First pic taken w/ 120-300mm Sigma F2.8 EX/HSM/HSM

[Canuck]

CDS,
I was wondering what you thought of the moon pic? How does it stack against the L glass you have shot with before and to you 50-500mm Sigma lens for that matter? I'd like to get an opinion on that pic before I send any more your way.

Cheers,
Canuck

[bluebomberx]

No pic...

[Canuck]

I'm aware there is no pic, I'm waiting on CDS to post it. I sent the pic to him early Friday morning. I have yet to hear his thoughts on the pic. I would like to see what he thinks of that one and then I'd send them one at a time to him...waiting on CDS...

Cheers,
Canuck

[photography By Evangelos]

Were are the PIX's . Also what did you pay for the lens. I am seeing it is in the $1650.00 range on ebay for a USA warrenty of 4 years. Not to bad if it is sharp.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yeah about $1,750.00 retail I think?

The pics were posted here;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17667

Here are some cropps of Canuks pics. (reduced jpegs)

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1306280&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp


http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1305982&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp

[Canuck]

Hi!
I paid $1900 and have had it about a month. It is plenty sharp. Note the pics posted are reduced quality JPEGS. I was stunned myself, just look at the moon pic and that's all I have to say!

Cheers,
Canuck

[benlimt]

Excellent pics.... these were shot at 300mm?

[photography By Evangelos]

Wow they look great. I guess I am gona have to order one. I wonder how it dose on skin tones? By the way were you useing the lens at 300 mm for the moon pix?

[Canuck]

Hi!,
You bet! Both moon pic and Wales one were taken w/ 120-300 F2.8 EX monster lens. Be warned, it weighs a massive 5 3/4 lbs! The moon pic was at 300mm and the Wales one at 120mm. Be ye also warned that is isn't cheap either! It is around $1900 before filters. If I'm not mistaken, I used a UV filter on both pics. I took the moon pic on tripod and the Wales pic freehand. Also please note that it is a compressed JPEG. The original is around 37MB compressed to 1.7 MB. Believe me the original is a ton sharper!

I can't speak for skin tones as I haven't tried it for that yet. I shoot landscape/nature pics primarily. I have ordered a Canon 16-35mm L that I am going to try for both wide angle and portrait pics if I can get some volunteers. The portrait bit is all new and very experimental for me at this time. I'll no doubt be off for Wales again before too long. I really love it there. Now if I could only get back to Carreg Cennen Castle and get a decent pic of that one I'd be really happy!
Speaking of which, here's a www site for you to look at:
http://www.castlewales.com/listings.html and they are alphabetical by name. I've seen Carew Castle, Carreg Cennen Castle, Kidwelly Castle, and Manorbier Castle so far. You should check them out they were really interesting to go see and get in the mindset of those days, the 1000s-1200s. You sure won't find anything of the sort in the US.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[photography By Evangelos]

Just a fun fact on this lens. I did some research on the lens specs at Popphoto.com Well the Sigma is sharper at 200mm over the canon 70-200 at every F-stop. It is also the same at 120mm VS the canon at 70MM. I was very surprised to see the lens was sharper than the canon at 200MM at every stop. I know the lens is heavy but well worth it. I often use my canon 70-200 Non IS lens with a 2X canon II and do not like the results with light fall off and less sharp images and the cloud effect or so I call it. This lens will do fine for all my wedding "PJ" style work. I am a strong guy so the weight will not be a problem. The only thing I did read that was not to my liking is the review said the lens was shuttering when trying to achieve A/F do you have this problem?

Any way here is the link on the revew on the sigma

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/5202003163559.pdf


And the canon 70-200 IS
http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/562003183517.pdf

[pcho]

Here is a moon shot taken with canon 400mm F5.6

http://h000625ee612c.ne.client2.attbi.com/perrycho/Web-480x719_7396-b-Cr.jpg

[Canuck]

pcho,
Cool pic, thanks! It was wholly amazing I could get that pic considering I'm in England. FYI, England is not known for clear skies and sun, but rather the opposite and fog here is fun as all can be in this part of England. I have seen this wild bit I call tunnel fog, that sits about 4-6 ft off the ground and makes a tunnel if you will. Both above and below are clear but inside is like forget about it. You have not seen fog till you have seen it over here. It has been so bad that I can't see across a street and the streets here are 1/3 the size of the US ones. It's like this, you can make a 3 lane England road out of a 2 lane US road and I'm not joking, then again there are single track roads, but that's another wild fun adventure.

