Sigma 300mm 2.8 or 120-300mm 2.8?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JordanHPhoto
  • Start date Start date
J

JordanHPhoto

Guest
I've been looking at getting a telephoto 2.8 lens for a while now and with the canon 300 and 400mm's out of my price range i came across Sigma's line of lenses.

The one problem i'm having though is choosing between the 300mm or the 120-300mm. ( I know what a problem hey?)

I can get the 300mm a bit cheaper and allot will say that's it sharper being a prime, but there isn't allot of reviews or images online compared to the 120-300, when i look for images taken with the 300mm most of the time, images from the 120-300 come up.

The 120-300 is under Sigma's new 'Sports' range and looks very sharp for a zoom and the zoom maybe a added bonus but I have a 70-200 so i don't have a problem if the action is coming closer because i can just switch. So maybe the 300mm maybe better?

Anyone used these lenses and can help me out?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
120-300 Sport gets much better comments and reviews. :)
 
I had the prime for a few years and thought it was a very good lens. Changed it last year for the Canon 100-400 II.

There are images an discussion on this link: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=895435

This is one of mine with a Sigma 2.0x attached.



The 120-300 sport is most probably a better lens and if I recall has OS too.
 
I had the prime at one time and had the 120-300 Sport up until recently. I'd go with the zoom anyday over the prime (and I loved the prime). The zoom was easily as sharp as the prime, if not better, with, obviously, more framing options.

Just my thoughts.
 
I haven't used the prime however I do use the 120-300 Sport and it is a fantastic lens, easily as sharp as a prime with the added benefit of the flexibility. I know you say that you can swap to the 70-200, but wouldn't it be better not to have to. I tend to have one camera with a 24-70 for wide panning shots and the 120-300 for closer to. It also handles TC's well and I regularly pair it with a 1.4 to give me 168-420 :)
 
Over the years I've had 3 of the 120-300s (a non-OS, an OS and an OS Sport). In 2013/2014 the OS model that I had a the time was giving me nothing but problems. On the 3rd or 4th time of it having to be returned in the space of a few months I decided to swap it for the 300mm prime instead. After a whopping 6 weeks I chopped the prime in and rebought the 120-300 (which turned out to be my broken one fixed once again). After a couple more issues I once again moved the OS on and bought the new Sport version, which I have had for nearly 18 months and love it. To this day I still don't regret the decision to get rid of the 300mm prime for the problematic zoom, the one I had was that bad.

The only problem I have with the Sport is due to an ongoing injury in my hands I find it hard to handhold for long, especially if zooming in and out. I did look at trading it in for a Canon 300mm IS recently but decided the extra cost simply wasn't worth it.
 
I've had both recently. I loved the prime, some of my favourite shots were taken with it, without a doubt. However, the keeper rate was no-where near as good as with the 120-300. The zoom is also very useful and stops the need to take two camera and lenses to certain events. Both great pieces of kit though.
 
The 120-300 sport is a fantastic lens at a fantastic price compared with the Canon primes. More versatile too. I bought one last year and consider it my best purchase but its as as good with the body attached to it.
 
I tried a 120-300 sport a couple of weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised and the lens is obviously very flexible so if it is a choice between the prime and zoom then there is no contest
However. After shooting with the Canon prime, I think that every time I would use the sigma 120-300 I would be wishing I had saved longer and got the Canon 300
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top