New telephoto lens

Messages
4
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello, I was hoping you helpful chaps can offer some advice on lens choice.

I'm in the market for a new telephoto lens and can't decide between a choice of 2. One is the new Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM, the other is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports which I would pair with the canon 1.4x III TC when I need the extra reach.

I'd be pairing it with a Canon 60d and the primary purpose is motorsport photography. So outdoors where light won't normally be a problem. But with some of the weather in this country, a capable lens in low light would be useful as well. I've used the mk1 version of the Canon lens in the past, and was happy with the images that it produced (except maybe a little soft at it's longer reaches - I could well have been the limiting factor rather than the lens though!!).

From what I've read on reviews of both, the Canon seems to be a good step up on the old model, but the Sigma seems pretty good as well, in particular seems to produce a sharp image from the examples I've seen. With the TC giving it much the same reach as the Canon (albeit with the loss of one stop), I just wonder whether this would be a more flexible option.

I've struggled to find many personal opinions on the Sports version of this Sigma lens (Ive probably not searched in the right places), so was hoping someone here might have some advice?

Thanks in advance.
 
Once you have had a 2.8 lens it's hard to give up, i'm sure you will hear "mine is best" depending on who owns what so take it with a pinch of salt.
Remember you are putting £750-1k on top but that's the price of fast glass, most of my last year has been spent using the Sigma sport, check my Flickr sig.
 
I guess you've got to factor in the AF speed. I can't comment on this specific Sigma but other Siggys I've owned have been noticeably slower than Canon. The 100-400 II is very fast. Let's face it, the 6D will need all the help it can for motorsport.
 
What I would say is, if you can try and get hold of them and have a play. Although I have been very happy with the Sigma sports (used for wildlife and bif) and haven't had any issue with the AF, one thing I would say is it is heavy. Both lenses would be more than capable. One thing I like about the Sigma is that you can customise the AF for speed, AF micro adjust and focus limiter range, you can also adjust the OS too. All this is also possible with Sigma 150-600.

The important thing for YOU to decide is whether you need the fast F/2.8 or could you compensate by upping the ISO
 
Just thought I should check in and update this thread. Thanks to everyone for the comments.

I ended up hiring the Canon 100-400mm II for a weekend, and wow, what a lens. Having used the mark I last year, the mark II is a massive step up, fast and sharp. Ended up getting some good shots at the British GT @ Oulton Park. I'd always felt the mark I was a little soft at the further reaches, but the mark II is a different world.

I think I'm going to try the 120-300 2.8 Sigma still, despite falling in love with the Canon lens, when I next go to Oulton Park. I did feel that I didn't need the full reach of the lens, I suspect the 300mm will be sufficient without a TC, especially as I'm using a crop body.

One question for users of the Sigma, with the extra weight is a monopod pretty much essential? Or is it still manageable handheld? Despite having my monopod with me, I ended up using the the Canon lens handheld all day at Oulton Park and whilst a little tiring seemed doable.
 
One question for users of the Sigma, with the extra weight is a monopod pretty much essential? Or is it still manageable handheld? Despite having my monopod with me, I ended up using the the Canon lens handheld all day at Oulton Park and whilst a little tiring seemed doable.
If you found the Canon tiring then you will definitely want a monopod with the Sigma. It's a kilo heavier, plus it's longer so you have to support it further away from your body.
 
Back
Top