Is the Canon 300mm f2.8 Non IS better for sports?

M

McNyat

Messages
434
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
After having tried the Canon mk3 1.4 extender paired with my 70-200 f2.8 for football and not being impressed at all, Im going to go for a 300mm f2.8, and the cost of the IS version is a lot higher than the non IS version. Given that I will be using the lens with an R6 or R7 which have built in IS, would it be a waste of money going the extra cash for the IS version. This will be mostly used for sports and Ive read a good few times that IS is not recomended for sports? Can some of you more experienced kind people help with some good advice please?
 
This has been answered countless times on here.

The IS lens is significantly better than its non-IS counterpart, in terms of AF, design, lens coatings and (depending on version) weight.

The only plus sides for the non-IS are price and one less thing to go wrong.
 
DemiLion said:
This has been answered countless times on here.

The IS lens is significantly better than its non-IS counterpart, in terms of AF, design, lens coatings and (depending on version) weight.

The only plus sides for the non-IS are price and one less thing to go wrong.
Click to expand...
If anything does go wrong I think they are out of service so another advantage of the newer lenses
 
So this is still in my mind, but now considering the Sigma 300mm f2.8 as its nowhere near as expensive. Does anyone have experience with this lens and how it would compare to the Canon?
 
McNyat said:
So this is still in my mind, but now considering the Sigma 300mm f2.8 as its nowhere near as expensive. Does anyone have experience with this lens and how it would compare to the Canon?
Click to expand...
I had the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 for a while about ten-years ago and for me it performed very well. It doesn’t get great reviews and at the time the 150-300mm f/2.8 was better thought of and I often saw those in wildlife hides or at the race track. Never saw anyone else with the 300mm prime. I traded mine in against a Canon EF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS II which has been and remains very impressive and useful lens.

I briefly borrowed a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS and was very impressed with that, but was outside of my budget at the time.

If I was looking for a 300mm f/2.8 now, I’d find a used Canon rather than a Sigma.
 
Last edited:
GJW-Jump copy.jpgIMG_1077 copy.jpgGJW-Woodpecker copy.jpg

These were all taken with the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 and an EOS 50D. The car shots were taken with a 2x TC attached, the Woodpecker with just the bare lens.
 
GeeJay57 said:
View attachment 434670View attachment 434671View attachment 434672

These were all taken with the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 and an EOS 50D. The car shots were taken with a 2x TC attached, the Woodpecker with just the bare lens.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your response. I would be using mostly for field sports like football and really want the wide aperture of 2.8. Think I really want the Canon 300mm f2.8 and don't want to end up buying something else, and still craving the Canon. Guess I will jyst have to keep an eye out for the right kne at the right time. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top