Sigma 120-300 F2.8 DG HSM v Canon 300F2.8 IS

snapzz

snapzz

Messages
2,901
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Bit of a long shot but I already have the Sigma 120-300F2.8 DG HSM (non OS) and a Canon 300F2.8 IS (which I have decided to list in the for sale section http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/fs-canon-ef-300mm-f2-8-is-mk1-lens.571392/ )
as I'm now looking to buy the Sigma 120-300 sport version. Once I have that I'll sell my current Sigma but I'm now wondering if I should keep the Canon or not. Has anyone here ever done a comparism between the two or know of one on line?
I'm just getting a feeling if I do sell the Canon I may regret it but if the Sigma is even better than the non OS I already have I'll have no need for it. bit of a dilemma :(
 
Last edited:
:sneaky:I would absolutely love to have the full time 1st hand experience to be able to answer this for you.


A few years back I did hire the 300mm 2.8 mkI in May then the 120-300 2.8 Siggy in August of the same year. The difference at that time for me (only on a 40D mind) was night and day. While the Sigma does the job, the quality from the Canon is unreal.

No experience of the new sport version, rendering this useless, sorry! (n)
 
I have the same Sigma as you (but in Nikon) & the Nikon 300 f2.8 VRII... Going to sell it as I'm loving the Nikon too much. Also think they are a world apart.
 
my biggest regret is selling my 300 2.8 mk1 .. but it wasnt getting used a lot when i bought the 400mm and I was worried it would lose money sat there.. even the wife said keep hold of it but i panick sold it.... mine was pin sharp at 2.8 all over the pitch.. talking really pin sharp.. no post processing needed on that score... the full pic left to right top to bottom... I ahve been eyeing up yours ..but with the mkII 70-200 and a 400 both on 1dx then it wouldnt gte used much for money shots.. was fantastic for ice hockey though .... and junior football sat on half way line :)
 
300f2.8 now sold but no regrets. I would expect the Canon to have slightly better definition but really focusing & sharpness is the key and as I regularly shoot at very high ISO. It also means I only need one body most of the time too.
 
Hello snapzz, sorry to interrupt but your Canon 1D MK IV has a 1.3 crop factor.
I also have a MK IV along with an older MK II, both have the APS-H cmos sensor which multiply focus lengths by 30% not 1/3 (33%) as some people do.
Meaning the 120-300 sigma which I also have becomes 156-390
or 218.4-546 with a 1.4TC & just under f/4
or 312-780 with a 2x TC & f/5.6 which is a decent cheat given the price of the Canon 800mm f/5.6
I have the 2x & find it works very well with my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 mine is also the non OS version
In my book this is a good way of achieving two lenses for very little extra cost.
So maybe save up for the OS version of the Sigma here's a review, remember the Sports version has a USB dock for updates to its firmware.
New there's about £900 extra for the Canon but it is only 300 not 120-300 remember.
So a question you need to ask is the lesser possible quality a bigger problem than the lack of flexibility with the zoom range, or is the extra cost for a new one too much?
Sorry again for playing Devils Advocate....
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply retrosi and yes I am aware the mk4 is 1.3 (I've owned every model back too the mk1 so fully aware of the 1D series). The question was for those who have used the Canon 300f2.8 and those who have used the latest sports Sigma so not interested in anything prior to that as I already have the DG non OS and cost isnt a factor ;)
 
Hi snaps I mentioned it as you put 1.4 in a previous post, clearly a typo
 
Hello snapzz sorry for the spelling of your name before I was using my phone & didn't check the post.
Anyhoo earlier I was reffering to this post of yours; 'I use. 1Dmk4s so have the 1.4 crop factor'
No mention of a TC which is why I mentioned about the 1.3 crop factor.
No probs though...
 
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM SPORT, Canon EF Fit - Does anyone know where I can find this lens under £1200 or £1300
 
I know this is a fairly old thread but I'm in a similar situation at the moment, although reversed. I've got a Sigma 120-300 Sport that I'm thinking about trading for a Canon 300mm f2.8.

Did you get the Sport in the end snapzz and if so how does it compare to the old Canon?
 
Juel I have been looking for myself and am at the point of getting the non sport version.
I know the zoom/focus rings are slightly different and of course the weather sealing.
But for me the difference of £1000 is too much.
Anyhoo... here is the latest offer from eglobalcentral.co.uk which guarantee thee price on screen as is what you pay.
£1709 but for the next 24 days with this code GPVAL30 £1679
Still £400 off what your hoping for but other than waiting it out for the next version can't see it dropping much more until next Xmas.

