Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 9, 2011, 9:27 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 18
Default Canon Lens F4 vs Sigma Lens F2.8

Ok, Im trying to figure out what to do here. Do I spend $1459.00 on Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0 L IS Zoom 4426b002 NEW "L" or $1850.00 or less if I can find one on ebay on Zoom Telephoto 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO DG IF HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS. L glass is from what I have read better, but with the F4 vs the f2.8 and loosing a 100mm Im not sure whats better.

I will be using it for soccer, baseball, basketball, football (night & day) landscaping, just plain old shooting.
edwardskev is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 9, 2011, 9:44 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Well, the first thing to realize is The canon lens is NOT a constant f4. It's variable aperture so it's f5.6 when you zoom out. F5.6 just isn't going to work for night football or basketball - period. The lens won't be useful for those sports.

Now, the problem with the sigma lens is at 120mm it's way too tight to shoot basketball from the baseline where you need to shoot basketball. SO, while it works much better for night sports it also is a poor choice for basketball.

For outdoor field sports it's still no competition - the sigma is a better option. And the only viable option of the two for night games. But it just won't work for basketball.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2011, 9:47 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardskev View Post
...
I will be using it for soccer, baseball, basketball, football (night & day) landscaping, just plain old shooting.
For sport you don't need IS.
For landscape I think they'll be too long...
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2011, 10:28 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

These two lens are at a totally differenent level. The 70-300L is WONDERFUL LENS it is significantly lighter than the 120-300 F2.8 (less than half I think), it is also much more compact. As John said it is not a constant F4, at 300mm it is an F5.6 so you have lost half of your shutter speed (in AV). It has a fantastic 4 stop IS system, which is great when your hands shake as bad as mine do for family stuff, but it does nothing for you in stopping an object in motion, only shutter speed does that. I am in the process of deciding if I want to replace my 100-300 F4 (Constant F4) with the 120-300 F2.8, but that is for pure sports use and I go in knowing that the lens is 60% longer and about that heavier than my 70-300L (about 35% more than the 100-300) and that I will probably have to use a Monopod with it. By the way for landscape I use my 24-105 F4L, works great! YMMV Steven
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2011, 8:54 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 18
Default

Is the 24-105 F4L a constant F4? I am looking at the Canon 24-70 2.8L or Sigma 24-70 2.8. Will be using them on either a 30D or 7D. For the price they seem a wash. I am not sure between the 3 of them which is better for the cameras I have. Any suggestions? I am leaning towards the L, just because it L. Looking to spend around $1k.
edwardskev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2011, 9:15 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardskev View Post
Is the 24-105 F4L a constant F4? I am looking at the Canon 24-70 2.8L or Sigma 24-70 2.8. Will be using them on either a 30D or 7D. For the price they seem a wash. I am not sure between the 3 of them which is better for the cameras I have. Any suggestions? I am leaning towards the L, just because it L. Looking to spend around $1k.
I'm a bit confused. Are you still expecting the lens to perform:
Quote:
I will be using it for soccer, baseball, basketball, football (night & day) landscaping, just plain old shooting.
?

The 24-105 is a great lens but not suitable for sports. The older sigma 24-70 was pretty slow to focus in low light, not sure about the new. But in either case, 70mm is a bit short for basketball and way too short for outdoor sports. For landscape, 24mm is a bit restrictive.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2011, 9:33 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 18
Default

Sorry, I still plan on getting the 120-300mm for the sports. Right now I have been fighting with spending it on that or on a lens that I will use more on a daily basis. I currently have a Sigma 30 1.4 and Sigma 18-50 2.8. I use the 18-50 for daily use, but was thinking maybe upgrading it to the 24-70 or the 24-105. For shooting my kid inside and outside, family events etc.
edwardskev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2011, 3:04 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I am a bit confused, why do you keep saying Canon "L" is better?
In the Canon line the "L" designates their upper end pro grade lenses.

In the Sigma line the EX is the designation of their higher end pro grade lenses.
They used to make a 100-300 f/4 (now unfortunately discontinued) that put many canon lenses "L" or otherwise to shame. optically.

And my old Canon 100-300 f/5.6 L was a complete dog, a very soft focus lens

That said I would buy another Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 in an instant if anything happened to my current one.
Business wise it is a very versatile lens, and it helps build your biceps.
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.

Last edited by PeterP; Oct 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM. Reason: grammer fix
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2011, 3:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: "Sunny" Seattle
Posts: 390
Default

Yeah the 100-300 F4 is pretty good, my copy is not on par with my 70-300L but not bad. Steven
waoldrifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:00 PM.