PBE,
Thanks for the info! I was really surprised that it outdid the Canon lens! I will look at them at length later. As it is big 'un I'm glad it made it thru the mail system ok. The box was when it got here beat up. I attribute the survival to the fact it is not a cheap made lens. As for A/F I can't say I've tried it, other than on the moon pic and was so disgusted, that I took AF off and did it manually. It was a hunting like a fool. You know you can set it AF and still MF that lens and will not hurt it, according to the instructions. Also, I plain don't like AF so I never use it. I can't seem to get the same results MF and AF so I shoot MF 99.9% time. I might try it for non important shots. I'm still not liking AF. I can't comment on shuttering for the above stated reason.

Also, I have sent another Wales pic to CDS so it may get posted in the next few days. Punt to CDS (LOL)!

Cheers,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

lol,.. I'll check my email asap....

P.S.,.. I think I am out of the market for this lens myself for a while,.. :(


Why???

BECAUSE I JUST ORDERED ONE OF THESE!

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/500_45_EX.HTM

!!!!!!!!

Doh!

[Canuck]

CDS,
D'oh is right! I'm looking it up to see the damage (cost). I have been using B&H of late and they seem to be a real good place and reputable. That is my main concern. I'm planning on going there when I return to the US and by it there. I have a question but this is another topic in and of itself! I think you would really like the 120-300 lens. It is interesting to note that it did better than the Canon lens at 200mm. According to B&H it is $3300. OUCH!!! It will be some time before I invest in a prime like that one. I have also sent you an e-mail with a quick question, not the topic I'm about to start.

Cheers,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

I don't think I would have sprung for a new one,. I had been searching for a used one for months now.

Finally I found one,. and from a dealer that offers 14 day no hassle return and 60 day warranty,. And it was over a thousand off the new price (this is why I was looking for THIS lens used,. as a Sigma,. it doesn't hold it's value like one of the big Canon Primes... frankly I couyld never afford even a used Canon 500mm)

Any way,. I am so psyched,. it should arrive on Monday!!!! :D

[Canuck]

CDS,
How many of us average people could afford the stack of Canon L primes/zooms needed to do it right. Not many unless you happen to be independently wealthy. Coming back to reality, It makes you appreciate the lens more, having to save up for a few months to make said purchase. I know it does for me. I'd be curious to see how you do with the newest lens to your collection.

Cheers,
Canuck

[photography By Evangelos]

Canuck,

I am getting ready to order one Sigma 120-300 APO,HSM,EX lens. The best price I have found is $1649.00 USD and it has the 4 year sigma warranty. Now how much will a 105MM UV filter run. I am sure a lot not under a $100.00 it is a bit much I wonder if you really need it? But a circular polarizer is a must. I guess with the UV,and the CLP filters it will all run around $1849.00 so I hope. I am ordering this lens over the 70-200 IS lens. I currently have the 70-200 L and the 2X extender and do not like the combo that much. This lens is heavy and big and is ok with me. I am not a big fan of Sigma lenses as I have used them for years and have had a lot of problems with them in the past. I recently received the 105 Sigma Macro and the lens is Super sharp and well worth the money all and all it is a great value over the canon lens in its range. I still have my canon "L"s which sigma in the same focal range just are not even as good as the canon's not even close. Like the 24-70 L and the 17-35 L, and the 85 1.8, 28-135 IS, 50MM 1.0 L,EF 14MM L, TS-E 24MM L and the TS-E 90 MM L . My hope's are that I can use this lens at weddings when I am not aloud to use flash and cannot walk around the church. With the Sigma's focal range of 120-300 it should be all I need to get as close as I need to be. Also with a lens like this one I and Zoom in and out when I need to not like the canon 300 F2.8 Prime lens. I just hope it is sharp the test data shows it's a sharp lens and the canon has nothing over this lens optically at all. So when my ebay auction ends I will order the lens. I will next have to sell off the 2X II canon extender.

