Canon 300mm 2.8 L Mk I or Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sport?

D

Deleted member 88563

Guest
My next purchase is going to be a 300mm 2.8, but I'm not sure what to choose. I shoot with a Canon 7D MkII and have a 70-200 2.8 and mostly shoot football mostly Womens and Non-League and looking for a lens to maybe to use in years to come shooting higher level football.

I have used the Sigma 120-300 before and really liked it, found it really sharp and kind of liked the ability to zoom. However, I have always read how a prime is always sharper and just wondering if an older version prime would be better than a newer zoom?

I believe the Canon would be cheaper being the older lens but just wondering if paying a bit more for the Sigma, I would be getting more for my money.

Has anyone used both lenses or one or the other and can recommend and maybe give pros and cons?

Thank you
 
Have you got two camera bodies? If you have then go for the 300 canon prime.. It is better and you have the 120 covered in the 70-200.... . But only one body then the 120-300 will work better for you.. yes I owned / used both :)
 
Only got one body but I am planning on getting another one, so think the Canon is what I might go for.
 
I use the Canon 300mm 2.8 on a 1d MkIV giving good results, built like a tank. Like Kipax said if you are going to be using a two camera set up then the 300mm is the way to go IMHO.
 
That the Mark I 300mm you're using?

Sgt_Bilko99 said:
I use the Canon 300mm 2.8 on a 1d MkIV giving good results, built like a tank. Like Kipax said if you are going to be using a two camera set up then the 300mm is the way to go IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
Hi I shoot Dorchester Town in the Southern Prem. I use 2 bodies 7d mk2. Start/end of the season i may stick the 500mm on one and have the 2nd body on a 100-400 really for the zoom range choice, although of course not too good for backgrounds, so some times 70-200 f 2.8. Winter and night games its 1 body on the 70-200 f2.8 the other on a 300 f2.8 mk1 lens seems a good pair and also in non league Football & local standard sports is very popular. Kippax is a real font of knowledge with years of experience so i would always take note of his comments.
 
Last edited:
I switched from a 300mm Nikon to the Sigma 120-300 a few years ago and haven't regretted it. The versatility of the zoom makes a big difference on the number of usable shots you can get. At 120mm, even on a cropped sensor body, the action gets quite close to you before it's too close.
I have a 70-200 on a second body too, on a full frame body, but I don't find I need to grab it too often. (That said I haven't shot football but hockey is pretty similar.)
As far as sharpness goes the Sigma is good enough for me. I didn't notice a significant difference between it and my older 300mm though I'm sure a newer fixed length lens would be sharper. Anyway, I've a theory that when you're shooting action, even at 1/1000th second the slight motion blur will negate the extra sharpness of a fixed lens.
My opinion in short - the versatility of the zoom is worth more than any extra sharpness of a fixed lens.
 
I have not used the zoom you mention.
I have the canon 100-400 mk2 and the 300 2.8 mk2.
In truth, there is very little difference in sharpness between the two in the central image region.

The reason I use the 300mm is for subject/background separation and/or to achieve higher shutter speeds.

The biggest downside of a 300 2.8 is nailing focus where you want it as the DOF is much thinner than most would imagine.
 
Thank you for the comments, anyone got any image examples from the 300mm Mk I?
 
These were on FF(1Dx),,,,Sunday League stuff

p1955149707-4.jpg


p2047166631-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just to update on this, after a lot of looking and decision making I decided to go with the Sigma 300mm 2.8, I found a good deal on the lens and after chatting with the photographer who was selling it, i bought it. Excited to use it during the football season ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top