Should I swap my 120-300mm sigma?

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,166
Location
Llaneirwg
For a Canon mkii 100-400

Or
Canon mki 100-400
And
Canon mki 70-200 f2.8

Reason I ask it turns out I haven't done any sports photography at all
And I find it too cumbersome to take on days at the zoo. It's just ott.
It's not too heavy physically but it's not a photo day.. Its a day out with a camera



I think I'm right in thinking these options are just easier.

Views?

For example I took my 100mm macro with me usually just cause it makes the day more enjoyable.
 
Last edited:
I didn't keep mine because I didn't use 120-300 enough and it wasn't good enough with a TC on

If you don't really use it then pick something you can see yourself using I guess :)
 
The Sigma is f/2.8 isn't it? Whilst I have a 100-400 II and it's an amazing lens, it's 2.5-3 stops slower than the Sigma.

I guess the biggest question is how much do you need the aperture? If you're not that bothered about losing the f/2.8 then I'd highly recommend the 100-400 II. If you don't want to lose the f/2.8 then I'd suggest a 70-200 II with a 1.4x for those times you need more reach.
 
What body? I have a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM, L optics but compact and not massively heavy.

axs5niI.png

It has IS, most modern Canon bodies can push out shots at ISO 1600 - 2000 that tidy up okay in LR and you'll have a lens that you'll want to use. It'll feel like a kit lens compared to the Sigma 120-300 put it that way.
 
Last edited:
I like the 2.8. I do use it quite a lot. And on my 100mm. Mainly as I seem to have developed a phobia for high iso

The body is a 70D

It's a tough choice actually (why I got the sigma originally is it's price point and ok with a 1.4tc)
But if I'm not using it (I'm not) there's no point

I think the 70-300 would leave me lacking everywhere
Not as long as 120-300mm with 1.4tc and not as fast..
And I'd probably end up selling it in future

My original idea of both 70-200mm and 100-400mm would (I was thinking) give 2 lighter versions of the capability of 120-300mm + tc. I would have to be aggressive with lens choice and hope 70-200mm + 1.4tc would be an optional mid point? But the 100-400mm would have to be the old version.

Only getting the 100-400mm might.. I don't know.. Be the best bet. It's hard to know if I would find the lack of aperture annoying with just that lens. But I know I can't have lightness and aperture!

If I remember the main time I used the 120-300mm was at an airshow and f2.8 was lovely.. It was the only time I've been static so tripod was fine
Often, I found I was either at 300mm and f2.8 but when I look at my keeper photos.. Not many are with this lens.
Its a really hard choice but and I have to keep telling myself 'I'm not using the sigma so it's specs are redundant'
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
The Sigma is f/2.8 isn't it? Whilst I have a 100-400 II and it's an amazing lens, it's 2.5-3 stops slower than the Sigma.

I guess the biggest question is how much do you need the aperture? If you're not that bothered about losing the f/2.8 then I'd highly recommend the 100-400 II. If you don't want to lose the f/2.8 then I'd suggest a 70-200 II with a 1.4x for those times you need more reach.
Click to expand...

This is a very hard choice. I could (and maybe should) get a 70-200mm ii +1.4 tc now OR a 100-400mm ii now and see if I need the other?
 
Thinking again. Maybe 70-200mm mkii would be best bet.
I was at the zoo recently and although I only had my canon 100mm f2.8 is macro L with the 70D it was pretty good. (it is a fantastic copy of a good lens I adore it)
On paper the 70-200mm should give me twice the length and more flexibility and same aperture.
 
Well it obviously depends on what you shoot but, FWIW, I have both the 70-200 II and 100-400 II and, whilst they're both superb, if I had to give up one of them, it'd be the 100-400. The 70-200 II is stunning.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well it obviously depends on what you shoot but, FWIW, I have both the 70-200 II and 100-400 II and, whilst they're both superb, if I had to give up one of them, it'd be the 100-400. The 70-200 II is stunning.
Click to expand...

