EMERGENCY :: Need a Canon 300 or 400 this weekend!!!!

[Daniel Bates]

Reviewers of the 120-300 report some significant differences in quality between copies. Some are excellent, and some are not. I'd say, if you get a good copy, the sheer usability of the zoom will outweigh any loss in image quality.

[iCe]

But there will always be a gap... You can't do anything about the laws of physics...

[mdurisseau]

Originally Posted by iCe

But there will always be a gap... You can't do anything about the laws of physics...

I have to agree there will be a gap, but as has been stated...with what little quality that might be lost, the 120-300 just makes more sense to me...I also want to do some photojournalism work...traveling light is always a good thing!

[Daniel Bates]

Yeah... unfortunately, IQ and lens desirability aren't as clear-cut as the laws of optics. I guess it all comes down to whose eyes are going to be judging the images.

[wadebarker]

I'd probably be more worried about the difference in focus speed primes usually offer over zooms rather than the image quality, especially for sports.

[mdurisseau]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

Reviewers of the 120-300 report some significant differences in quality between copies. Some are excellent, and some are not. I'd say, if you get a good copy, the sheer usability of the zoom will outweigh any loss in image quality.

Good point, Daniel...If I had to, I would keep Sigma's feet to the fire...

[mdurisseau]

Originally Posted by wadebarker

I'd probably be more worried about the difference in focus speed primes usually offer over zooms rather than the image quality, especially for sports.

I haven't had much of a problem with that, actually, at least not recently...remember that light and contrast are your best friends when using autofocus...

[iCe]

Originally Posted by wadebarker

I'd probably be more worried about the difference in focus speed primes usually offer over zooms rather than the image quality, especially for sports.

Great point...

Originally Posted by Daniel Bates

Yeah... unfortunately, IQ and lens desirability aren't as clear-cut as the laws of optics. I guess it all comes down to whose eyes are going to be judging the images.

And how many pixels you have available to put the image on...

[Daniel Bates]

Good point. You are going to be more critical of glass than I will be.

AF speed was another thing that reviewers differed on. Some people said it was quite fast enough for soccer and motorsports, and others said it was slower than Tiffany's squirrel.

[wadebarker]

Originally Posted by mdurisseau

I haven't had much of a problem with that, actually, at least not recently...remember that light and contrast are your best friends when using autofocus...

Unfortunately, light and contrast are pretty scarce for night sports. I can tell even a huge difference in focus speed between my 70-200 and 400 at night football & soccer as well as indoor sports.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by mdurisseau

I haven't had much of a problem with that, actually, at least not recently...remember that light and contrast are your best friends when using autofocus...

I'm pretty sure Wade has a good understanding of autofocus speed and what makes it tick.

I'm getting there but it's a long road. The 600 f4L IS and the 300 f2.8L IS that I use (former for wildlife and latter for sports, etc) snap to focus. And when shooting sports... very often... snap isn't good enough.

Edit: too slow Ditto the 70-200 f2.8 As fast as it is, it's not the 300 2.8...

[mdurisseau]

As you already said, Daniel...a good copy, and there's probably not $1,000 difference between the Canon glass and the Sigma...

[wadebarker]

Couldn't have said it better iCe, I've used the Canon 300 & 400 f/2.8 Canons and they snap quickly but I still have out of focus frames from sports, especially night. Your focus can't be fast enough...even on some of the best Canon/Nikon glass out there today. The action can change or move in a split second and how fast your AF responds to this can mean getting or missing that peak action shot.

[Daniel Bates]

By the way, I just saw a 120-300 sell on FM; the listed price was $1500.