Swap Canon 300 f4 for Sigma 120-300 f2.8 HSM?

[brian_wallace5]

<p>I currently own the Canon EF 300mm F4 IS USM lens - a lens I like a great deal. However, I've been shooting more night stuff and F4 just doesn't cut it. I came across a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 HSM (not the newer optically stabilized version) for about what I could sell my Canon for - so my question is this - should I do it? <br>

The lose of IS/OS isn't a big deal to me - I usually monopod the 300 f4 and while I know the Sigma won't be as sharp wide open it appears to be equally sharp to the 300 f4 when stopped down to f4. My main goal is to be able to take pictures in lower light. I also know that I'll never be able to afford the Canon 300 f2.8 or the Sigma 300 f2.8 for that matter. </p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Why not bump the ISO? That's only 1 stop difference.</p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

<p>With the ISO bump, f2.8 vs. f4 will give you two stops ;-)</p>

<p>I seem to recall that the biggest complaint about the old 120-300/2.8 wasn't the optical quality, but the unreliability of the lens, especially in it's zoom function.</p>

<p>I clicked over to lensrentals.com (where I had seen 'Roger's take' on the lens awhile ago), and found this: <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/05/lens-repair-data-3-0">http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/05/lens-repair-data-3-0</a><br>

Their 120-300s (in 09) had the higgest failure rate of all the lenses on the report - at 41%! That of course is a place that ships lenses over all creation, to unknown users, and circumstance, but that is still a heck of number!</p>

<p>If you <em>do</em> end up choosing to get it (which, if I were in your shoes, I probably would - despite the unreliability issues), I'd have somebody do a<strong><em> very</em></strong> thorough job of inspecting it. -- while you have the option to return it!</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>A used Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L USM should be in your ballpark. There used to be lots of them on eBay two years back. Can't see any today on eBay. Also, note that parts for this first generation EF lens are no longer available from Canon.</p>

[jack_the_hat]

<p>I would avoid the Sigma like the plague. Trust me, I've used quite a few Sigma lenses and their reliability is definitely suspect. Don't get me wrong, I have two Sigmas in my bag now (12-24 and 50 f1.4) but I'll risk keeping them as they didn't cost the earth. There's no way I would invest big money in any Sigma product. The actual glass in most Sigma lenses is good but the rest of the lens construction is suspect.</p>

<p>If f4 is seriously not going to work for you then, personally, I would buy a Canon 200mm f2.8L and crop my images or get closer where possible. I have one that I use alongside my 300mm f4L and it is an outstanding lens. It's razor sharp, small, black and reasonably light. Not only that, I think the price is very cheap for what you get. The only downside is no IS. If you need IS, consider a 70-200 f2.8 but they're much more expensive.</p>

<p>With the Sigma lens you'll have the joy of wondering when the aperture will start to stick and the AF will malfunction. Then when you upgrade your camera you'll have the interesting experience of wondering if the Sigma lens will function on the newer body.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Nonsense as to avoid the Sigma like the Plague, I have the 100-300 f/4 about 5 years, the Sigma fisheye about 3 years, and the Sigma 150 macro about 7 years. I have never had any problems with the lens. I have had to sent a couple of Canon lens in for repair but they were over 10 years old. <br>

I have a Sigma 400 f/5.6 telemacro that I believe was last made in 2004, my lens is at least 10 years old and still works fine. Will only work at f 5.6 with the newer Canon cameras but that is not a problem most of the time. I don't visit photo.net too often but I believe that I have some photos taken with that lens on this site.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>I also would not recommend "avoiding Sigma like the plague." They make lots of high quality and reliable lenses, and makes some lenses (like the 120-300/2.8) that other manufacturers don't. For the record, I was not a huge fan of the original 120-300/2.8 as the AF was a bit iffy, reliability problematic, and there was no stabilization system. However, I have the new one, which I absolutely adore... but unfortunately, it is way out of your price range. <br>

Given all of this, unless a stop is really going to make or break you, the 300/4 is probably the way to go. If you are a sports/action shooter, it might be better to upgrade or snag a 200/2.8, but if you are doing wildlife, you are going to have to ditch the monopod for a tripod and monkey around with mirror lockup and remote release to get better pictures out of the Sigma than the Canon. </p>

[jack_the_hat]

<blockquote>

<p>Nonsense as to avoid the Sigma like the Plague<br>

I have never had any problems...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>but then...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Will only work at f 5.6 with the newer Canon cameras but that is not a problem most of the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>____________________________________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also would not recommend "avoiding Sigma like the plague." They make lots of high quality and reliable lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>but then...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was not a huge fan of the original 120-300/2.8 as the AF was a bit iffy, reliability problematic, and there was no stabilization system.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>Seriously people, stop kidding yourselves. Sigma = trouble in the long run.</p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>I'm going to give it a shot. I've got a 14 day return window and a six month warranty. My hunch is that it'll go back but I'll try it out first. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Jack, you make me laugh!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would avoid the Sigma like the plague.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>but then...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have two Sigmas in my bag now (12-24 and 50 f1.4)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All manufacturers have 'problem lenses', poor designs, and sometimes iffy products, both Sigma <em>and</em> Canon have had all three. Personally, I've had more Canon (both L and not) lenses fail utterly than Sigmas, does that mean I'd <em>'avoid Canon like the plague'</em> ? Of course not! what idiocy... I'll bet I've had more Canon lenses fail then you've had Sigmas fail... ;-)</p>

