Help Needed: Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 or Sigma 300mm 2.8 which one to buy?

[jwsm]

Hello Everyone Merry Xmas............

Canon 20D
Canon 40D
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8
Canon 1D Mark III (end of Feb)


Okay here we go; this will be long so I can provide everyone with as much info as possible. But basically I am trying to choose between the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 and the Sigma 300mm 2.8. (Not interested in the

Canon lenses yet $$$)

About two years ago I bought my first EOS camera and that was the Canon 20D. I was a novice and interested in shooting primarily sport. I asked for advice from the wonderful people on here in regards to a

good fast lense without breaking the bank. Nearly everybody said to get the Sigma 70-200mm, which I did and it has served me extremely well and I thank you all.

I have been very lucky in regards to access to some major sporting events, festivals and concerts. This will only increase in the future. I must point out I consider myself to be still a novice and as such I am not at the stage where I am making vast amounts of money and this is fine by me at the moment. I still have a day job and look at my photography as an expensive hobby. I would love to become a pro but that’s a long way off and if it doesn't happen it will be no big deal because I have been introduced to this wonderful science called "PHOTOGRAPHY" which will be with me until the day I die!

I now realise the severe limitations I face in shooting football games with just this lense. It has been frustrating at times but I knew sooner or later I would be getting a longer lense. IT IS NOW LATER

So I have been looking very closely at the Sigma 120-300mm and until last night had my mind made up. Then I stumbled across this quote (it came from a head to head review between both lenses)

"In many ways, the Sigma zoom is a super-sized 70-200mm f/2.8. Let's be honest: with telephoto zooms, no one's buying for the wide end; it's the reach you're paying for. If you've been thinking about a 70-200mm f/2.8 but haven't yet made the plunge, and pondered if maybe you'd like even more reach than 200mm for those birds in the backyard or the outfielders on the local baseball diamond, you should give serious consideration to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom.

If you've got a quality 70-200mm f/2.8 in your bag, you'd be duplicating a good bit at the wide end with the Sigma zoom. Go for the prime. It's a little sharper and a little faster in AF in both bright and dim conditions, and the difference between 200mm and 300mm, while not negligible, isn't dramatic."

I now am a little confused regarding what to choose. Also to balance the argument here is another quote:

"Before buying this lens I was shooting two bodies to cover the focal range of the Sigma 120-300/2.8. I had a 300/2.8 on one body and a 70-200/2.8 on the other for a total of around 20 lbs. When shooting a tournament for 12 hours a day you quickly appreciate the weight savings. The biggest bonus is not giving up any image quality over the 300/2.8 making it the most productive lens I have ever owned."

As I said above a primarily shoot sport, but I do shoot a few festivals which include bands, DJ's and drag queens. I found the sigma 70-200mm to be quite useful for me at when I am not using the Canon 24-70mm at these festival events. As for the sport side, I am going to start using to cameras just like the pros.

So I would like a few opinions on which lense I should get and would really like all your insights as well

Thank you ever so much for your time and for all the wonderful posts on here as I have learnt some much from all you guys over the past two years.

[livin4lax09]

if you are going to need different focal lengths and only shoot primarily with one body, go with the zoom. If you are more concerned with image quality, get the prime. I personally believe the more impressive photos always come from the long end of the zoom, so I like shooting with a prime. they're also faster focusing and take teleconverters better. But if you need more wiggle room, you can't go wrong with the zoom. They're both good lenses from what I hear.

[JSPhoto]

Personally I'd go with one you hadn't mentioned... 400 f2.8, although the 300 f2.8 would be the second choice as lenses such as the 100-300 tend to lose sharpness,

JS

[jwsm]

Personally I'd go with one you hadn't mentioned... 400 f2.8, although the 300 f2.8 would be the second choice as lenses such as the 100-300 tend to lose sharpness,

JS

thanks for the advice. that lens is not an option yet. For two reasons one $$$$ and two im not yet a pro.

[jwsm]

if you are going to need different focal lengths and only shoot primarily with one body, go with the zoom. If you are more concerned with image quality, get the prime. I personally believe the more impressive photos always come from the long end of the zoom, so I like shooting with a prime. they're also faster focusing and take teleconverters better. But if you need more wiggle room, you can't go wrong with the zoom. They're both good lenses from what I hear.

thank you too! You make a lot of sense and I have read this train of thought before, but wanted to get some real world opinions. I will be shooting with 2 bodies in the future. One will have the 70-200mm ( Canon 40D) on it and one will have the lense that you guys help me with. (Canon 1D mkIII)

[livin4lax09]

if you're going to have another body with a 70-200, you'll probably want a prime on the other one. The 200-300 range is not so important that you'll want to sacrifice the image quality of a prime for it.

also remember that lenses are by the far more important for good images... so if your heart isnt set on the mark III, consider picking up a mark II N and using the difference to get a canon branded 300 2.8.

[gryphonslair99]

thanks for the advice. that lens is not an option yet. For two reasons one $$$$ and two im not yet a pro.

I shoot a lot of collage sports. I am a serious hobbist using a 30D and a 40D body. While the thought of a 1D MIII is nice, I am purchasing the Canon 400 f2.8 instead. Bodies come and go, and for me at least the glass is far more important than a top line body. 6.5 fps & 10.1MP is enough on the 40D and does everything I need. The 70-200 f2.8 will be on the 30D and will give me a great range to cover 3/4 of the field. And in a few years if I decide to upgrade to a XD body that 400 f2.8 is still going to work.

Just my 2 cents on the whole thing.

[jwsm]

if you're going to have another body with a 70-200, you'll probably want a prime on the other one. The 200-300 range is not so important that you'll want to sacrifice the image quality of a prime for it.

also remember that lenses are by the far more important for good images... so if your heart isnt set on the mark III, consider picking up a mark II N and using the difference to get a canon branded 300 2.8.

yeh make a very good point which I didnt take into account. As im really over the 20D now and have found that I am missing because of the 5fps. I was after a faster camera, so i have the 40d and was olooking into the mark III because it was new but would buy the mark II.

food for thought ......................thank you

[jwsm]

I shoot a lot of collage sports. I am a serious hobbist using a 30D and a 40D body. While the thought of a 1D MIII is nice, I am purchasing the Canon 400 f2.8 instead. Bodies come and go, and for me at least the glass is far more important than a top line body. 6.5 fps & 10.1MP is enough on the 40D and does everything I need. The 70-200 f2.8 will be on the 30D and will give me a great range to cover 3/4 of the field. And in a few years if I decide to upgrade to a XD body that 400 f2.8 is still going to work.

Just my 2 cents on the whole thing.

good point..but really cant afford that lense and I really need a faster camera than my 20d. May look into the 300/2.8..thanks

[jwsm]

Personally I'd go with one you hadn't mentioned... 400 f2.8, although the 300 f2.8 would be the second choice as lenses such as the 100-300 tend to lose sharpness,

JS

thank you for your advice