Cycling, Bay Classic 2007

[Mark1616]

The 300 f2.8 L is probably one of the sexiest lenses on the planet, just look at the MTF for the resolution it is getting and it is stunning!!! I don't have much experience shooting with long primes, only shot bright ones for indoor sport and portrait which puts me off getting something without zoom (this is probably a limitation of me as a photographer which I should address). This is my main reason for putting the 120-300 at the top of the list even though the resolution is not as good.

Yep just switched to the Canon 30D and am very happy with it. I have got a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4.5and the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. I went for these as I had them with my Konica Minolta setup and was very happy with the results I was getting so went for them again when making the change. I also have access to the Canon 100-400mm L which is owned by a friend and this is not too bad, much better than my 70-200mm with a 2x tele converter.

When looking at the Sigma 300-800 I will also look at the Canon 500mm f4 L which is looking very nice, but again not having the zoom is what makes me concerned about owning it. Do you find that shooting with a prime is limiting? If I did decide to go with a prime how would this affect the way I shoot?

[TG]

Mark1616 wrote:

Do you find that shooting with a prime is limiting? If I did decide to go with a prime how would this affect the way I shoot?

Mark,

Depends on what your shooting. I find them fine for motorsport and if I needsomething shorter I use my 70-200 f2.8L. If I need something in between200-300 I use 1.4x TC on my 70-200. Sometimes I do wish I had a zoom.

Primes do make you thinkmore about composition and you might have to move around a bit more to get the shot you want.Generally they are sharper and focus faster than zooms.