<p>The bottom line is that a lens is an electro-mechanical tool, and some will inevitably fail -- some designs are more prone to it than others, and, depending on how/what you photograph, it's something to consider when purchasing. But... When your favorite manufacturer doesn't offer a tool in the size you need, you have to buy it from another. Both the 120-300/2.8, and the 12-24 are unique lenses -- Sigma is the only game in town. You can't even spend an <em>obscene</em> amount more and get an equivalent lens to the 12-24 or 120-300/2.8. so If you need/want that capability (as both Jack, and Brian, seem to) '<em>avoiding Sigma like the plague</em>' is only going to hurt you. <br>

Personally, I can't speak to the reliability of the 120-300/2.8 as I've never owned, or even shot w/ one. My link before was to the only source of absolute lens reliability I've ever found. But the Sigs I've owned have all proven to be just as reliable as their Canon counterparts (vastly more reliable in some cases). I'd never say that Sigs are better than Canons due to that experience (though maybe Roger could say the opposite ;-) ), but given their top of line lenses perform (optically) only marginally worse than the Canon L equiv., and functionally identical, but come at 1/2->2/3 the price, it's certainly a brand that's worth considering on a lens by lens basis IMHO.</p>

[manuel_barrera]

<p>Jack, if the Canon lens were perfect you would have an argument. Seriously, buy some Sigma Lens and enjoy them. Try the Canon 50m f/1.4 or check the rating out on some of the L lens on Fred Miranda, from people that actually use them, not people that read reviews. That 400 Sigma works great with my 1D and 1Ds which I still own. How many Canon lens does Jack own? How many Sigmas has Jack owned? What was wrong with the Sigma lens, Jack? </p>

[jack_the_hat]

<blockquote>

<p>Jack, you make me laugh!</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p> I would avoid the Sigma like the plague.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The word <strong>"the"</strong> signifies I was talking about avoiding <strong>the</strong> Sigma 120-300 like the plague, not necessarily all Sigmas (although I am starting to think that).</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jack, if the Canon lens were perfect you would have an argument. Seriously, buy some Sigma Lens and enjoy them. Try the Canon 50m f/1.4 or check the rating out on some of the L lens on Fred Miranda, from people that actually use them, not people that read reviews. That 400 Sigma works great with my 1D and 1Ds which I still own. How many Canon lens does Jack own? How many Sigmas has Jack owned? What was wrong with the Sigma lens, Jack?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Let's be realistic. If all DSLR users could justify and afford genuine Canon/Nikon lenses EVERY time then Sigma as a company would not exist. With a few exceptions, Sigma simply makes cheaper variants of Canon & Nikon lenses. Unless you really need a 12-24mm zoom, a 120-300 f2.8 or a 200-500mm f2.8 then Canon and Nikon usually have a better equivalent lens in their line up.</p>

<p>So, unless you're using a 12-24mm zoom, a 120-300 f2.8 or a 200-500mm f2.8, you're using a lens that you bought <strong>purely because it was cheaper</strong> (unless you have an aversion to white lenses). No doubt someone will come along and remind me of another "unique" lens in the Sigma line up but you get my drift.</p>

<p>I bought the Sigma 12-24mm because it's unique. Canon don't have an equivalent. I also own the Sigma 50mm f1.4 because is optically superior to the Canon 50mm f1.4 and is a quarter of the price of the Canon 50mm f1.2L. I'll take the risk that my Sigma 50mm might break (again) considering it was not <em>too</em> expensive (See above paragraph).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How many Canon lens does Jack own? How many Sigmas has Jack owned? What was wrong with the Sigma lens, Jack?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We can all only give advice according to our own experience. My current lens line up is:<br>

Sigma 12-24<br>

Canon 28mm f1.8<br>

Canon 50mm f1.8<br>

Sigma 50mm f1.4<br>

Canon 85mm f1.8<br>

Vivitar 100mm f3.5 macro (great optics, diabolical build... but £100 GBP so who gives?)<br>

Canon 24-105mm f4L IS<br>

Canon 200mm f2.8L II<br>

Canon 300mm f4.0L IS<br>

Canon 1.4x II</p>

<p>I have used and owned many other Canon and Sigma lenses. I can honestly say that I have never EVER had a problem with a Canon lens of any description. On the contrary, I have owned at least 10 different Sigma lenses and only one lens never gave me a problem (Sigma 10-20mm). All the others, including my 12-24mm and my BRAND NEW 50mm f1.4 have given me grief as follows:</p>

<p>Sticky apertures<br>

Non-functioning AF<br>

Faulty AF<br>

Optics moving<br>

Failure to work on future camera models<br>

Poorly calibrated focus (my new 50mm f1.4 - now corrected)</p>

<p>So, you can all go ahead and keep buying Sigma but I've had enough. I am going to sell my 12-24mm soon and if my 50mm f1.4 gives me any more trouble it is going back under warranty (again).</p>

 

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Jack, I was speaking about a specific lens in question rather than a blanket statement about Sigma. The old 120-300 was a bit iffy as for reliability (as verified by lensrentals.com), but the new one so far seems great. Sure, Sigma makes some dogs, but so does everyone else. I'm guessing you bought the Sigma 50/1.4 because you didn't want to bother with the horribly unreliable Canon offering.</p>

<p>In fact, if you look at the reliability data at lensrentals.com, no particular manufacturer really jumps off the page as making lenses that are consistently more or less reliable than anyone else. Given that they handle 1000s of lenses, I would trust their data more than anyone anecdotal experiences (mine included!)</p>