Canon or Sigma: Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors.

DonOles

Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors. The Canon has the longer focal length but the sigma is faster at 2.8. Can i push the iso on the 1DX high enough to compensate for the slower lens or will the Sigma work better since it's a 2.8

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

DonOles wrote:

Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors. The Canon has the longer focal length but the sigma is faster at 2.8. Can i push the iso on the 1DX high enough to compensate for the slower lens or will the Sigma work better since it's a 2.8

Get the Sigma, you will NEVER regret it!

And you could add a 1.4x TC and STILL be faster than the Canon.

ronf78155 Loc: Seguin Texas

Get the Canon......you can always adjust the ISO and the Canon quality cannot be matched

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

DonOles wrote:

Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors. The Canon has the longer focal length but the sigma is faster at 2.8. Can i push the iso on the 1DX high enough to compensate for the slower lens or will the Sigma work better since it's a 2.8

I can count on one hand the number of times the ISO on my cameras has been set above 200, and I didn't like any of those shots. Years ago, one of my first zoom lenses had a variable max aperture, and I simply did not like it. Other's mileage may vary.

So, based on the two lens you've mentioned, I'd have no problem choosing the Sigma. Couple that with the fact that I own some Sigma ART lenses, and this would be a 'no-brainer' for me. Although I don't own a 'Sport' version, I've read they are very good.

Good luck in making your choice. Post up some images when you get the new lens.

Vietnam Vet

indoors you will want a 2.8

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

DonOles wrote:

Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors. The Canon has the longer focal length but the sigma is faster at 2.8. Can i push the iso on the 1DX high enough to compensate for the slower lens or will the Sigma work better since it's a 2.8

FWIW - I would always opt for the 2.8 over a 4.5-5.6 variable. Faster is better over all... you can easily crop afterwards to get in a tad closer when shot with the Sigma, a shot is better then no shot due to lack of light.

Even if you end up shooting the Sigma at f/4.0, it still focuses and meters at 2.8 where the 4.5-5.6 focuses and meters between 4.5 & 5.6.

DonOles

Bruce thanks for the reply. Can you comment on the Sigma 250-600 contemporary for outdoor baseball and wildlife shooting

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DonOles wrote:

Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors. The Canon has the longer focal length but the sigma is faster at 2.8. Can i push the iso on the 1DX high enough to compensate for the slower lens or will the Sigma work better since it's a 2.8

Go Canon the Sigma reviews badly, have the Canon and it is a great lens. If you are going to spend that much money you may consider a gently used Canon 300mm f/2.8, I have only ever heard great things about it.

User ID

brucewells wrote:

can count on one hand the number of times
ISO on my cameras has been set above 200,
........

If that was for hockey, my hat is off to you.
Taking it off so I can EAT it !

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

As much as I like the Canon. The F2.8 Sigma will better suit your needs. Especially if you are shooting indoors or under stadium lights. The 1DX is super on ISO but you don't want to be shooting more that F4 in low lighting situations with it. Congrats on the 1DX, it will be my next acquisition. I am doing enough D1 football this year I should be able to get one my the first of the year.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Blurryeyed wrote:

Go Canon the Sigma reviews badly, have the Canon and it is a great lens. If you are going to spend that much money you may consider a gently used Canon 300mm f/2.8, I have only ever heard great things about it.

👍👍 Exactly. It’s no lightweight (~6lbs), so you’re probably going to shoot from a monopod, but it is a great lens for low light sports or event photography, and I’m betting a better IQ than the Sigma zoom (which is no slouch). And you can add the Canon 1.4x MKII or MKIII TCs to get 420 mm at f4 (or the 2x for 600 mm at f5.6). My son just purchased the non IS version of this lens for ~$1300 from KEH, and it is a remarkable low light (indoor sports) lens and sharp as the proverbial tack, even with the extender.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

TriX wrote:

👍👍 Exactly. It’s no lightweight (~6lbs), so you’... (show quote)

Really, $1300, for birding and daytime sports I am not so sure that IS would be important, that is a good price.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Blurryeyed wrote:

Really, $1300, for birding and daytime sports I am not so sure that IS would be important, that is a good price.

Yep, no need for IS when you’re shooting at 1/500 or faster. I have this lens “on loan” from my son, and despite the weight, you just have to love the speed and sharpness.

Btw, while the EF 100-400 MK2L is a great lens (I have the MK1j, it’s just awfully slow for indoor sports at full reach.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DonOles wrote:

Just purchased a 1dx used. Now looking to purchase a lens the Canon ef100-4004.5-5.6 IS II or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sport. I will be shooting college hockey indoors. The Canon has the longer focal length but the sigma is faster at 2.8. Can i push the iso on the 1DX high enough to compensate for the slower lens or will the Sigma work better since it's a 2.8

Here is a review that covers the Sigma in depth.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

DonOles wrote:

Bruce thanks for the reply. Can you comment on the Sigma 250-600 contemporary for outdoor baseball and wildlife shooting

No, I can’t. I went with Nikon’s 200-500, and it works fine for those rare times I use long glass. Sorry.