Sigma 120-300 f2.8 APO EX DG OS vs Canon 70-300 IS L USM

[Dru Maasepp]

Hi everyone,

I am in the middle of upgrading my kit and was hoping for some advice on the new sigma 120-300 2.8 OS in terms of its image quality and autofocus, or any general tips. I think I am leaning toward having a 300 zoom because of what I like shooting - sport, wildlife, landscape, outdoors sort of stuff. I have read good things on the digital picture and 'fro knows photo' about the sigma but was hoping someone who owns the lens could make a comment.

I know the canon 70-300 IS L seems to be very fast at focusing and has very clean image quality albeit not as clean as canon 70-200 range. The only thing the 70-300 lacks is that 2.8 aperture. The only other option is to get a canon 70-200 2.8 IS L with a 1.4 extender but not sure if that bumps the image quality down to sigmas standards, and that would be shooting at f4 as well.

Just any comments would be very valued.

Just ordered the Tamron 17-50 2.8 NON VC and own a Canon 100mm 2.8 L Macro and Samyang 35 1.4. Still waiting on a Hellios 44-2 from russia
:$. APS-C sensor camera.

[Jayson]

I think this lady is currently testing a sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Might give it a read.

[Jayson]

Here is her photos from a football game she posted on FB. I don't know her and am just a fan on FB, but know that she is a pretty small in stature and she recommends the lens for sports and wildlife, but not for portraits because it is too heavy. Looks to be pretty sharp!

[Steve U]

Like those chicken shots on her website Jayson. Lens looks very good.
I notice she gives portrait workshops, $1900 for one days tuition, must be very intensive and very professional, her portraits are stunning.
Makes my $150 landscape course this weekend look very good value.

[Dru Maasepp]

@ jrw

thanks for the tips, i hear it's about 3kg so testing it out is a must. From the chicken photos Jayson posted the bokeh certainly looks pleasing. in fact on a whole those photos looked great! I agree it sounds like a great lens for the price. I can't remember where i read it but the sigma is not weather sealed. Which is a big thing for me, thanks for pointing it out. Also that 105mm filter! so big...

Do you know if the canon 70-200 2.8 is ii + 1.4 extender is weather sealed? or is the lens only weather sealed by itself?

after reviewing my application i think the versatility of the 70-200 + extender is beginning to appeal to me, when i am not out in the field searching for wildlife or shooting sports, i can take the extender off and i've got a great zoom portrait lens. Plus there are about a thousand reviews saying how good the canon is, so that's another tick. As far as the aperture goes with the extender, 280mm at f4 will still have nice separation of the subject i think. I mean really its 450mm with my body at f4 which definitely will have some nice separation.

And if I am not happy with the canon it will sell a lot better second hand than if i tried the sigma first. Thanks again, great links Jason.

[Busted Knuckles]

70-200 w/ 1.4 is weather sealed w/ a filter on the front completes the weather sealing. I know I enjoy the heck out of my 70-200

@ jrw

thanks for the tips, i hear it's about 3kg so testing it out is a must. From the chicken photos Jayson posted the bokeh certainly looks pleasing. in fact on a whole those photos looked great! I agree it sounds like a great lens for the price. I can't remember where i read it but the sigma is not weather sealed. Which is a big thing for me, thanks for pointing it out. Also that 105mm filter! so big...

Do you know if the canon 70-200 2.8 is ii + 1.4 extender is weather sealed? or is the lens only weather sealed by itself?

after reviewing my application i think the versatility of the 70-200 + extender is beginning to appeal to me, when i am not out in the field searching for wildlife or shooting sports, i can take the extender off and i've got a great zoom portrait lens. Plus there are about a thousand reviews saying how good the canon is, so that's another tick. As far as the aperture goes with the extender, 280mm at f4 will still have nice separation of the subject i think. I mean really its 450mm with my body at f4 which definitely will have some nice separation.

And if I am not happy with the canon it will sell a lot better second hand than if i tried the sigma first. Thanks again, great links Jason.

[ahab1372]

Makes my $150 landscape course this weekend look very good value.

Would love to join - is airfare to Brisbane included in the $150?

[FastGass]

I have not used either lens but the Sigma is in a different class altogether, one is a slow light weight travel/general perpose telephoto lens while the other is a serious wildlife/spors action lens that is huge and heavy in comparison. A better comparison would be the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS or NON-IS version, now these would be much more on par.

Unless I needed the zoom feature I would opt for the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS or NON-IS.

John.

[Dru Maasepp]

@John

It's a good point the sigma is a whopper at 3 kg. I see the differences in weight and aperture in the 70-200 + 1.4 and 120-300 can put them in different leagues. However it is their similarity in price and versatility that make them comparable. A canon 300 2.8 IS is about triple the sigma and doesn't have that versatile zoom. What it does have is arguably the best IQ money can buy which as a student is almost unachievable. I was not aware the 300 2.8 came in non IS but I'll look that up thanks for suggesting to see its price difference, though at 300mm IS is very handy. The 300 f4 IS is more in my price range which as jwr noted the sigma compares well too.
As you can see from my kit I am no stranger to primes, in fact I really want to shoot solely prime due to their IQ but after a few guest speakers at my uni spoke about shooting wildlife you can't discount the versatility of a zoom telephoto, whethe it be a canon 100-400, 70-300, 70-200 + 1.4 or a sigma 120-300.
In saying all this John im sure a 70-200 and a 120-300 could be apart of the same kit as they are different enough to not be on top of each other. Or indeed a 70-200 and a 300 prime. Thanks for your input it's got me thinking again...

[FastGass]

"In saying all this John im sure a 70-200 and a 120-300 could be apart of the same kit as they are different enough to not be on top of each other."

Indeed, I guess what I am saying is my experience in wildlife would push me very strongly toward a longer faster lens if given only one choice. But they would compliment each other very well in a kit like you said. BTW my first post was more directed towards the 70-300mm L than the 70-200mm, I would not be as strong against the 70-200mm as the 70-300mm.2.8

The 300mm f/2.8 non-IS can be had for about $2000/2500 depending on the condition in the used market, that lens often temps me to replace my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 because of the very little trade up cost, but it's so close to what I have and I am pretty good at manual focusing (especially with ML) that I think I will wait to save up to something much more substantial, like a 600mm II or 800mm on a 1Dx or 1D IV....

Besides that I doubt that the IQ with a 2x will live up to the great bare lens IQ of my 600mm which I have come to enjoy, hence the battle of IQ vs keeper rate.

John.