Long Lens (300mm) opinions please!

R

Roadkill_6mm

Messages
396
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this has been done to death, and yes I have used the forum search option before posting, but haven't found anything that specifically answers my questions!

I'm trying to decide what long lens to go for, I've got a Sigma 100-300mm f4 which I am in the process of selling and am looking to upgrade. I shoot quite a bit of aviation as well as a bit of nature (birds and badgers!)

The choices I have come up with are:-

Canon 300mm F4 L
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8

Now, with regards to the Canon my first question would be 'is' or not 'is'?

IS would come in handy for prop aircraft and would help somewhat with my panning, however they cost twice the price of the non-is version. I shoot quite a bit of the wildlife stuff using a tripod or monopod. But I'm sure there will be times that I need to shoot hand held.
Also I read somewhere that the non-is version of the 2.8 is no longer supported by Canon and as such would be nigh on impossible to repair - does this apply to the F4 version too?

Onto the Sigma, no IS for a start - but it is faster and gives the flexibility of a zoom. However there are all sorts of stories about poor quality copies of just about all sigma lenses. Also just how sharp is this lens at 300mm wide open?

Anyone who has experience or just an opinion please voice it!!

Basically it boils down to the fact that I have around £1k to spend and want top quality!! How would you invest it??

(body it will be on is a canon 7d)

Over to you!!

Regards

Neil
 
Have you thought about the Canon 400mm F5.6L also, I had one and it was a cracking lens(y)
 
bren-escape said:
Have you thought about the Canon 400mm F5.6L also, I had one and it was a cracking lens(y)
Click to expand...

I have thought about the 400mm but cant help thinking it might be a bit too long. Also I don't think I want to go any slower that F4 the badgers I shoot are in woodland so even with an F4 lens I'm using it wide open all the time to maintain shutter speed - just this f5.6 might not be quite fast enough!

Regards

Neil
 
the only thing those 2 lenses have in common is the 300mm two totally different lenses.. you need to decide if you want f2.8 and if you want the versatlity

the 300 f4 is smaller and a heck of a lot lighter than the siggy.. that may be a consideration if you struggle to hand hold?

the pictures from a 300f4 are a lot better than from a siggy 120-300 and I do mean a lot better

just for the record.. I had a sigma 120-300 for quite a long time.. i was more than happy and said i would never change as it does everyhting i want and it does produce brilliant pictures... then i dropped it.. off to sigma it went and i picked up a 300f4 to see me through....O M G !!!! the difference was absoloutly amazing .. the colours.. the quality of picture.. everyhting... i sold the siggy 120-300 as soon as it came back and got a 300 2.8 :)
 
It's not that I struggle to hand hold as such, just things like IS would be a safer bet at lower shutter speeds for prop blur.
Unfortunately the 300mm f2.8 L IS is waaay out of my league price wise!!

Neil
 
i cant comment on the canon 300 options but i use the sig 120-300 for sports (mostly equestrian).

its my weapon of choice on the 1D at the moment (since losing a little length on the 1.3x crop), shooting wide open at 300mm indoors is a pleasure. works very well with a sigma 1.4 teleconverter too.
 
I don't really understand the question. Canon 300L 4 IS seems to be the perfect 300mm option, and bang on budget. If you want zoom, then 100-400L is the favourite for airshows - equally safe choice.

KIPAX said:
the only thing those 2 lenses have in common is the 300mm two totally different lenses.. you need to decide if you want f2.8 and if you want the versatlity

the 300 f4 is smaller and a heck of a lot lighter than the siggy.. that may be a consideration if you struggle to hand hold?

the pictures from a 300f4 are a lot better than from a siggy 120-300 and I do mean a lot better

just for the record.. I had a sigma 120-300 for quite a long time.. i was more than happy and said i would never change as it does everyhting i want and it does produce brilliant pictures... then i dropped it.. off to sigma it went and i picked up a 300f4 to see me through....O M G !!!! the difference was absoloutly amazing .. the colours.. the quality of picture.. everyhting... i sold the siggy 120-300 as soon as it came back and got a 300 2.8 :)
Click to expand...

