Anything worth upgrading the sigma 120-300mm to?

[413x]

Have this lens but I rarely take it out as it is basically so damn heavy
I did take it with my monopod around zoo for 7 hours only sitting down for lunch and tbh I was done by the end

I find it doesn't take a tc to well to the point I prefer cropped in 300mm to 300x1.4 mm
Maybe it's the slowing of the auto focus?

Turns out that I'm not getting round to doing much sport either but the zoom was useful at zoo I'll grant it that

DP did say when I was looking at it that there is nothing better in that price bracket

The canon 200-400mm is really too much
The 300mm f2.8 might not be worth the extra outlay
Anything 5.6 is too slow. I'm often below that with the sigma
Really 2.8 is desirable. Not even sure f4 is enough?

If there is nothing there's nothing but just looking at later this year options that are lighter with faster AF and better stabilisation

 

[413x]

Yeah I really don't want an f5.6 is just not enough in dingy England to freeze anything

If I had to have something better (keeping everything else the same) it would be faster AF and picture quality at 300mm with actual usability with a tc
The lens is fine too hand hold. It's just not too fun carrying it around for hours

Is canons 300mm f2.8 ii is an option? It's about 600g lighter too

Looking at a weight chart of the canon teles I can see why the 400mm DO exists!

 

[413x]

Surprised you're struggling with a TC on the lens, loss of love for the performance over on POTN using TC's. I had the old 120-300 and that was okay with TC's.

I'll see what it is like with 70d I now have
It made my 35mm f1.4 sigma usable!

I think I'm suffering in general with AF speed
And also 1.4tc is always going to be used with lens near widest aperture at near 300mm

 

[413x]

The 200-400mm is a little too much to swallow I feel. It probably would be what I would pick
The 400mm DO also. Especially the low weight
It's kind of good they aren't much cheaper as I think they are definitely too much for a hobby

I've never liked high iso. I hate the noise it introduces. Don't think I have any keeper pics I've used that are above 320. Makes you appreciate why the 'how good at high iso comes up'

If the 7d2 was much better at high iso it would make f5.6 lens + 7d2 cheaper than 70d + f4
But 5.6 is definitely something I think would irritate me

I'm beginning to think the 300mm mk2 is the only option. And to be an option it would have to be very good and fast AF. It would also need to be usable with 2x tc
After all the sigma is much cheaper and has f2.8 300mm

 

[413x]

I have a non standard strap but I don't think it's that good really.
It's a single strap and it often slides round (so pad is no longer on my shoulder)

I have a long weekend this weekend and will see if AF has improved moving from 60D to 70D.
I don't find the lens weight itself too heavy to support but long days with it are off putting in heat. But looks like as said all fast lenses are in this weight range

I definitely noticed degradation with 1.4 at 300. Think that's a definite. To have a better result with a canon 300mm f2.8 is mkii would be worth it. But I would also want the 2x to be OK too due to cost

 

[413x]

If you are considering a big investment you could check out what the Nikon side, the Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 is £4000 cheaper than the canon but no buit in TC. Nikon have also released an I sanely small 300mm f/4.0 PF that is half the size and weight of the canon version and original Nikon. Of course if you need more reach the Canon 400mm DO is a better option.

Ugh I thought you might say that.
It would be something for next year (a switch) but I have thought about it

Nikon lenses seem much more amateur friendly in terms of bang for buck
And looking at that lens it does seem ideal price

I've been informed the nikon macro 200mm is fairly good too

 

[413x]

Unfortunately the DO II is completely out of price range.
It's probably at the never going to get price range

I'd say the canon 300mm f2.8 ii is the only canon I could consider
The 200-400mm nikon is also in price range

And at the prices these teles are swapping system isn't out of the question. It would be a damn hassle tho and absolutely not this year

 

[413x]

The weight I can take off worth it - especially with a system I could carry it on hot days on my back

The cost is another matter.. Have to keep reminding myself is a hobby

 

[413x]

I'm not really considering the 100-400mm to slow

I think my options are

200-400mm 1.4tc canon (but really too pricey)
300mm f2.8 is II canon

Complete change to nikon and 200-400mm

Although the last is probably the best option I would have to swap 3 other lenses but it would be the cheapest option

200-400mm would allow me to drop my 120-300mm definitely, the 300mm f2.8 only might make that more painful with no zoom

 

[413x]

How do you find the 300mm + tc in terms of usability? I find that I really hate taking it on and off.

