Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OR Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L with 1.4 Converter

dakid

dakid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
561
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so which would you go for, when intending to shoot rugby/hockey/ice hockey with occasional wildlife photography as well.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L + 1.4x Converter
£1,466 (£1,247 + £219)

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8
£1,650

I can see that the Canon combo is cheaper, but then it's a shorter range (70-280, compared to 120-300) and will also be f/4 when it's above 200mm, i.e. with the converter.

... and in the meantime, I'm going to go looking for those recent threads talking about insurance for cameras :lol:
 
I would vote for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Ive got the 300mm, and the 120-300mm is supposed to be as sharp, if not slightly sharper. The 70-200 will probably be fine for sport, but for wildlife you are going to be wanting more than 200mm, and the faster the lens setup the better.
 
My vote goes to the Canon combo. I have the same kit.

The IS will be handy if you are hand holding.

You could try the 2x converter to get you a 140-400 if reach may be an issue.
 
No idea if reach will be an issue. I'm kinda going by the EXIF data of shots I've been liking, and by tidbits picked up while reading up about it.

I know only that my 24-105 is going to be way too short, and I think that I'll be needing a 300mm potential to make those shots with my 40D. If anyone knows or believes different, please do say! :)
 
tough choice, but for the wildlife alone, probably the sigma for the extra reach.
 
A few comments......

The 70-200/2.8 doesn't take kindly to a 2x converter (unless you listen to people who think it does!). 1.4x is fine though.

Can't comment about the Sigma.....sorry.

Canon's 100-400 L comes in well under budget and should beat the 70-200 + T/C combo when the light is good.

A 300/4 IS L and both T/C's are still under budget and the lens alone will beat the zoom for sharpness.

If you fancy a bit of fondling before choosing then I'm only 40 minutes up the M40 near Banbury...you're welcome to to come along or meet up somehwere.

Bob
 
That's very kind, Bob ... thank you. Once I have the money in the bank and am ready to make the purchase, I might well take you up on that offer. Mind you, I was playing with a 400mm f/5.6 yesterday and I think that might have spoilt me a bit ... that was an incredibly fast-focussing lens, with a great zoom-factor.

The only problem with an f/4 (and the f/4.5 - f/5.6 of the 100-400L), is that for doing sports stuff, especially when it's anything other than bright, I shall be needing that extra stop to try and avoid dipping into ISO3200 territory.
 
I would go for the Canon set up. better lens, and to be honest, unless you are stalking wildlife in tricky light, you would stop it down anyway as for me, sometimes 2.8 can be to shallow for birds and small animals/mammals. So, your F4 sounds fine to me, especially if you are talking about zoos and wildlife parks.

Just my opinion.

Pete.
 
I can tell you from experience the Canon 70-200 does not react kindly (as stated) to the 2* converter. I have just sold mine and got a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 if you look at the MTF charts the Sigma lens is L quality and lots of fast action togs use it. I got my Sigma Friday quick test looks superb no problem I know what I would do.

I do have a Canon 400mm f2.8 too and from my own quick tests this weekend the 120-300 looks quite good in comparison wide open.

Bill
 
I have the Canon set up, and also from time to time shoot a bit of Rugby. I have in fact used the 70-200mm + 1.4x tc for rugby - and it works just fine. I would be concerned with the other lens that the short end might prove to be a touch ong for Rugby - whilst some of the action is indeed a way away, as and when gthey come closer you don't want to be missing shots because they are just too close.

As for the question of using the 70-200mm with a 2xtc, I have, and have been delighted with the results. As ever I suspect the question comes down to the sharpness of the individual pieces of glass.
 
Diego Garcia said:
I would go for the Canon set up. better lens, and to be honest, unless you are stalking wildlife in tricky light, you would stop it down anyway as for me, sometimes 2.8 can be to shallow for birds and small animals/mammals. So, your F4 sounds fine to me, especially if you are talking about zoos and wildlife parks.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Pete.

All good for wildlife, but it's the sports stuff that I'm more worried about :)
 
There does seem to be quite a mixed bag of opinion about which to go for here!

I can see the sense in saying that 120 might be too long for some of the short shots, and having that 70-200 will really give you a lot of options, but then the problem is that the longer shots (200-280mm) will all have to be at f/4, and I wonder if that will just push the shots into the "too grainy" area when looking at them after, because of the ISO needed to freeze the action.

What do the pros use? Or would that be the 70-200 and a second body with the 300mm f/2.8? ;)
 
I've got the canon combo (and a 2X). The images get softer as you add the TC's but then stopping down does result in some great images. @ 200+1.4TC down 2 stops it is very good.
I went for this set as I wanted a stonking zoom lens with the option to extend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top