Which lens is best for Motorsport & Wildlife? Canon 70-200 or sigma 120-300?

Cezare

Cezare

Messages
463
Name
Cezare White
Edit My Images
No
Hello all.

I currently have a 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM which I got off ebay not long ago, and absolutely love the lens, but I do need it to be slightly longer.

I was thinking of keeping the 70-200mm but also get a 120-300mm just do do this with...

I like the fact I could use the 120-300mm with a 2x to get 600mm
but I've been reading that the same 2x converter on a canon 70-200mm is not that great?

would you stick with the canon 70-200mm and just buy the 1.4x & 2x converters?

or invest in the sigma 120-300mm? then use a 2x to reach that longer distance?

or maybe the 100-400mm? I'm unsure, but I'd say either the 120-300 or 100-400mm...

also, does the sigma work with the canon converters?

anyone used or have these lenses? to offer some advice?
 
Not sure if this will help but my Sigma 300mm f2.8 prime doesn't work with my Nikon 1.7xTC and my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR doesn't work with my Sigma 2xTC!
 
Unless your wildlife is elephants or something equally large, I suggest you get something as long as you possibly can - particularly because you are shooting full frame.

Of course if you aren't afraid of the crop tool you might be ok...

2x TC's are never a good solution IMHO, yeah you get the shot but the IQ drops through the floor. Last ditch stuff really. (wait for the usual smart alec to post a shot they think is "great")

Adding a 1.4x to a prime would probably be the best bet... Canon 300 f4, 300 2.8 or how about the unusual 400 5.6?
 
just updated first post.

I read the 2x TC's still perform ok with the sigma, just not so much with the canon.

I'd like a prime, but generally I do like to zoom in and out.
 
If you intend to get to 600mm i'd buy a 300mm prime, I had the 120-300mm sigma and it was great on it's own, very good with a 1.4x on but with the 2x on there was a noticeable drop in sharpness.

The AF isn't brilliant for motorsport either, 105mm of glass takes a lot of turning

if wildlife and motorsport are you normal trpes of photography 300mm 420mm and 600mm with be like having a mega zoom you just have to stick the convertors on, I doubt you'd need 120-200mm that often unless you were in the pits or a zoo
 
I would have thought that for wildlife (especially on full frame) you would be better off with the 120-300! You can always sell the canon on here!
Or perhaps the canon 300 2.8 could be good, but is an extra £1,300
 
wack61 said:
If you intend to get to 600mm i'd buy a 300mm prime, I had the 120-300mm sigma and it was great on it's own, very good with a 1.4x on but with the 2x on there was a noticeable drop in sharpness.

The AF isn't brilliant for motorsport either, 105mm of glass takes a lot of turning

if wildlife and motorsport are you normal trpes of photography 300mm 420mm and 600mm with be like having a mega zoom you just have to stick the convertors on, I doubt you'd need 120-200mm that often unless you were in the pits or a zoo
Click to expand...

from what I gather reading here - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104&sort=7&cat=all&page=1

views are different on the motorsport side. (seems people traded in there 300mm prime for it?)

what are your thought on the 100-400mm?
 
matt_wright said:
I would have thought that for wildlife (especially on full frame) you would be better off with the 120-300! You can always sell the canon on here!
Or perhaps the canon 300 2.8 could be good, but is an extra £1,300
Click to expand...

the 70-200 I got at a bargin 600, so going to keep it and make the most of it, (specially on abroad shoots)

the sigma I wanted purely for days when I know I'll need that range and 2.8.
though with the 5D mark II my ISO range has shot up, so might be ok with anything bigger than 2.8.
 
I traded my 120-300mm for a Canon 70-200mm IS
Worse decision I ever made with my lens lineup - even though it was right for me at the time.

I am now saving for another 120-300mm
 
I'm assuming you mean the Sigma 120-300 F2.8, if so it's a great lens , so sharp you can cut yourself, my recent post taken with this lens with a 1.4 TC (sigma)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=106554

As mentioned, it's sweet with a 1.4 TC but poor with a 2.0 TC

The main issue is it's weight, so heavy, it's almost impossible to handhold shots for any length of time, so a tripod/monopod is really a must.
 