For what you are going to shoot do you ever end up too close unable to get back? I doubt it is too much of an issue

In thinking about the 300mm f2.8 option
Don't think I've ever had dof issues with birds as they are usually so far away the focal plane is wide enough
I just don't like the limit of 5.6 for England dingy weather

With what you guys have said the 200-400mm tc really is perfect (except for the price)

 

[413x]

I guess it would be if the 300mm f2.8 can take a 2xtc
If not might as well get the new 100-400mm



Yes if I'm out after birds then 300mm isn't really enough
300mm + 1.4tc is better and I think 300mm + 2tc would be best I'll get really (cost etc of beyond 600mm is just prohibitive)
So my sigma can't take a 2x and barely takes a 1.4x.
The 100-400mm wouldn't be usable most of the time with a tc due to light
The 300mm would likely permanently have whatever tc it could take strapped to it.. And doesn't have zoom

6.3 is definite no no. I wouldn't want a limit of 6.3 in England. If I lived in Spain or somewhere different story

I can absolutely see why you got 200-400mm +1.4tc
Good lens
Effectively a 200 - 600 with no need to take lens off
Every other option is a fairly substantial compromise

 

[413x]

That's the thing with the 300mm f2.8
You get those other lenses with and without TC's

I don't see much use for 400mm 5.6 except weight and very cost effective

That's what I thought. You rarely get a scenario where you can't get back enough
Would be perfect if you could get a TC that had an on-off mechanism.

But I don't actually know what I'd use a 300mm fixed for.. If you do sport a zoom is very useful (especially motorsport.. The sigma is spot on for this
If you do wildlife 300 isn't enough

I can't even think of any reason to chose a 300mm prime if I wasn't planning on a TC

 

[413x]

This year I'll give my sigma a good go. See what I get.

If most of my pics are 300mm and f2.8-f5.6 I know I'll need the 300mm f2.8
If I find I'm at 5.6 in a lot of pics the 400mm f5.6 could be a companion utility 120-300mm
Or even the new 100-400mm

 

[413x]

True
I was out yesterday with sigma after a few small birds and even though I was really close with 1.4 300mm was barely usable and this was because they were on a feeder so kept coming back. No way would I have been close enough without that bird feeder incentive

It 2 sunny but done cloud and to keep iso below 1000 I was at 4.0 (min with tc) and 4.5.
Even that iso limit wasnt enough to freeze the birds wings at all
Stopping down to f7.1 just either pushed the iso up, or reduced speed to far

It would have been the exact situation your lens (or even a prime 400 with extender) would be ideal
But 5.6 was my real limit. Even iso at 1000 is more than noticeable on 70d
And if the 300mm f2.8 can take 2x tc that would also have been viable

 

[413x]

What kind of exposures are you using for these birds?

Having used a 2x extender, I don't think I'd bother again :/

I can't recall. I don't think I had enough light for above 1/1000 f4 at any point without iso being above 1000

If the 300mm f2.8 can't take a 2xtc well then it isn't worth the outlay over the sigma really


One option I have looked at was 500mm f4 mk1 but the weight is extreme for hand held. I could hand hold it maybe, would have to try it. Looks like 3.8kg. But carrying it around I'd need it on some sort of backpack vs over shoulder
A 500mm f4 could probably take a TC and push it all way to 700mm

 

[413x]

I might go for a 500mm mk1
The situation I was in the other day.. If I had had a tripod. Would have been fine

Because I really like twitchy birds (and would love to get some still wing in flight shots) I think the aperture in UK weather may well be important

Stick it in my monopod and weight shouldn't be such an issue
I'm hoping can find a 'backpack style carry system - or basically some way to spread the weight across both shoulders.

The main issue with the 120-300mm that 8hr day was weight distribution