A&P Sigma 100-300 f4 + 1.4x or Bigma

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by turbodude, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Ok here is my dilemma folks. I am a working photog in Las Vegas. I only make my living by photography. I am a bit of a jack of all trades, with no set Niche. I do very well out here. However its time where i realize i need a longer lens....

    Currently my kit includes:
    30d and 40d
    20 1.8
    30 1.4
    10-22
    70-200 2.8 + 1.4x when needed
    18-50 2.8

    I use all these lenses for different reasons:

    Primes and std zoom for events, night clubs, and concerts

    UWA and std zoom for Real Estate

    70-200 for kids sports and "celeb" work

    Im looking for more reach for "celeb" shots and kids football. my budget is shy of $1000 and i need a zoom. I also need quality glass. I dont care if its an L or Sigma. Sigma has always done me right. and every L ive used or owned left me wanting for the price i paid.

    So what i was thinkg is getting a 100-300 f4 with use of my extender when needed. But some love teh quality of the Bigma.

    Anyone here used both?

    I hear the 100-300 f4, is almost on par with the 300 f4 L... and f4 is great for shots when i need a bit of speed (i would get the 120-300 2.8 if it wasnt out of my price range)


    im more or less 60% getting the 100-300.. but the extra 100mm is really in my mind when dealing with the Bigma....

    I need your help.
     
  2. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can tell you all about the 100-300 f4. In short, it's excellent.

    I shot a golf tournament using both the 400 2.8 and the sigma 100-300. I sometimes got confused as to which pictures were taken with which. The sigma is extremely sharp at f4... sharper than most 70-200s at 2.8. Focus is fast, although mine does front focus near the minimum focusing distance (after being re-chipped). The lens seems to add a slight yellowish hue to the images.

    Part of me says however if you already own a 70-200 and 1.4 converter the 100-300 is kind of a waste.

    If you want more reach for celeb shots I'm guessing you're often shooting them in low light at events? an F4 lens isn't going to focus quite as well as your 70-200. For field sports the 100-300 is excellent, but the 70-200 + converter comes close. A number of people have used the bigma for field sports with good results, but I would not attempt to use it for celeb shots.

    Have you considered the 400 5.6 at all for field sports? You could have your 70-200 on the other body (with converter even) to give you a nice range for field stuff.

    Ohhh yeah, and the 100-300 does well with the sigma 1.4 extender, but you do take a slight autofocus speed hit. I sold my extender bacause it was slowing down AF a little too much for football.
     
  3. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    What about the Sigma 300 f2.8 or the 120-300 f2.8? Both around $2500.
     
  4. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    reading comprehension?
     
  5. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    When i say celeb shots i meant paparazzi shots, i just hate being called paparazzi. Since i am never in their face, i choose to stake out and shoot from afar and they never really know im there. The only time i am even close proximity is when they are in a nightclub.

    i need the reach, and good focus. I want the 100-300 f4 so i can still use that in an indoor setting, but when i am outside i want to be able to use a 1.4x to extend my range. I considered the 400, but its too long for indoor spy shots. i need the zoom. Sometimes i am shooting from a hotel room shooting at the pool, so its important to have the extender. Im afraid that the bigma wont get me what i need indoors at all.

    I really wish i could afford the 120-300 2.8 as it would completely solve all my problems and also allow me to use a 2x which extends out the lens to 600 5.6. But im looking for a lens in the meantime. I fuckin missed a shot of eva longoria this weekend that could have sold for 3k and solved all this bullshit, but i need a longer lens. the 70-200 with the tc, wasnt long enough to get the shot, couldnt even crop, it was too small for them.


    my ultimate tele setup, which i will get in a couple months after a couple good payday, (July 4th is coming!!! celebs everywhere) is 50-150 2.8, 120-300 2.8, and hopefully one day the 400 2.8...

    then ill have the complete range.

    I think i made up my mind. 100-300 is probably gonna keep me good until i can afford the 120-300
     
  6. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  7. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    aint gonna happen.... gotta be discrete
     
  8. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    if you're on a budget you could always get the canon 2x teleconverter and stick it on the 70-200 2.8, I've seen shots from that combo and they looked damn good, almost as good as the 100-400L
     
  9. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    :o didn't see your budget.
     
  10. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    focus is terrible with the 2x indoors. not reliable enough for me to use it.
     
  11. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    where would you need more than 200mm indoors, unless it was a sporting event, but then it should be well lit anyhow :o
     
  12. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas

    does anyone read?!
     

Share This Page