Those prices are very tempting!

For my pennys worth
i would go with the 1d mii/N rather then the 30d/40d every day - it's not all about MP and IQ the 1dXXXX are built to take lots of hard work, rain and knocks every day, the response times and focusing speeds are very good, and the additional custom functions (like using your thumb to focus, independently of the shutter) are worth having for fast moving sports.

The canon 300mm f2.8 IS is the one to get if you can - it’s worth remembering that the IS version will focus faster as canon changed the electronics in the lens when it brought this version out (compared to the non IS version). Many people feel the IS version is not as sharp, due to less optics (the additional lenses used for the IS function reduce total IQ)

The sigma lenses do not have a focus range limiter on the lenses nor do they have the focus preset buttons on the lenses - and it is for these reasons many people opt for the canon lenses, as the difference in image quality is small but still there (Canon better). The 120mm-300mm seems to be a really nice lens, and if they bring out a MK2 with the above functions then it would be a really nice lens to have as a single lens for football etc

The Canon 300mm works well with the 1.4x extender(mk2), and a 300mm + 1.4X on a monopod and the 70-200 on the second body handheld (strap on neck) works well for football/rugby etc – takes a bit of practice but you sort of “cuddle” the monopod when shooting with the 70-200 – and let the 70-200 hang when shooting with the 300+1.4.

I’m upgrading to 1dmk2 and also a 300mm f2.8 lens this year so I have been looking into some of the above options in detail.

With regard to the body I think im pretty much sold unless looking at the 40d at focus changes my mind. Things that will be usefull are its rugged build and full weather sealing.

Just the lenses I need to keep trawling through sample shots of. Also the great value of the sigmas is pretty good, for instance the two lenses mho listed i could get both the sigmas for pretty much the cost of the canon 300 2.8!
THinks to think about

I was never happy with the 120-300 with a 2x. The prime seems a bit better.

Sorry, couldn't get any samples of the Sigma 300 at the weekend. Due to bad light, I didn't really get anything suitable done.

Ok no worries at all and thanks for the info on the sigma