Have you seen the new OS version of the Sigma 120-300? There are a few reviews around now (one here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=323453 ) and it's looking very good indeed - big improvements to everything! It's a friggin bargain at £2k from what I've seen so far. Trying to get my hands on one to try currently :D
 
Last edited:
I've had the Sigma 100-300 f4, 120-300 f2.8, 300 2.8 and Canon 300 2.8.

The best by a visible margin was the Canon 300 2.8 which is a delightful lens with superb image quality. Second and running the Canon v.close was the Sigma 100-300 f4 which I found to have excellent IQ but obviously lacking the shallower depth of field and therefore background blur of the Canon 2.8. Build quality wasn't as good (focus ring & zoom ring stiff, paint finish poor).

Both the Sigma 120-300 and 300 2.8's were very poor. I tried 3 copies of the 300 2.8 and all were slow to focus and with image quality that varied a lot and never consistent. Also it was slower and shorter than Canon's "proper" 300 2.8 (just look at the diameter of the front glass of each for why).

With a 7D you should have plenty of ISO to play with. If I were you I'd keep the Sigma 100-300 until you can afford a Canon 300 2.8 (and a monopod), or as Kipax says get the Canon 300 f4 which is lovely and relatively small.
 
Forget the Canon 300mm f2.8, even as a future purchase. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would choose a 300mm f2.8 over the 300mm f4 for aviation photography.

1. Today's DSLRs are so good at high ISO that 1 stop won't make a blind bit of difference for aircraft photos unless you're photographing them at dusk.

2. The better bokeh of the f2.8 is wasted for aviation because A: 99% of shots have a plain sky behind the aeroplane and B: 90% of aircraft shots are focused on infinity which means the background is always in focus.

3. The f4 lens is far lighter and much easier to handle.

4. Price.

Your choice should be between the Canon 300mm f4L IS, Canon 400mm f5.6L and the Canon 100-400. Similarly priced and all three are outstanding lenses.

In my opinion, Sigma's quality control has always been suspect and the re-sale value is much lower. I bought my Canon 300mm f4L 3 years ago and I could sell it today for exactly the same as what I paid for it.
 
Last edited:
TheOracle said:
In my opinion, Sigma's quality control has always been suspect and the re-sale value is much lower. I bought my Canon 300mm f4L 3 years ago and I could sell it today for exactly the same as what I paid for it.
Click to expand...

having a quick look about 120-300's seem to hold their 2nd hand value very well to be honest. i could probably get back what i paid for mine 2nd hand 2-3 years ago.
 
neil_g said:
having a quick look about 120-300's seem to hold their 2nd hand value very well to be honest. i could probably get back what i paid for mine 2nd hand 2-3 years ago.
Click to expand...

In that case, I stand corrected! :LOL:
 
to be honest if someone offered me a 100-400 in exchange for my 120-300+1.4x id turn them down. sure its lacking IS but even with the t/c its still a constant f4 so faster than the canon and a smidge longer.

(awaits flaming :D)
 
TheOracle said:
Your choice should be between the Canon 300mm f4L IS, Canon 400mm f5.6L and the Canon 100-400. Similarly priced and all three are outstanding lenses.
Click to expand...

If it helps and hopefully not straying too far from the original topic, I have both the 400/5.6 and the 100-400mm.
I use them both for wildlife (birds) and small aircraft.
Both lenses need a fair amount of light - IMHO. The 400/5.6 is a joy to carry around due to it's weight and faster/better AF as I found at Gigrin/Red Kites when comparing both.
But my usual local haunt is woodland/shade and I find I'm always returning to the 100-400 due to the IS. (I don't usually use a tripod).
Also for aircraft I find the versatility of the 100-400 is far more useful for my needs.
Despite disliking the push-pull zoom, I've decided to stick with the 100-400mm and sell the 400/5.6 as I'm using it less and less. Originally the 400/5.6 was going to supercede the 100-400...

