- This topic is empty.
Canon or Sigma
-
hi all I have a canon 1d mk3 and a canon 70-200 f2.8 lens I have started doing some sports and bird photography. and would like to buy a longer lens , I have being looking at the canon 300mm f2.8 and the sigma 120-300 os f2.8 and would like some advice on the best option :D
I know nothing about Canon lenses, but I have the Sigma 300 2.8 and it is a
superb lens, a fraction of the price of a Canon too I would imagine. With the
2.8 you can use a 1.4 or 2x converter without too much degradation to the
picture……only increases it to a 5.6 600mm lens (on full frame camera) so
not bad at all.I have the Canon 300mm f/2.8 and it’s a wonderful lens. I use it for sport (rugby, football, etc). The clarity is just superb from it. A lens well worth considering, even at it’s price.
There is a Canon version for sale here. You should make an offer before it’s gone :)
If you can afford Canon, then Canon (L) is nice.
If not, then Sigma also lets you take good photos.
Simple as that.From an investment point of view though: With a few exceptions, buying good (esp. pro) OEM lenses is, relatively, a better investment; if you ever change your camera body, hold onto the glass… I bought all my OEM lenses years ago, s/h. If I ever wanted to sell any of them again, I’d get my money back (well, for the pro-glass anyway).
Personally, I rather buy pro s/h than consumer new, for various reasons. My oldest SLR glass is perhaps decades old. Works like the day it was made. Lets me take very good pics. Is fast. Easy to use. Doesn’t depreciate. ….. But if you’re on a budget, the Sigma may well make sense of course, although I think it is rather big (which may not be a factor). Tried a nice teleconverter for your 70-200? You might like it, if not, sell it on. Cheaper and more flexible option if you can handle the f-stop loss, which should be ok these days.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
