Sigma 300mm 2.8 for sports

whitey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,252
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
are they good with sports photography?

the older Sigma 300mm f/2.8 APO

Thanks in advance
 
The only thing I dislike about fixed focal lengths for this is that you ate limited in composition.
 
jennifer said:
The only thing I dislike about fixed focal lengths for this is that you ate limited in composition.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmm. Most of the sports photographers who do it professionally use either a 300 or 400mm prime!

Whitey, the Sig 120-300 works well enough, although it AFs slower than the Canon offerings, and I'd imagine that the prime would be fairly similar.

Given that you'd be paying around £1k for it, if you can muster up the extra £500 I'd go for a non IS Canon.
 
Sigma 300mm prime has way way too many quality issues, some good ones, lots of bad ones, unless i could use it first theres simply no way id even consider it.
 
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmm. Most of the sports photographers who do it professionally use either a 300 or 400mm



Oi... I know. I offered my opinion based on my experience. I'm not a pro and I didn't get that the OP was either. It's my insight only.
 
Seen some pros using 500-600mm with sports to

I missed out on the sigma 300mm so still on the looout

just purchased a second body/grip but chasing either the 120-300 mentioned or the Nikon 300mm F2.8 AF-S depending on how things go, needing one in the coming weeks before Wembley though
 
I've got a couple of "possibilities" its just the cost of them after spending on another body aswell, its pointless having one without the other type thing and body needed to come first

Sure I will get there somehow though :D
 
Doh. I forgot that you were a darksider!!

I'n which case buy the Sigma. It's bound to be streets ahead of the Nikon version!! :lol:
 
Dont waste your money. Pick up a 2nd hand Nikon 300 2.8. It may initially be a bit more pricey but you'll easily get your money back when you sell it.
 
I don't plan on selling anything :lol:

Also to add, looking at going down the Sigma 120-300 route for now, once I get a few more paid publications I will invest that money in the Nikon 300mm
 
Also to add, looking at going down the Sigma 120-300 route for now, once I get a few more paid publications I will invest that money in the Nikon 300mm

Seems pretty sensible, the 120-300 is as sharp as the 300 Siggy anyway. Buy new if you can though and take advantage of the 3 year guarantee that Sigma offer. Their poor QA means there are just as many bad ones out there as good ones.
 
paulroberts said:
Seems pretty sensible, the 120-300 is as sharp as the 300 Siggy anyway. Buy new if you can though and take advantage of the 3 year guarantee that Sigma offer. Their poor QA means there are just as many bad ones out there as good ones.

Considering that the OS version is due to land in about 3-4 weeks time, that is probably the worst possible advice to offer. You'd pretty much be losing a grand overnight!

Whitey, if you've got the patience try to wait a month or so for the new release, it'll alter the price structure quite a bit. If you were planning on one for Wembley why not treat yourself by renting a 400 instead? Given the size of the stadium you may be better off with the extra reach!
 
Last edited:
Hi

I am collecting a 120-300 tomorrow as I need something for Wembley

I refuse to hire though due to the cost (I wont go into detail) and this is siggy is the best way of me hitting 300mm quickly

I can make more use of it or invest in the Nikon 300mm at a later date if required but this will quite me nicely for now
 
You do know the Sigma 120-300mm isn't actually 300mm at the long end don't you, its actually 270mm, its a strange thing which happens, exactly like what happens to the new Nikon 70-200mm VRII which is only 140mm at the long end when focussing on subjects closer than 15-20 mts away but the Sigma is 270mm regardless how far away youre focussing, theres a specific name for this, breathing or something like that.
 
Back
Top