300mm f2.8 Cannon or Sigma?

R

russdaz

Messages
1,930
Edit My Images
Yes
I have moved from cars to bikes this year, so where the 300mm f4 got a lot of use, it no longer does, the 400mm f5.6 is my main weapon of choice, but i find i am needing more at times. So i was thinking about changing to 300mm f2.8, to maintain the 300mm prime but also give me the ability to run 600mm.

Has any-one used the Sigma 300mm f2.8 and 300mm f2.8 Cannon, is the Cannon really worth double that of the Sigma? Any known issues with either lens? looking to hire a Sigma for next weekend. But is it hand holdable for a days shooting? i havent yet got a monopod.
 
I have the 120-300mm F2.8 sigma, it's too heavy to be swinging around all day, if the 300mm prime which it was developed from is the same weight you'll need strong arms or a monopod
 
It's going to depend on whether you will be using a tripod in the future. IS is fantastic, but don't forget that it's beggar all use on a tripod (in fact, it can make images worse).

Personally? I'd go Sigma f2.8 and spend a decent amount on a corking tripod and monopod - you'll still have bucket loads of change but fast glass :)

Cheers,
James
 
I have the sigma 120-300 and recently tried the canon 300 3.8 .. I have now bought the canon (used expect del this week) and will be selling the sigma.. The difference between sigma and canon for me is the colours.. more vibrant with a canon L also far less PP on a canon lens..
 
Tripod for motorsport is pretty useless imho, and i really use the IS on the Cannon 300mm f4 at the moment.

How fast is the 120-300 f2.8 compared to the 300mm f2.8 prime, not really worried about zoom, just speed and averall sharpeness.
 
Have advised others that Sigma lenses seem to struggle on Digic 3 chip sets over Digic 2, so do consider that. Overall, I loved my Sigma, but only when I started hiring a Canon L and then moved to Nikon did I realise how many beats it missed......though being honest, I suspect that the Mark II N's and the III's were simply too good for it as it loved my 30D and my 5D, where it quite literally never missed a shot.

Still, value for money is superb. Examples here -

2197784907_02cd2e2053.jpg


2197793309_fb8e8cf4e0.jpg


2199622558_f340e7b06f.jpg


2199617482_769f8a56e5_o.jpg
 
Thanks for that, interesting point on the chip bit, as i just got a 40d, so will bear that in mind.
 
I've been pondering what you said about the DIGIC III issue all day...

Do you think this is one of the usual Sigma "doesn't work with my new camera" type problems?

On the other hand, I found lots of people talking about the Sigma with their 40D's on the interweb.

Anyway, this is the most telling *scientific* way I know of comparing lenses... have a look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0

You set the parameters and then move your mouse on to the image to swap between the two different lenses.

What of course it can't help you decide is a zoom vs a prime and the old turkey of "one costs **** loads more than the other" :D
 
I have a 300 2.8 IS on hire from Lensesforhire at the moment, and handholding it on a rolling boat is still producing some nice sharp shots of Whales :) it is heavy though and you cant hold it up ALL of the time.
 
desantnik said:
I've been pondering what you said about the DIGIC III issue all day...

Do you think this is one of the usual Sigma "doesn't work with my new camera" type problems?

On the other hand, I found lots of people talking about the Sigma with their 40D's on the interweb.

Anyway, this is the most telling *scientific* way I know of comparing lenses... have a look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=249&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0

You set the parameters and then move your mouse on to the image to swap between the two different lenses.

What of course it can't help you decide is a zoom vs a prime and the old turkey of "one costs **** loads more than the other" :D
Click to expand...

That site makes my current 300mm f4 sharper then the Sigma 120-300, and very soft with a 1.4, so god no's what the 2x would be like.

Would the prime be much sharper? if not stuff it, not bothered about zooms, personal never had any issues using just my primes, makes you think a tad more.
 
As I said, that is the most scientific and unarguable way of looking at the two.

Beats the usual "well I have XYZ and its perfectly sharp" discussion we usually see on here...
 
from my research

canon 300mm is f2.8 sharp fast focus expensive
sigma 120-300mm f2.8 not so sharp slower focus cheepest of the three(new)
sigma 300mm f2.8 softest same focus as 120-300 mid price


i would say
used canon 300mm non is £1000-1200
used canon 300mm is £15-£1800
used sig 120-300mm 8-£1000
used sig 300mm 8-£1000

now if canon brought out a 100-300mm f2.8 is...
 
sportysnaps said:
now if canon brought out a 100-300mm f2.8 is...
Click to expand...

Probably as compromised as other attempts at similar.

Which isn't what people want when you attach a probable 2500-3000+GBP price tag for such a thing.
 
Thanks for that guys, think i'll keep my eyes peeled for Canon second hand, is there any known issues with them i should be looking out for, no way i can get a new one of those beasts.
 