The Contemporary version from them is £589.99 and with this code GPVAL6 £583.99 just a peny more than £1095 cheaper, I have asked myself are the other features worth this?
Oh and of course the 'C' version weighs less which is useful.
 
Last edited:
juel said:
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM SPORT, Canon EF Fit - Does anyone know where I can find this lens under £1200 or £1300
Click to expand...
The cheapest I've found it was for £2099 on DigitalRev
 
retrosi said:
Juel I have been looking for myself and am at the point of getting the non sport version.
I know the zoom/focus rings are slightly different and of course the weather sealing.
But for me the difference of £1000 is too much.
Anyhoo... here is the latest offer from eglobalcentral.co.uk which guarantee thee price on screen as is what you pay.
£1709 but for the next 24 days with this code GPVAL30 £1679
Still £400 off what your hoping for but other than waiting it out for the next version can't see it dropping much more until next Xmas.

The Contemporary version from them is £589.99 and with this code GPVAL6 £583.99 just a peny more than £1095 cheaper, I have asked myself are the other features worth this?
Oh and of course the 'C' version weighs less which is useful.
Click to expand...


The "C"ontemporary version is a different lens. I think Juel was asking about the 120-300 Sport whereas you are comparing it to the 150-600 C. A very different lens in many ways. As to getting the 120-300 for under £1300, I think you will struggle. I've just had a look at MPB Photographic and the cheapest they have is £1879 for a second hand. Due to the unique nature, prices tend to hold up pretty well.

BTW I also have the 120-300 Sport and apart from the weight I love it, it's versatile I either have a fast f2.8 upto 300mm or f4 upto 420 or even f5.6 to 600. The IQ doesn't take too much of a hit either, it's barely noticeable with a 1.4 and better than my old 150-500 with a 2x.
 
Oops I have the now 10 year old 120-300 f/2.8 and got mixed up as you're correct I have been looking at the 150-600 amazing how deciding between the two I get this so mixed, at least someone's on the (eye)ball ;-)
 
Sorry guys only just seen this.

Yes I bought the 120-300 sport and I honestly believe its one of the best buys I've ever made. I use it constantly usually with my 1Dx and you wont believe the low number of "oofs" or "soft images I now get. If any of you have an older 120-300 and happy with that then be prepared to have your mind blown away.
 
I have tried both the 120-300 and Canon 300mm 2.8 IS II on a 7D Mk ll in the last month. No doubt the Sigma has the edge on flexibility; you can shoot a rugby or football game with one body and you need a 70-200 on another body if you use the prime. BUT...... 300 is much lighter to handhold, and comparing both wide open the Canon takes the honours. If the budget will only stretch to the 120-300 and you shoot for web or small print then you will be pretty happy. Just don't try the 300 IS II otherwise you will leave yourself with that feeling of nothing else will do
 
I sold my 120-300 Sport and bought a 300mm IS in the end, mainly for the reduction in weight as my hands are getting bad in my old age.

I was fortunate enough to have them both for a few days and I carried out some back to back testing with Focal. I was amazed at the difference, especially considering I was happy with the IQ of the Sigma for the most part. On the 1DX the Sigma had a maximum Quality of Focus of just over 1800 between f5 and f10 , but it deteriorated down to under 1600 wide open. The Canon prime had a peak of 1917 at f5.6 but only dropped 22 points wide open. A similar thing happened with the 7DII, Sigma max: 1708 at f5.6 but dropped to 1198 wide open, whereas the Canon peaked at 1767 and only dropped to 1700 wide open.
 
I have always found the same thing with sigma lens.. someone will ask .. are they any good.?. loads of people will reply saying.. they have one they are great.. I would never argue that.. the sigma 70-200 and the 120-300 i had where great and I couldnt envisage any improvement.. ... then i tried a canon 300 prime and never lOoked back :)
 
Hey all,

Good i saw this thread, i have Canon 300 2.8 mk1 since so long years ago i bought it brand new, and i always thinking about Sigma 120-300, and i more thought about Sigma when they produced their sport version, but here it is like that Canon is the winner in IQ only, and i really care about IQ more than weight, so i think i should forget about Sigma and stay with Canon even mk1 forever until i can afford new version brand new.

I shoot soccer, and 300 served me through years perfectly, but many times i feel i can have more shots with 70-200 that i have and also i can have better shots if i have 400mm, did anyone traded 300 to get 400 and never looked back?
 
TareqPhoto said:
did anyone traded 300 to get 400 and never looked back?
Click to expand...

I went from 300 to 400 and 400 is much better... from one goal line to the other for sure.... But I wish I had kept the 300 as well.. :( I would NOT want to go 400 to 300 though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top