Baseball with Sigma 120-300/2.8

[garykohs]

I bought a used Sigma 120-300/2.8 (the old version) a couple of months ago to try to get some better "under the lights" shots when my favorite team (Klein Oak) made the playoffs. It certainly gave me better shots than I could have gotten with other lenses I have.

Now I'm uncertain whether to keep it, buy the new OS version or get the new Canon 300/2.8 IS. I do like the flexibility of the zoom. Any thoughts, especially from those with a Canon 300/2.8?

These are with a Canon 1D MkIV - Klein Oak vs. Dallas Jesuit at Baylor Ballpark

ISO 12,800 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 12,800 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 6,400 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 5,000 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 6,400 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 6,400 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 10,000 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 12,800 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5


ISO 2,000 - 1/640 sec. at f4.5

[arich]

If you get the Canon you will not regret it, that sucker is razor sharp

[John Godwin]

If you are happy with 300mm and f4.5 then get the 300mm f28 throw on a 1.4 converter and the you will have a 420mm f4. All of a sudden you are in a state of bliss!!!!!!!!!!!!

[crbeveri]

I agree with what both Andrew and John are saying. I shoot sports with a 1D3 and the Canon 300 2.8 IS and it's amazing. you can check out the sports section on my website and see the results I have gotten.

PS: not only can you attach the 1.4x @ f/4 and still get sharp images but even with the EX 2x II @ f/5.6 and 600mm it's still got a good sharpness to the images. I am very happy with my 300 2.8 and dont regret the money I have spent on it.

[khatley]

I have shot both and now own the Canon 300. I wish the Sigma was better as the range is perfect for shooting hockey but sorry that lens is horribly slow on the autofocus and can't be compared to the Canon. I wish I had both but if you choose one...get the canon. My next wish would be the 200 2 and put a 1.4 on it and I think I may do that this season as a test one weekend for the bigger skaters where the 300 is a bit too much.

[garykohs]

My experience is that the Sigma is at least as fast in terms of AF as my Canon 300/4, although I've read lots of complaints about slow AF.

Does anyone have any comparable pics with a Canon 300/2.8 - comparable in that they are under the lights at ISO 5000 - 12,800. I've seen lots of great pics from this lens in daylight but that's not much of a test.

Thanks to everyone for your comments! I know the 300/2.8 works well with a TC but there are too many pics I can't get at 300mm as it is, which is why I like the zoom. But I also have a 7D so using both is certainly an option.

[khatley]

I shot the u14 National Championships, 5 days of 12 hour shooting using a Sigma 120-300 and a Canon 400 2.8. I put the 120-300 down after the second day and shot with a Canon 70-200 with a 400 lens that was way too long for hockey. The Sigma couldn't keep up shooting at 3200 iso on a 1dmk3 with the speed of those games. I may have had a bad copy but I also started off with a 70-200 Sigma and felt the same issues compared with Canon. Slower autofocus and generally softer muddier photos. I did have the older model and I wouldn't mind one more crack at it now that my shooting technique is much improved but I think I will use Sigma primes at the shorter range but never again will I mess with purchasing a Sigma zoom. If you are in no hurry I would wait, the Canon 300's are way over priced right now and I have a feeling once the II comes out there will be much better deals to be had. I will more than likely upgrade as well after about 6 months after their release.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by garykohs

Does anyone have any comparable pics with a Canon 300/2.8 -

I dont shoot above 3200ISO really as the places I shoot are lit enough. However I do use a Canon 300 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS II each on 1D3's and have loved this combo for both Pro Soccer and High School Lacrosse and Baseball. I do with though for the Pro Soccer I had a 400 2.8 to go with the 70-200 for shots at the other end of the field.

These shots were taken this past Saturday at Robertson Stadium.

[John Godwin]

Here are some photos I took at the Texas ASA 10u A championship.
These were all taken with a 300mm f2.8 and a MKIIn which does not go above 3200ISO. It is supposedly not known for good handling of noise at high iso, y'all be the judge whether it would be acceptable to your needs. The difference in the shutter speed is because the field light is not constant across the diamond.
EXIF data is intact.

[garykohs]

Originally Posted by khatley

If you are in no hurry I would wait, the Canon 300's are way over priced right now and I have a feeling once the II comes out there will be much better deals to be had. I will more than likely upgrade as well after about 6 months after their release.

What I'm considering is the II, otherwise I would have bought the 300/2.8 in the first place. I like the lighter weight of the II. I'm in no hurry since I won't use such a lens before next baseball season - other than a couple of summer league games this week.

I'm still not convinced, though, that the Canon is the way to go. The old version Sigma offers AF at least as fast as my Canon 300/4 and is, I think, just as sharp at f4 at the same ISO. Mine also seems to track as well as any of my Canon lenses. I'd still like to see some ISO 6400 - 12.800 shots with a current 300/2.8 if anyone has some.

[bret]

Gary,
FWIW... i owned two copies of the sigma, both back-focused. both sent to Sigma for fixes.
never completely corrected. i funded the canon 300 and have never looked back. i now shoot w/ a canon 400. depending on the sport/situation, the 300 is as sharp or sharper.
sometimes, the images have 'cut yer finger' sharpness around the edges of the subject.
again, FWIW... go canon prime. you will never regret it.