canon 300 f4
- Thread starter haddock
- Start date
- Messages
- 398
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The 300mm F4 L is a cracking lens (and I'm not just saying that cos I've got one in the classifieds!!)
It's all down to what you're going to use it for. The usual rule of thumb is a prime lens will deliver superior performance over a zoom, but the zoom has versatility.
For my hobby of shooting planes the 300mm was ideal - without having to spend thousands to get a faster prime with longer reach. However I need the versatility of a zoom for shooting my son. It's swings and roundabouts!
I can't comment on the Sigma 120-300 (I take it it's the F2.8?) I did have the sigma 100-300 F4 for a while but found it a little soft wide open at 300mm which is where I did most of my shooting at the time so at the time the prime made sense.
As I said it comes down to what you want the lens for, but for what it's worth the 300mm F4 can delivery some really cracking images!
Neil
It's all down to what you're going to use it for. The usual rule of thumb is a prime lens will deliver superior performance over a zoom, but the zoom has versatility.
For my hobby of shooting planes the 300mm was ideal - without having to spend thousands to get a faster prime with longer reach. However I need the versatility of a zoom for shooting my son. It's swings and roundabouts!
I can't comment on the Sigma 120-300 (I take it it's the F2.8?) I did have the sigma 100-300 F4 for a while but found it a little soft wide open at 300mm which is where I did most of my shooting at the time so at the time the prime made sense.
As I said it comes down to what you want the lens for, but for what it's worth the 300mm F4 can delivery some really cracking images!
Neil
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i expect there is nothing in it, at300mm f4 on both, the zoom offers flexibility.
- Messages
- 2,661
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
I've owned both and now only have the Canon - the Sigma I had was not sharp enough wide open so I had to stop it down to at leat f4 to get results I was happy with (the Canon was at least as sharp at f4 and took a 1.4x better). If you need the f2.8 then get the Sigma, if not save some money and weight (and gain IS) and go for the Canon.
- Messages
- 1,841
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Are you talking about the non-IS 300mm F4L? I used to have one and it was great.
- Messages
- 4,926
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I have the original 300/4L and it's superb, even wide open.
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have had both the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 and the Canon 300mm F4.
I found sharpness of the sigma at F2.8 was OK, but not stellar. The AF was excellent for larger targets but not quite accurate enough for the small birds I was spending a lot of time shooting.
I kept the 300mm F4 IS because it was sharper at F4, lighter, closer minimum focus distance with added bonus of IS.
I found sharpness of the sigma at F2.8 was OK, but not stellar. The AF was excellent for larger targets but not quite accurate enough for the small birds I was spending a lot of time shooting.
I kept the 300mm F4 IS because it was sharper at F4, lighter, closer minimum focus distance with added bonus of IS.
- Messages
- 398
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All the more reason someone should buy mine
Other than it being Christmas I cant believe such lack of interest in such a cracking lens!!Neil
(will stop at nothing to plug his lens!!)