No known issues as far as I know. Be prepared at this end of the market to take on something that cosmetically doesn't look great because this sort of kit is seriously used by serious people - not the sort who wrap the things in cotton wool and have them re-painted every time they scuff it. Not that such "damage" will probably effect the lens as a lens.

With that in mind you might score a bargain because the amateur doesn't want something looking like that!

Might also be worth thinking about a service for it too- so hold some cash back.
 
russdaz said:
That site makes my current 300mm f4 sharper then the Sigma 120-300, and very soft with a 1.4, so god no's what the 2x would be like.

Would the prime be much sharper? if not stuff it, not bothered about zooms, personal never had any issues using just my primes, makes you think a tad more.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't give that comparison too much credit if i were you. I too thought, what the ***, that does look soft. First reaction, since I have the 120-300, was that they might have used a bad copy of the lens, because my copy is MUCH sharper than that. Then I realised that they were using it on a 1Ds. Well, on my 10Mp camera it does look a LOT sharper than on a 17Mp camera. I don't think I will ever own a 1Ds, not so much for the prices (which is the main reason) but because I don't think I'll use a full frame camera for wildlife shots.
 
Thanks for the input guys really appriecate it, all i have heard a few comments now regarding Sigma's not working on the Digic 3's and the fact i dont think the Sigma's are weather sealed either? mean's i have decided to stick with the Canon route. But i now hae enough budget to get a 300mm f2.8 IS, 400mm DO IS F4, or 500mm F4 IS.

From what i have read the 400mm DO IS F4 isnt as sharp as the f5.6? so dont see why i would up grade to that?

500mm f4 heavy bugger, and still able to use 1.4 tc to great effect give the longer reach
keep the 1.4tc with the 70-200 f2.8 gives almost 300mm and very comparable results for the odd occasion i need the 300mm.

300mm f2.8 with both TC options more versitle, i know of a few pro's using this combo to great effect, gives enough spare change to get a 1dmk2n, or possible a 1d mk3 to pair it up with it.
 
russdaz said:
and the fact i dont think the Sigma's are weather sealed either? .
Click to expand...

eeerm the canon lenses arn't weather sealed are they?
 
russdaz said:
That site makes my current 300mm f4 sharper then the Sigma 120-300
Click to expand...

It is in good lighting. I have both and the canon 300 f4 produces far better pictures than my 120-300 wide open or f4.. But only in real good lighting.. the 300 f4 fails against the sigma at lower shutter speeds.

Thats on canon 1dmkII
 
By "good lighting" do you mean outdoors daytime?
 
KIPAX said:
eeerm the canon lenses arn't weather sealed are they?
Click to expand...

The following lenses definitely are. I'm not sure how up-to-date that list is now - there may be others...

16-35mm 2.8 L USM
17-40mm 4L USM
24-70mm 2.8 L USM
24-105mm 4 L IS USM
70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM
300mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 4 DO IS USM
500mm 4 L IS USM
600mm 4 L IS USM
 
So to are the Canon 1.4 and 2x extenders. Although you do need to fit them to to 1d series camera to seal the mounting. I have a proper rain cover for the 40d, but its this and the images i have seen from others thats leadinng me more to the 300mm f2.8 as i should be able to get a 1dmk2n within my budget as i already have the extenders. The 500mm would be nice, but i dont really think it get used enough, where the 300mm looks like it could potentail replace even the 400mm f5.6.

Unless any-one can convience me otherwise.
 
russdaz said:
So to are the Canon 1.4 and 2x extenders. Although you do need to fit them to to 1d series camera to seal the mounting.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is quite right is it? The weather sealed lenses and the converters have little rubber seals at the mounting ends, which complete the seal against the camera mount. There's nothing different (apart from strength probably) about the 1 series body mount - certainly no weather sealing.

A weather sealed lens mounted to your 40D would be fine in a downpour - any water which got in wouldn't be via the lens mount, but it might be everywhere else on the 40D. :D
 
CT said:
I'm not sure this is quite right is it? The weather sealed lenses and the converters have little rubber seals at the mounting ends, which complete the seal against the camera mount. There's nothing different (apart from strength probably) about the 1 series body mount - certainly no weather sealing.

A weather sealed lens mounted to your 40D would be fine in a downpour - any water which got in wouldn't be via the lens mount, but it might be everywhere else on the 40D. :D
Click to expand...

There is rubber gaskets on the mounts of the lenses and extenders, but sure i read some that there was a rubber gaskget on the inside of 1 series body mounts that completed the sealling between the lens and body, which isnt present on the 30 or 40d's. I'll be happy if i am wrong though, but i dont think the 40d is weather sealled though to water.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1Ds/page5.asp
 
You are correct re the 1d and weatherproofing with certain L series lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top