Med to Long Tele Choices

[Mr. Pickles]

If all these cost the same, which would you tend to buy for some sports and some wildlife shooting, and why? All have possibilities, in their own right, and I'm leaning towards one, then the other, then...

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM
Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM
Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

If all these cost the same, which would you tend to buy for some sports and some wildlife shooting, and why? All have possibilities, in their own right, and I'm leaning towards one, then the other, then...

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM
Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM
Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM

Pickles, for sports in good light, the Canon lens. I say good light because it doesn't have IS and you'll need high ISOs in bad light--or a tripod. The L makes a difference.

For nature, none of the above. They're all too short. Wildlife requires a minimum of 400mm plus teleconverters, often, I believe. Anything less will find you frustrated too often.

[philhill]

Consider also the Canon 200mm f:2.8 L with the Canon 1.4x extender.* The extender can be added later, of course, depending on your budget.

[natural_light]

Hi, this is my first post to PhotoCamel - so thanks for letting me join.

I've just bought the Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM IS lens, which matches the 28-70 f2,4 L lens I've had, and the results are fantastic.

The lens is pricey (EUR2000 / about 1.20EUR to the $) but worth it to me for portraits / fashion / nude abstracts, and some sports photography for my son's soccer league.

It's heavy - 1.4kg /3lbs? - but given the Image Stabiliser and the incredible sharpness at large apertures it's still okay to hand hold.

If anyone's interested in examples of the two lenses (same conditions, tripod / hand held, etc.) then let me know.
cheers
Michael Morris
Luxembourg
www.morris.lu

[JDArt]

Micheal, yes, would love to see samples. Welcome to the site.

[dc2]

For me the canon

[Gbee]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

If all these cost the same, which would you tend to buy for some sports and some wildlife shooting, and why? All have possibilities, in their own right, and I'm leaning towards one, then the other, then...

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM
Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM
Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM

I instinctively go for the Canon for weatherproofing and superior AF and tracking. Beautiful balance and extremely light [compared to its ƒ2.8 version].

Next is the Sigma 70~200 ƒ2.8, reasonably fast in AF, for a Sigma very smooth focusing but a little lame in the tracking department. IMO Sigma has a fine lens in this one at an attractive price. Sacrifice weatherproofing and [good] tracking ability for the extra ƒ-stop, that’s a tempting proposition and one I’d be inclined to favour.

I’ve been put off the 100~300ƒ4 for relatively poor reviews, it’s reported as noisy, slow AF [no tracking in reality] with less than stellar image qualities unless stopped down 2~3 ƒ-stops, not to be confused with it’s professional ƒ2.8 version but you do pay more.

In my own wandering around recently for a new long lens the Canon 400mm L ƒ5.6 came in for some strong consideration ~ it’s performance is excellent and image qualities are phenomenal. This might be above your budget and 400mm, whilst fantastic is not as versatile as a 70~200 ƒ2.8 and 2x or/1.4x extenders, the ƒ4 lens are not suitable for use with extenders ~ but there is always someone how will show me different,

[Remford]

Originally Posted by philhill

Consider also the Canon 200mm f:2.8 L with the Canon 1.4x extender.* The extender can be added later, of course, depending on your budget.

I tend to very much favor this approach.* There's no question that the EF 70-200 f/4 L USM is a wonderful lens, and both of the other candidates certainly deserve the fans they've won; but I would tend to recommend the EF 200 f/2.8 L and Canon TC 1.4x Mark II combination for its overall value, clarity, and the reach it can offer.* I personally HATE the notion of using an extender when I have made such significant investments toward otherwise ensuring the very best performance, but the fact remains that the 1.4x TC works better with primes than most zooms do by themselves; and it's only with this caveat that I recommend it.

Bear in mind that you are nearing an investment of $1,000 however, and absent stabilization, which is a tremendous benefit at longer reaches and can affect image quality more than even the best glass in many circumstances, you may want to widen your search.* For example, the Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" is a tremendously sharp 10x zoom that many marvel at.* You might also consider the new EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, which I received last week, and found it to be absolutely tremendous at almost half the cost.* It is tremendously sharp, vivid, and I've shot handheld reliably at 300mm with 1/20 shutter speeds.* Its IS is a godsend and they've seemed to correct ALL of the sins of its predecessors.* In fact, I own two L telephoto zooms (the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM and EF 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS USM), and absolutely love the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM for its compactness, performance, and price.* I gladly keep it beside the other two; and I would certainly say it is the best value by far.

I hope this helps, my friend.* Best of luck.

E.

[burningarrow]

Originally Posted by Gbee

.........

I’ve been put off the 100~300ƒ4 for relatively poor reviews, it’s reported as noisy, slow AF [no tracking in reality] with less than stellar image qualities unless stopped down 2~3 ƒ-stops, not to be confused with it’s professional ƒ2.8 version but you do pay more.

You must be reading the wrong reviews or maybe the reviews of a different 100-300 :
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1

[mikej]

The 70-200 4.0L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses. And even not knowing what pictures from the Sigma's look like, I will bet the Canon will beat them in sharpness, crispness and contrast.

The 70-200 4.0L is also very light weight and small compared to the 70-200 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS. The cost is a lot less too. I bought my 4.0L for around $400 used. Even new the price isn't bad. I also have the 70-200 2.8L IS, which I bought for the 2.8 speed. I use the IS but most of the time I need to shoot action and IS won't help you with that.

Depending on what wildlife you are going after, the 70-200 can work very well as long as you don't need the reach of a longer lens. I also have the 100-400 4.5/5.6L and it doesn't have the reach for a lot of birds and other animals. So the 100-300 Sigma won't be that helpful for you either. Teleconverters can help, but they have their down side as well. Even on fast lenses.

All around, I would go with the Canon lens.

Mike

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

If all these cost the same, which would you tend to buy for some sports and some wildlife shooting, and why? All have possibilities, in their own right, and I'm leaning towards one, then the other, then...

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM
Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM
Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM

I chose the 70-200 f/4L USM. I use this lens more than I thought I would. I did a comparision with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM.
I say "comparison" because it wasn't an exhaustive test. Essentially, I found the Canon to be surprisingly quicker on the AF and
quite a bit lighter. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM is a very nice lens, and I impressed with the overall value. However, the Canon presented
to me an even better value at $469 USD (Canon reconditioned). Even if I get an f/2.8 version down the road, I'm keeping
this one. The combination of being lightweight, flexible and delivering superb optical performance is wonderful.

The f/4 will tend to fall on it's face for inside sports, however it will perform fairly well in outside venues, but you'll still have to
be rather close to the action. It's also a pretty good lens for wildlife, if the wildlife is rather large or close.

I know very little about the Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM. But I do know that folks adore it's big brother the 120-300 f/2.8. I've worked
with that lens in the store and to say that it's a "hefty" lens would be an understatement. With that said, i've also read that
it's an absolute "cracker" for sports and doubles as a great wildlife zoom taking to the 1.4 and 2.0x TCs rather well*with pleasing results.