Sigma 120-300 2.8 v Canon 300 2.8 IS

[RightAngle]

Ok first off "duh" the canon is better... at least thats what I'm anticipating a lot of people saying and insinuating I'm an idiot... BUT I want to know if its THAT much better. It has been my experience that sometimes the off brand glass isn't always enough of a step down in quality to justify the extra money.

Thoughts and opinion.... Thanks.

[Dobick]

I can only imagine that the sigma (I have not used one, or know anyone who has one) is slower to focus than the canon 300. For me, and what I have seen in the past from using the canon 300, the focus speed, as well as accuracy, makes all the difference in the world as far as keeper ratio is concerned. If I am buying, my money would go towards the canon for that fact alone.

[Crashoran]

I have owned both and can tell you:

the Sigma has CA issues at 120mm and the HSM does not focus as quickly as Canon's 300

Still a great lens for the price

[madf1man]

With aftermarket in general there seems to be what I'll call strange occurences sometimes. Anything from inconsitant operation to throwing an ERROR code. Only lens I ever had fungus up was also a Sigma 300 2.8, sent it in for cleaning and was never right after that. Plenty of people swear by aftermarket lense's just happens I had those experiences and went Canon. It also makes Canon's excellent support happier to!

[Comanche]

Andy - you have the right idea. This thread could turn into a "Chevy-Ford" debate.

I own the Sigma, have never owned the Canon, but have borrowed one for a number of games. I am a freelancer, sell most of my work to the local newspaper, and most of those are high school sports. I use the Sigma for football, soccer, baseball, and softball - almost all of which are night games here in deep South Texas. I shoot a 1D Mk III, but have used the lens on a 30D as well.

First - the Sigma is not a Canon. 'nuff said. All my other glass is Canon.

Pluses for the Sigma:
* The flexibility of a zoom. When shooting football and there is a goal-line play, the Canon prime shooters have to back up. I just dial back my zoom. I can get a nice combination of pitcher/catcher/batter by shooting over the outfield fence in a softball game, then dial back to get a tight shot of a close play at third base when I am on the third base side. I don't have to lug two camera bodies to get my shots.
* Speed - its constant 2.8.
* Optical quality. Now, some will be accurate in saying that my old eyes are not what they used to be, but in all honesty, I don't see any appreciable difference in the quality of my Sigma shots and the Canon. Nick mentions CA issues at 120, and I have read other folks' reviews citing the same problem, but I've never had the problem myself.
* Cost - new, the lens costs a thousand dollars less than the Canon. I bought mine used for another thousand dollars less. Canon= $3,900. My Sigma cost $1,800. New it costs $2,700


Minuses for the Sigma
* The focus speed is a little slower, but not much. Kent mentioned the keeper rate being worse with the Sigma, but I always had plenty of keepers to turn in to the editor. I've never kept track of my keeper ratio (too much like work), but I certainly have lots of properly focused shots from each game.
* It does not have a focus limiter, which is handy sometimes, especially in football.
* It is not weather sealed. Rainy-day football games make for good photos (especially on natural turf), but I just put a plastic garbage bag over the lens and shoot away. Nonetheless, the Canon is weather sealed.

I post this shot knowing that a highly compressed shot in JPG on a computer monitor is not representative of the true quality of a lens/camera combination. But, it was taken with a 30D, which does not acquire focus as quickly as the 1D Mk III.



Have I considered buying the Canon? Yes - and I still may do that, but frankly, if I do, it will be to show off with a white lens. I am quite satisfied with the Sigma. True - its not up to Canon L glass quality, but the drastically lower cost and the flexibility of a zoom make it work for me.

Now - if Canon would come out with a fast zoom in that focal range . . . . .

[RightAngle]

It looks like I gauged the response about right. I'm stuck in a hard spot because I only have one body right now. If I get the 300 I will NEED my 70-200 or something of that nature with me as well. If I saved the grand on the Sigma I could get another MKIIN pretty easily in a month or so and be ready for football, and if it didn't work out I would still be okay because of the zoom.

On the other hand I have wanted the 300 for a very long time and am afraid that the Sigma will only get sold in a year when I finally buy the 300. Thats not a hit to that lens its just my personal obsession with white.... I know.... thats not good and shouldn't dictate a lens purchase but sadly it will for me. reality.

Thanks for all the help so far guys, I appreciate it

[Dobick]

Originally Posted by Comanche

Minuses for the Sigma
* The focus speed is a little slower, but not much. Kent mentioned the keeper rate being worse with the Sigma, but I always had plenty of keepers to turn in to the editor. I've never kept track of my keeper ratio (too much like work), but I certainly have lots of properly focused shots from each game.
. . .

I will add this point:

I only mention the focus speed because admittedly, my abilities when shooting sports absolutely suck most of the time, and it comes down to technique.... but with that said, the times that I have used the 300, the number of shots that lock on in focus, and stay that way are higher than with any other lens that I have used. From my experience, it is just that little bit faster, and for my poor technique, that makes all the difference.

Sounds like the OP and I have the same sort of opinion on the value of canon glass. I know that I could probably do as well with off-brand equipment, but in the end, I would probably end up selling it, and going with the canon brand, and in the end that is too much of a headache. [inside voice] just buy the canon cause you know you will eventually anyway -- save the hassles[/inside voice]

[AndrewCCM]

FWIW - I don't use my 300 F2.8 IS nearly as much as I would like too...But having said that, I wouldn't trade it for anything. It and the 35L are my 2 favorite lenses by far.

[Corvee]

I love the 120-300. great range, sharp etc. I think it's easily better than a canon 70-200 for performance and flexibility in just about every sport. IQ, speed, sharpness is all fantastic... about 10% less than a canon 300 2.8 but it's also a lot less money. I still occasionally pair mine with my 400 and its wonderful. I actually have mine for sale if you're interested:
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=65680

As with all zooms, just dont try to shoot while you're trying to zoom really really fast.

[AndrewCCM]

Best thing since sliced bread... And I am selling it. LOL!!!

Just givin' ya a hard time. Wish I had the 400 too..