Been doing a bit of reading

I think the 70-200mm is the best initial choice
Ill list my current lenses excluding the to be sold sigma

Canon 10-22mm
Sigma 35mm F1.4 art (requires some harsh lens correction in my 70d, unusable on my 60d but beautiful pics at 1.4)
Canon 50mm F1.8
Canon 100mm f2.8 is macro L

I suppose the fact I use the 100 so much probably points to the 70-200mm?

Perhaps after I could move to canon fixed tele prime
 
I have the 100L macro too but only really use it for actual macro stuff. It's a great quality lens for portraits etc but the 70-200 is far more flexible.
 
I think this has shown me that at a certain point specs become irrelevant when the experience suffers

I think as photography is much more a hobby for me than anything else when the day isn't 'fun' it's not for me. At least I know there is no point in me having an over weight lens

Probably as I find myself wandering with my camera more than being static
Sigma would make a great track side lens with tripod. But I was hoping I could wander round with it.

Everyone is different I guess
 
Which is why I pushed the 70-300mm L, I rented the Sigma and it just ruined my weekend and the extra stops of light helped me out about once or twice.

f2.8 is too shallow for most stuff anyway trackside, f5.6 to f8 is where most of my shots are. Having a lens that doesn't break my neck and isn't the size of a trumpet is more use to me.
 
Janesy B said:
Which is why I pushed the 70-300mm L, I rented the Sigma and it just ruined my weekend and the extra stops of light helped me out about once or twice.

f2.8 is too shallow for most stuff anyway trackside, f5.6 to f8 is where most of my shots are. Having a lens that doesn't break my neck and isn't the size of a trumpet is more use to me.
Click to expand...

Agree. It's a good learning experience as it will keep me away from any of the oh so tempting super teles.
The day I took the sigma to the zoo I ended up getting really warm and an uncomfortable shoulder after 6 hours walking with it

Mostly this will be used at zoo type days and I do sometimes like the wide aperture look (more for arty shots) so I think I will go. For the 70-200mm rather than the 70-300.
I was quite impressed that when when I had to crop in (where 100mm wasn't enough reach) that 70d high pixel count did well to hold detail. So I hope 200 will generally be enough

And if I want later add a 300 or 400 prime (which I believe take a tc well) for anything more wild.
 
Last edited:
I went a slightly different route with my 120-300. I got a 70-300 VR (Nikon user) as a complimentary lens. I use the 70-300 when I'm out and about and want to take photos and then take the 120-300 when I want to take photos and head somewhere.

In December I was in the Philippines where there was little need for a long lens, so took the 70-300, in April I was in Gabon and on safari (as it were) and took the 120-300. I do similar for day trips as well. I think it's a good compromise between giving up the ability of the fast and long glass and having something useful. I get the IQ and speed when needed and the benefit of a small, light lens for general shooting. Not sure I could go back to just one compromised lens, at least for my style of shooting.
 
If I didn't do most of my pictures wandering I'd have kept it
Usually camera days are not dedicated to photography and it's just too much

If I was a sports photographer it would make much more sense
 
Amp34 said:
I went a slightly different route with my 120-300. I got a 70-300 VR (Nikon user) as a complimentary lens. I use the 70-300 when I'm out and about and want to take photos and then take the 120-300 when I want to take photos and head somewhere.

In December I was in the Philippines where there was little need for a long lens, so took the 70-300, in April I was in Gabon and on safari (as it were) and took the 120-300. I do similar for day trips as well. I think it's a good compromise between giving up the ability of the fast and long glass and having something useful. I get the IQ and speed when needed and the benefit of a small, light lens for general shooting. Not sure I could go back to just one compromised lens, at least for my style of shooting.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. I think I'm quite different
Id see those lenses as almost doing same job and I'd always want to take the 120-300mm but end up taking the 70-300

I see the 70-200 only losing 100mm
At zoos etc I don't need the 100mm extra and save so much weight

When I was at 300 it was more for birds etc.. So if I get a 300/400mm prime this should cover that

I don't think I need a 200-300mm zoom range really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom