300mm primes?? - DPChallenge Forums

05/06/2006 06:53:52 PM · #1

Am considering getting a longish prime and thought you guys might be able to help out?

First off even I only dream about the Canon 300mm F/2.8L IS USM (I'm not worthy). My shortlist currently has 2 lenses ...

Canon 300mm F/4L IS USM
Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM

I'm pretty sure there are good arguements for both? Price is not a deciding factor (the Canon is about 40% cheaper than the Sigma). Fred Miranda scores the Canon higher than the Sigma but am really drawn to the 2.8 (will be testing one on Monday).

I'd also want to use the 1.4 and 2.0 converters to get long and from what I've seen the Canon is better with the 1.4 whilst Sigma wins with a 2x (autofocus).

Am still in the research stage but if you were me (more money than sense/ability) which would you choose and do you have any alternatives?

Thanks

05/06/2006 08:11:47 PM · #2

I've considered all sorts of options, including buying a Nikon 300/2.8 AI or AIS and going it with manual focus. I've decided that if I can't do the Canon 300/2.8, I'm not doing it at all.
I would like the IS version, but will probably go for a used non-IS when I'm ready.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

05/06/2006 08:29:21 PM · #3

If you think you'll be using the 2x more than the 1.4x your choice appears to be an easy one, IMO.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/06/2006 09:01:18 PM · #4

It all depends on what you want to shoot.

The canon 4f is probly good for outdoor stuff such as wildlife, but not for sports. The 2.8 is a much better lens for that especially at night.

Don't get me wrong, the 4f could be used for outdoor sports, but once you get overcast skys, or it starts to get dusk, or dark, of long shadows interfere, your going to wish you spent the money on the 2.8f.

My 300mm 2.8f w/IS is for sports, and worth every penny.

Just my $.02 worth.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/06/2006 09:12:50 PM · #5

Thanks for all your replies, I'm still twix pillar and post although leaning toward the Sigma 2.8 a little more. Can anybody push me over the edge?

Prof_Fate

05/06/2006 09:55:20 PM · #6

//www.pbase.com/epphoto/image/58865061

300 2.8 IS.
Do it. You know you want to.
ON one hand it's only money, on the other - Happiness is a large white lens

Message edited by author 2006-05-06 21:56:21.

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

05/06/2006 10:36:20 PM · #7

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

//www.pbase.com/epphoto/image/58865061

300 2.8 IS.
Do it. You know you want to.
ON one hand it's only money, on the other - Happiness is a large white lens

whats the password for the image

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/06/2006 11:08:33 PM · #8

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

...I'd also want to use the 1.4 and 2.0 converters to get long and from what I've seen the Canon is better with the 1.4 whilst Sigma wins with a 2x (autofocus)...

Your 1D II will autofocus with the 2x TC on a 300mm f/4L IS...

05/07/2006 02:32:54 PM · #9

Originally posted by doctornick:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
...I'd also want to use the 1.4 and 2.0 converters to get long and from what I've seen the Canon is better with the 1.4 whilst Sigma wins with a 2x (autofocus)...

Your 1D II will autofocus with the 2x TC on a 300mm f/4L IS...

Yup, your right drnick (I should read the manual lol) with the 1.4 the centre AF point is a crosshair and with the 2x its F8 and the centre AF point becomes horizontal. Thanks for pointing that out its another poiint in favour of the F4 ;)

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/07/2006 03:06:01 PM · #10

the sigma 120-300 2.8 is considered better than the 300 2.8 prime. But the catch is the 120-300 actually only makes it to about 265mm.

05/08/2006 02:22:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by kyebosh:

the sigma 120-300 2.8 is considered better than the 300 2.8 prime. But the catch is the 120-300 actually only makes it to about 265mm.

hmm, so, its a 120-254 then ;)

I popped into Jossips today to meet the manager, he let me have a play with his Sigma 300/2.8. I only had a short play but it felt good. He also had a sigma 1.4 and 2x. now, here is something funny, I stacked the 1.4 and 2x on the 300/2.8 and got an 840mm 5.6 (yes 5.6)with autofocus. Any idea how that works as I was expecting an F/8 (I did notice the exif still said 5.6).

He uses it on his 20D and stacked has the 35mm equiv of a 1344mm F/5.6 for around Â£2k.

We tried my Canon 1.MKbut it didn't fit the simga but his Canon 1.4 MKI did (are Canon up to something?).

Anyway, whilst I liked the Sigma I may still save some dosh and get the Canon 300 F/4 IS

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

05/09/2006 04:16:32 PM · #12

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
the sigma 120-300 2.8 is considered better than the 300 2.8 prime. But the catch is the 120-300 actually only makes it to about 265mm.

hmm, so, its a 120-254 then ;)

I popped into Jossips today to meet the manager, he let me have a play with his Sigma 300/2.8. I only had a short play but it felt good. He also had a sigma 1.4 and 2x. now, here is something funny, I stacked the 1.4 and 2x on the 300/2.8 and got an 840mm 5.6 (yes 5.6)with autofocus. Any idea how that works as I was expecting an F/8 (I did notice the exif still said 5.6).

He uses it on his 20D and stacked has the 35mm equiv of a 1344mm F/5.6 for around Â£2k.

