Sigma 120-300 or alternative zoom?
 

I am after a zoom that covers the 100ish to 300ish range, to be used for sports and wildlife/birding (the latter perhaps with 1.4 or 2* TC attached). I have focal lengths up to 200 well covered, and could use my 70-200 f2.8 with a TC, but that slows the focussing speed down quite a lot when using AI servo. I also already have a 500mm prime. The lens would be mounted on a 1DsII.
My list of possibles are the sigma 120-300 f2.8, 100-300 f4, and the canon 100-400L. I'm not too bothered by IS - I can handhold the 500mm prime reasonably well, and if the light is too low, use a mono/tripod. I like the internal zoom and focus of the two sigma lenses, as it makes handling the lens much easier, and like the idea of a fast apeture for a nice bright view-finder, fast shutter speeds for sport and critical focussing. It would also give a 600mm f5.6 AF combo with a 2*TC, which appeals for birding. Downsides of the 120-300 are cost and weight when compared to the other two lenses, and I have read of focussing issues when used with 1 series bodies.
Any experience/views would be appreciated to help me choose. Thanks

Hi Gordon, The sigma 120-300mm 2.8 zoom is an attractive proposition on paper, and I considered it. However, check out an example in the flesh if you can, as I didn't particularly liked the way it handled, but I realise many don't mind it and think they are the best lenses since sliced bread! lol. The flexibilty of being able to zoom back to 120mm instead of reaching down for the second body with the 80-200mm 2.8 means in theory you don't miss the shot.
In terms of focus speed a 300mm 2.8 prime (and 80-200mm) is waaay faster on my older Nikon bodies, most noticeable with the F5 film body.
The example I tried that came into the shop I used to work at wasn't that much quicker than my 80-200 with 1.4x converter! Others may find different with newer bodies, maybe?
Checkout the Sigma 300mm 2.8. I got the old version, but the new ones are equally mega small and lightweight for such a bright lens. (my old Tamron 300mm was about a third bigger and heavier)
Not much experience of the Canon lenses myself, but I know the 100-400 canon L has a major following. Mario has one, and the times I've tried it it's been very snappy focusing, with a familar push-pull zoom normally reserved for shorter focal lengths....kind thinking the 5.6 aperture might be limiting during these winter months though??..and nothing beats a nice narrow depth of field 'punch' of the big glass

Sigma 120-300 or alternative zoom?
 

Hello Gordon, I have some experiences with a Canon EOS zoom lens which I bought to use with a Canon EOS 50e film camera as advised by a Canon dealer some moons ago. He said that it would be ideal for wildlife photography which was what I wanted to do as I live where we are rich in wildlife. It was an Ultrasonic f1.4-5.6 Mk 2. As I have been heavily into wildlife/birds etc. In use , it was always short of light throughput on the upper end. The dealer suggested that I should try a x2 mag adapter, so I did. This cut down the light even more. I now had a 600mm equivalent mag but, unless the ambient light was exceptional, I was very disappointed with the results. The lens quality was , in my humble opinion, nowhere near as good as my fixed lens Mamiya that I inherited from my father. I suggest you do not go the same route as me, even with a digital body, because I think you will be disappointed. To do birds really well you need a lens that is massive in size, that rules me out because I am unable to carry it around over rough ground. I suggest you find an expert bird-snapper and , if possible, try some really good lenses. Trouble is, you are looking at a bill of 4 figs. and the strength to lug it around. I have managed to obtain some reasonabl shots with an excellent Ultrazoom digital camera and it is light to carry, they are pocket size now. I have attached an example of a drake eider that I shot in Seahouses harbour on an overcast day with my digital with the zoom at max (x12), with IS on, and just hand-held. I am no photography expert, more of a birder than a snapper, but I hope this is food for thought for you, Happy Christmas, colpurps.

100-400mm L .
If budget low and you insist on a boosting measure to herniate your cervical or lumbar discs, then consider Sigma 50-500mm. Well both are a bit slower than your porposed Bigma choice but then you get a larger range especially if zoom + birding is in consideration.
Becareful of TC compatibility issues.

Thanks for the advice so far. Joe - the prime sounds a good choice for birding/wildlife, but could be a problem for sports. I would probably have to take a second body with a shorter zoom on for closer shots, not sure that would work for me. (My back-up body is a 400D, so noticeably slower, with less capable AF) I might have a practice with 2 bodies to see how it feels.
Sassan - I agree about the 50-500. It's a cracking les for the money - in fact I have owned 2 of them. But when needing to zoom in and out rapidly, the huge change in length of the lens really affects the balance, and the weight of the mechanism makes it hard to do with the camera up to your eye handheld. Also a rather slow apeture for fast sports such as rugby and soccer on unlit pitches on winter afternoons.
I dont find heavy kit a problem to carry around - even my full kit load is lighter than the load for a rock climbing day, and much better than an ice-climbing trip!

Then Gordon consider 100-400L as your best bet.

Well with L lenses you don't go wrong with two aspects; First quality is unmatched. In fact after using your first L lens, it is hard to add any non-L lens to your gadget.
Second; if it is not what you liked, with ebay at hand you are almost sure to get back what you paid for if lens is to be sell in mint condition say in less than a year time or only depreciating by 10% or so for next few years as no lens (Or for that matter photographic tools) keeps its value better than a Canon L lens. So you still have opportunity of going for the simga at the end if not happy with 100-400 that frankly I doubt. Not forget that with slower Canon lens, you will pay almost half of what you should pay for the sigma.

I looked at the 120-300 recently but decided it was just too big and bulky for what you get. The IQ was good, but not up to the standard of the primes I normally use. I have owned a 100-300 f4 which was very good and worked nicely with a 1.4x tc, but I chopped it in against a 100-400 IS... the Canon was sharper wide open and gave richer colours. If you want the length then the Canon is the better option, if you need speed then Sigmas have the edge.

Thanks Sassan and Peter.
I have had the chance to handle a 100-400L - no doubt it's a quality lens, but I didnt really like the zoom action. Having been used to an internal zoom, which I can adjust with my thumb without removing the camera from my eye whilst hand-holding, I found it a bit cumbersome. Also, I think I would find it a little slow for the frequent poor light it would be used in.
So it comes down to the sigma 100-300 f4 or 120-300 f2.8. As speed is my priority for this zoom range, I'm going to look at the 120-300 first and see how it feels on the 1DsII body. Thanks for all the help everyone - I'll let you know how it goes.

there's a Sigma 120-300 up for sale on BF - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread....53#post1369953 might be worth a look.

Thanks for the heads up Peter. I picked it up this evening - first impressions are that it is a big heavy lens, but that it fits my hand well and balances with the 1DsII body nicely. Unfortunately it only has the older small tripod foot, but considering the price compared to new that is a smll niggle. I have only checked it out indoors, but even in the low light the focus seems quick and accurate. It hunts a little on low contrast scenes in the dim light, but no more than most other lenses I think. Havent been able to test it on moving subjects yet.
I'll test it out over the next week or so and give a more considered opinion.