John
 
The copies of the Sigma 120-300 I owned (non-DG and DG) were both great and I would highly recommend that lens. Sharp, fast, with good enough AF (not as good as the Canon 300's but close enough for my usage, birds in flight)
 
Ah, the 100-400mm Canon. I have thought about it, would give me versatility but I've read that it's not mega sharp wide open.

Now I know a zoom lens is all about compromise - a zoom won't be as sharp as a prime but I would be interested to hear from those with experience of the canon 300mm and the 100-400 regarding how they compare wide open for sharpness.

I originally didn't put it as a choice as I'd also heard stories of the push-pull zoom sucking in dust, which really put me off.

Regards

Neil
 
Zoom vs Prime comparisons sometimes go against the rules:

1. The Sigma 120-300mm is generally considered sharper than the 300mm
2. The Sigma 300-800mm is generally considered sharper than the 800mm
3. My current 100-400mm is tack sharp open wide and sharper than two 400mm primes I had and sold (Romy tested a similarly super sharp copy: http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is)
 
micloi said:
Zoom vs Prime comparisons sometimes go against the rules:

1. The Sigma 120-300mm is generally considered sharper than the 300mm
2. The Sigma 300-800mm is generally considered sharper than the 800mm
3. My current 100-400mm is tack sharp open wide and sharper than two 400mm primes I had and sold (Romy tested a similarly super sharp copy: http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is)
Click to expand...

Holy cow! Some of the 100% crops on there are amazing!!

I wonder what the chances of getting an 'excellent' version are!!

Neil
 
Canon 300mm f4L IS:

image.jpg


100% crop:

100.jpg
 
I used to own the Canon 300 f/4 and it was a brilliant lens, however i sold it and bought the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 as i needed the extra stop for what i shoot and that too was excellent but there are quality issues with Sigma, i got a good one but not all do.

In your shoes i would opt for the Canon 300mm f/4

Forget the Sigma 300mm prime, it stinks.
 
Another vote for the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 too; as for quality control, there are various cases of front focussing, user technique (especially due to the weight) and obviously 'Friday afternoon' copies as others have experienced, but DO NOT discount this lens. I use one with a 1.4xTC on my D3S and would find it difficult to let go (and this comes from someone who got rid of a Nikon 200-400mm). Good luck!
 
D3S said:
Another vote for the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 too; as for quality control, there are various cases of front focussing, user technique (especially due to the weight) and obviously 'Friday afternoon' copies as others have experienced, but DO NOT discount this lens. I use one with a 1.4xTC on my D3S and would find it difficult to let go (and this comes from someone who got rid of a Nikon 200-400mm). Good luck!
Click to expand...

Check this review of the (completely) new OS version of the Sigma 120-300 2.8 on PhotoZone http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/629-sigma120300f28oseos Seems to be light years better than the old one, looks like a bit of a bargain :)

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Sigma. I think reports of poor copies are greatly exaggerated even when you consider how many additional lenses they sell - more than either Canon or Nikon.

Anyway, if there is a problem, send it to Sigma and they'll re-calibrate it 100% under warranty. Don't try it with a grey import though, or you'll get a bill.
 
HoppyUK said:
Check this review of the (completely) new OS version of the Sigma 120-300 2.8 on PhotoZone http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/629-sigma120300f28oseos Seems to be light years better than the old one, looks like a bit of a bargain :)

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Sigma. I think reports of poor copies are greatly exaggerated even when you consider how many additional lenses they sell - more than either Canon or Nikon.

Anyway, if there is a problem, send it to Sigma and they'll re-calibrate it 100% under warranty. Don't try it with a grey import though, or you'll get a bill.
Click to expand...

Only downsize is they're more than twice my budget! If there was one around £1k I'd probably snap it up!

Neil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top