Les McLean said:
I'm assuming you mean the Sigma 120-300 F2.8, if so it's a great lens , so sharp you can cut yourself, my recent post taken with this lens with a 1.4 TC (sigma)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=106554

As mentioned, it's sweet with a 1.4 TC but poor with a 2.0 TC

The main issue is it's weight, so heavy, it's almost impossible to handhold shots for any length of time, so a tripod/monopod is really a must.
Click to expand...

thanks for that link.
your photo's on there truly shows what it's capable of. so... I went with my heart 120-300mm F2.8 (not my head, as though I can't afford it, I've got a few things to put on ebay)

What tripod would you suggest? I'm in need of a new one for Motorsports & wildlife. I'd like a ball-head or a grip mechanism?

also has to be very sturdy for my landscapes. (different lens)
 
Cezare said:
thanks for that link.
your photo's on there truly shows what it's capable of. so... I went with my heart 120-300mm F2.8 (not my head, as though I can't afford it, I've got a few things to put on ebay)

What tripod would you suggest? I'm in need of a new one for Motorsports & wildlife. I'd like a ball-head or a grip mechanism?

also has to be very sturdy for my landscapes. (different lens)
Click to expand...
What do you want to spend on a tripod? forget a grip action head for sports, go for a gimble.
 
malla1962 said:
What do you want to spend on a tripod? forget a grip action head for sports, go for a gimble.
Click to expand...
I agree with this
I have just bought a gimble setup and I think had I known how good these were a couple of years back I may never have sold my 120-300

Even testing out yesterday I was able to track moving objects SO much better.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I agree with this
I have just bought a gimble setup and I think had I known how good these were a couple of years back I may never have sold my 120-300

Even testing out yesterday I was able to track moving objects SO much better.
Click to expand...
They are worth every penny you pay for them.(y)
 
just a note, you want to used the same manufacturer for your TC and your lens do not mix them as they can often give a colour cast.

ever thought of maybe adding a 300 f/4 IS with a 1.4 TC (to be used on both lenses) you can acheive 420mm f/5.6 with still some excellent result to be had.
 
Joe T said:
MN393 - gimbal equivalent head for just £100! It's great!
Click to expand...

Hi,

2nd that, I have one and they are excellent, fantastic value, ok maybe not pretty but a fraction of the price of the Wimberleys

(y)

Mike.
 
Cezare said:
from what I gather reading here - http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104&sort=7&cat=all&page=1

views are different on the motorsport side. (seems people traded in there 300mm prime for it?)

what are your thought on the 100-400mm?
Click to expand...

No issues with Motorsport here and I tend to do silly things that would upset a slower focusing lens, a heck of a lot of guys seem to use them at the circuits and I've not heard too many complaints.

I came from a Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S, which has the quickest AF I've ever experienced, the Sigma 120-300 isn't as good but isn't noticeably poor compared to that high benchmark either...I certainly haven't regretted my decision in that respect.

I seem to be in the minority in that I find it perfectly usable handheld, there is nothing to me but I haven't struggled when holding it for 5-6 hours. I wouldn't recommend a tripod for it when shooting motorsport, it's going to be waaaay to restrictive, a monopod would be the obvious choice.

A few shots anyhow, just for fun...

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/gallery/6615780_iAjJ5

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/gallery/6140062_Q7G9w
 
desantnik said:
2x TC's are never a good solution IMHO, yeah you get the shot but the IQ drops through the floor. Last ditch stuff really. (wait for the usual smart alec to post a shot they think is "great")
Click to expand...

That said, I got some shots from airshows that I was pretty pleased with (using the 70-200 with 2x TC). I wish that I'd catalogued all my old images, otherwise I'd have been able to find and post a few examples. Granted, I had the light to give me the luxury of stopping down to f/11 and had low expectations of the IQ to be expected, as I'd only used the combination before at f/5.6. I was, however, pleasantly surprised at the IQ at f/10 or 11. Wide open , not so much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top