Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport vs. 400 f/2.8L IS Mark I

[cookestudios]

Hey all,

Long story short: I need a long, fast lens both for horse shows and classical music concerts (where it's dark, but I can't close to the stage). I'm between the Sigma 120-300 Sport and the first version of 400L IS. Has anyone used both or even just one and have an opinion? The weight of the 400 does not bother me, though I'm wondering if I'll miss the versatility of a zoom. Thanks!

 

[privatebydesign]

Do you need 400mm or up to 300mm? Massive difference, work that out first then look at available lenses.

 

[cookestudios]

I need 400, but the Sigma is known to take a 1.4x teleconverter well.

 

[privatebydesign]

I need 400, but the Sigma is known to take a 1.4x teleconverter well.

Then it is an f4, if a 400 f4 will work you have other options. An EF 300 f2.8 and 1.4 TC for instance. But getting the focal length you need by the constant use of TC's is not the best way to look at it. If I needed 400 then I'd take a 400 f2.8 over a 120-300 with TC for a 420 f4 every time. Sure zooming is nice, but if you need 400 then a 120-300 isn't going to help you much.

However, I have a friend who is a working pro and he loves his 120-300, though he doesn't use a TC with it he does shoot with crop cameras.

 

[cookestudios]

I need 400, but the Sigma is known to take a 1.4x teleconverter well.

Then it is an f4, if a 400 f4 will work you have other options. An EF 300 f2.8 and 1.4 TC for instance. But getting the focal length you need by the constant use of TC's is not the best way to look at it. If I needed 400 then I'd take a 400 f2.8 over a 120-300 with TC for a 420 f4 every time. Sure zooming is nice, but if you need 400 then a 120-300 isn't going to help you much.

However, I have a friend who is a working pro and he loves his 120-300, though he doesn't use a TC with it he does shoot with crop cameras.

All correct, yes, and you're absolutely right about the need. However, I'm more curious about shooting experiences; there are ups and downs to both for me, and I can make either work, so I'm looking for some more input.

 

[entropy69]

I use the sigma 120-300 sport with a canon 1.4 III extender, mainly for windsurfing and soccer. I had it calibrated and it's tack sharp. Having the zoom is really versatile, on the soccer field I can shoot with one lens, with a fixed 400 I would need a second camera for sure. Although the AF is not as quick and snappy as the 70-200 is usm ii, it's value for money is quite good for this lens. Also use a monopod since handheld shooting is not an option. I would try to rent them both for a day and see what works for you needs. This one is shot with the 5d mk iv, 120-300 and 1.4 converter: https://www.flickr.com/photos/entropy69/29603534785

 

[canon1dxman]

I had the Sigma Sport for a few months. Yep, tack sharp but heavy and tiresome for a few hours hand holding. Fine with a pod. The hood also had a propensity to fall off. Just a screw coming loose but annoying. As has been said earlier, rent them for a day.

 

[Murdy]

I don't know about the 400, but avoid the Sigma if you're going to shoot concerts in a low-light situation. The auto focus is shockingly bad in low light. The lens is fine if you don't mind using manual focus.