Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 VS Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS

[ForestWander Nature Photo]

Hi everyone,

Great to be a part of the group here.


I have a delima and am hoping you all with your vast amount of experience can help me.

Thankfully my nature photography has allowed me to build up a small budget that I will be using in the coming year to expand into the semi-professional field.

I have been accepted to participate in a wildlife expedition at Canaan Valley WV next October which I am very excited about.

So I am going to be purchasing a new camera and a new wildlife lens this coming year.

I have faithfully been using my Canon rebel 350d for 5 years now and have taken it from the most rugged inhospitable canyons in WV to the most deslate windy and cold mountain tops.

But I need some better equipment to get into the semi-pro field.

So I am seriously considering a Canon 5d Mark II (when they are back in stock)


And in the meantime I am trying to select a good Wildlife lens. I currently do not have one and have been limping by with a Quantary 70-300mm 4-5.6

So I am really looking forward to a new wildlife lens and do not, I repeat absolutely do not want to waste my hard earned money (who does?).

Anyway after months of searching and reading I am considering the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OR a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS with a 1.4x TC.

I have read so much about the Sigma lenses developing focus issues and I am concerned about the quality. However, their price has went up which indicates a product in demand (it must be in demand for some reason).

Anyway here are some Pro's and Con's about these two lenses that I have researched.

Sigma 120-300 2.8

Pros
Fast and can be used with TC to really reach out there

Cons
Large Filter size that is uncommon and expensive
Reported AF issues (I have experienced this with a fixed 28mm Sigma)
Reorted Quality issues
No IS
No Weather seal (kind of necessary for nature photographers)
Much More expensive

Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS

Pros
Weather sealed
Canon L Series Quality
Sharper and faster dependable AF
IS for hand held shots
Less expensive
Common filter size (I already have some good filters that are 77mm)

Cons
Less focal length
Slower Speed at 280 mm with 1.4x TC


I know it may seem obvious with the pros and cons but it is still a toss up to me since I am doing wildlife and nature photography.

If anyone has experience in comparing these two lenses especially on a Canon Digital rebel 350d and/or any experience on a Canon 5d Mark II, I would greatly appreciate your experience and input.

Also if you have any other suggestions that may fit within this budget I am open for suggestions.

I cannot use to slow of a lens becuase I often find myself shooting in low light forests and valleys or in early morning and late evening settings.

Thanks a lot for any information from the Professionals here.


ForestWander Nature Photography
http://www.ForestWander.com

[SmartWombat]

I'm biased, I think the 70-200 is so good I bought two.

I had AF issues with the Sigma 80-400 and returned it to the store, buying the Canon 100-400 instead. Both have the disadvantage they are extending zooms, rather than internal like the Canon 70-200, which means as the volume changes air moves in and out the lens bringing dust with it.
I made the mistake of zooming from 400-100mm whilst the barrel was damp after rain, and the lens was unusable for hours.
So for me, despite the "L" rating, the 70-200 was better.
If you can keep the lens dry then that doesn't matter, and it just takes a relatively small expenditure in black bin bags and electrical tape ... or some Optech rain sleeves if you go posh !

The 5DmkII has the dust protection system, which should make live with an extending barrel zoom much better.
When you go to the 5D you're losing the crop factor of the smaller sensor and so while your image files get bigger, you may want longer lenses.

[EOSThree]

I had the debate between the Siggy 120-300 and the Canon 100-400 this summer. I was really close to pulling the trigger on the Sigma. What stopped me was cost, size, and length. The length can be enhanced by a TC, but that involves pulling and replacing the lens which can lose a shot. I went through juggling a TC and a 300 f/4 last summer on a glacier cruise, I missed shots because of it.

The Sigma has speed and decent length, it would be an awesome replacement for your current lens. The Canon 100-400 had more range, but it's a lot slower. I think a 70-200 is a great lens, but it's definitely a little short for any kind of wildlife shooting. So there you go, I just managed to muddy the waters a little more....

[Loupey]

Please define what "wildlife" means to you.

If you answer this how I think you will answer it, I think both these zooms will be too short on the 5D.

[dizzy]

I think Loupey is going to spot on too. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and absolutely love it. It is just too short for decent wildlife (unless you're either very lucky or very good in a hide) on my 30d so a FF sensor would be way too short. There are times when I really wish I'd gone for the 100-400, but that may be solved when I finally get round to saving for a 2 x TC. Basically, I still miss my minolta with 400mm when it comes to wildlife!