We tried my Canon 1.MKbut it didn't fit the simga but his Canon 1.4 MKI did (are Canon up to something?).

Anyway, whilst I liked the Sigma I may still save some dosh and get the Canon 300 F/4 IS

2.8 + 1 stop is 4.0
4.0 + 2 stops is F8.
One of the stacked teleconverters is either not reporting or reporting incorrectly.

05/09/2006 04:29:59 PM · #13

Originally posted by kyebosh:

2.8 + 1 stop is 4.0
4.0 + 2 stops is F8.
One of the stacked teleconverters is either not reporting or reporting incorrectly.

I believe this is usual behavior with those converters; only one will report, the second is invisible. One way to verify is to swap the order they are mounted. Should change the reported value. I assume the 2.0 was mounted nearest to the cam if f/5.6 was reported...

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/09/2006 04:45:19 PM · #14

Originally posted by kyebosh:

the sigma 120-300 2.8 is considered better than the 300 2.8 prime. But the catch is the 120-300 actually only makes it to about 265mm.

Almost 6 Lbs !!

Get $900 Sigma 100-300 F4.

Message edited by author 2006-05-09 16:48:07.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/09/2006 06:41:25 PM · #15

Thanks for the replies peeps, have just checked my bank balance and it would appear I have some more time to 'research' this ;)

petrakka

05/09/2006 06:54:47 PM · #16

Originally posted by American_Horse:

The best photographer at our paper uses the 300 mm f/4 for sports all the time, and does a kick ass job with it. Especially with canon's ISO difference (iso 1600 on nikon is usually exposed the same as iso 800 on canon) you could get away with the 300 f/4. He, however does not like to shoot it wide open very often because of a little bit of ghosting. In daylight he shoots its at f/8 but he's used it for the Illinois basketball games as well and gotten better results than me with a nikon 300 2.8 cuz the noise on the D1H is not good.

300 f/4 really should suffice, and..it's just me, but sigma is never the way to go. I think the only 3rd party lenses I would ever consider would be the tamron 28-75 and the tokina 12-24. I just don't like the build of Sigma's...even the EX lenses.

PShizzy

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

05/10/2006 02:16:03 AM · #17

Only you can say you need a 2.8 lens. Honestly, that's because you know better than anyone the exposure's you're getting for the venues and events you shoot at.

For me, I need ISO 1600 and 2.8 at 1/500th, so I have a 300 2.8 Canon (non IS). I also owned a Canon 300 4 non IS.

Both are RAZOR sharp. But I bought the 2.8 because the 4 can't cut it when I shoot indoor bball.

Now, I won't say the Sigma is or isn't sharper than the Canon. What I can say is that if you NEED 2.8, then there is no choice.

But, if you don't need 2.8, then I really like the Canon. Also, at that point, you might think about the Sigma 100-300 4. It's not a prime, but the versatility of that range has me thinking about getting one despite owning the 70-200 300 and 400 2.8 lenses.

So, think about how much you need the extra stop. And be honest with yourself. If you only would need that 2.8 for one event here and there, it might not pay off (unless those events have a lot of meaning/money behind them).

Max

Spork99

OM System OM-1

05/10/2006 03:02:53 AM · #18

You can always rent one and try it before you lay out the rock-star dollars.

gbautista87

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

05/10/2006 03:28:50 AM · #19

You're username seams to want to go with the Sigma.
It maybe an omen from the camera gods!

05/10/2006 01:12:41 PM · #20

Originally posted by PShizzy:

Only you can say you need a 2.8 lens.

Thanks Max, the truth of it is I don't need one, I want one! If I really needed one I'd buy the Sigma whilst saving for the Canon. Wanting and needing are two totally different things imho. The Jessops guy has offered to take me out one day to shoot with his Sigma and I may well take him up on it.

Dan, I've thought about renting, the daily price is worth it if I save myself possibly Â£1,000's if I don't get on with it, but, the deposit at Calumet is the ticket price (and I don't have that right now).

Lol Garret I'd never noticed that ;)

05/16/2006 05:53:54 PM · #21

I think my mind is made up. I was chatting with a canon 300/2.8 owner and he put me on to a friend who has just upgraded to the canon 300/2.8 and is selling his sigma 300/2.8 and sigma 1.4 at a decent price.

At least I'll be sure to have the highest scoring images from this lens as there are no reported owners here ;)

05/16/2006 05:57:29 PM · #22

Would be very interested to see a resolution test shot, wide open both with and without the converter... your pixel pitch is the same as mine, so the results would be quite relevant, excepting corner performance, of course.

05/16/2006 06:03:30 PM · #23

Originally posted by kirbic:

Not sure any of my results would be any good for you unless you use the 10D and compare against my 20D? I'll certainly be posting shots comparing the sigma 300/2.8 against the 100/400.

05/16/2006 06:08:00 PM · #24

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

...Not sure any of my results would be any good for you unless you use the 10D and compare against my 20D? I'll certainly be posting shots comparing the sigma 300/2.8 against the 100/400.

Actually, they should be directly relevant, ass-u-ming you're testing with the 1DMkIIn... The 5D and 1DMkIIn share the same sensor pixel pitch, the only differences would be the corners you'd not be capturing and the somewhat weaker AA filter on the 5D.