[Canuck]

PBE,
I am looking it up, I know that I paid over a $100 each filter. The UV filter doubles as a lens protector. Which would you rather replace, the $1900 lens or a $150 filter should you scratch one of them? I vote for the filter! I am checking w/ B&H Photo in NYC where I got it, and the prices are for UV filter $110 and CPL $170. These filters are the EX filters too! The lens is still $1900. I think that the results of the pics I've taken speak for themselves. All I needed to do was look at the terminator on the moon pic and that was awesome.
Speaking of which, the moon is waxing again so I think I may have another go at different stages of the waxing and waning of the moon.
BTW, I have had not a single problem with this lens so far shooting w/ the 10D. Good luck, I just hope you have the success I've had. One note, though, I've shot exclusively outdoors w/ that lens. I have no doubt it will do well indoors given you have enough light, but that is true of any lens. You can't expect to get good pics w/o any light around. Just my 2 pence...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[photography By Evangelos]

Canuck ,

Yes sir the filters for this lens are not cheep at all. The CLP is a must. I wonder in B&W or Tiffen have filters in this size range or Hoya for that matter. Other brands are just as good as the Sigma filters. By the way I am ordering the lens on ebay they have the best price so far. Can any one beat the price of $1648.00 with the 4 year USA warrenty? If so email me the link thanks.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Photography By Evangelos wrote:
Canuck ,

Yes sir the filters for this lens are not cheep at all. The CLP is a must. I wonder in B&W or Tiffen have filters in this size range or Hoya for that matter. Other brands are just as good as the Sigma filters. By the way I am ordering the lens on ebay they have the best price so far. Can any one beat the price of $1648.00 with the 4 year USA warrenty? If so email me the link thanks.

Wow,. you'd spend $1600.00 on Ebay? Insist on escorw if I were you!

[photography By Evangelos]

Well the Vender on ebay sold me the Sigma 105 Macro for $279.00 with the USA 4 Year warrenty with no problems. I also just got the new 24-70 L on ebay USA goods with shipping for $1186.00. If they have a positive feed back of 98% or higher and a power seller I should be fine. By the way my old 28-70L was not any sharper this seems to be a mith of sorts that the old one is sharper. NOT!

[ron chappel]

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=21475

The landscape pic looks rather crap i must say but it's impossible judging by one pic what a lens is like.The link above has some more pics with this lens from several different people.
.....It looks abit like many of the pics are oversaturated to try to make up for the traditional sigma lack of contrast/saturation....I'm guessing of course but they just don't look great

[Slow]

Nice pic of Amroth beach..... Thinx I can just see myself on there!...... Was that took from the road down into Saundersfoot?

[Canuck]

Slow,
I do believe so. It was taken on that steep hill going down to the beach. It is truly a nice place to be! I have sent a 3rd pic to CDS and you shall see it whenever he posts it. (Punt!)

Sorry for not getting back sooner, as I was in Wales again, this time to take 2 on Carreg Cennen Castle and Caerphilly Castle.

I have been having some issues w/ the 10D of late...it looks perfect in the viewfinder and looking at them on the LCD screen, but when I got back home, the pics were mostly junk! It looks as if there was a major shake in the pic. I took them handheld, but never had problems like this! I'm hoping not to have to send the camera back to the US for repairs. :( This is rather odd!
I may however be able to salvage them by shrinking them to 1/3 original size. I will try that.

I have a trip planned to Hastings next week. (This is most noted for Battle of Hastings, where William the Conqueror in 1066 fought. This is when what I call modern English history starts. I could go on but this is off the subject. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to continue.)

Still waiting on the 16-35mm F2.8 Canon L lens!

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[photography By Evangelos]

RON,

Not sure if this is the case with this lens. This lens has a very good rating so far with all the European mags and some of the US mags like popular photography. But the truth is in the using it for your self. I am willing to take the chance. I have just today used the Sigma 70-200 HSM F 2.8 lens and my canon has not a thing on this lens. It is a very sharp lens. I am not sure of the lens quality but fit and finish look very good. I have often over looked Sigma and have not used their lenses but they have a very impressive line up and it is growing every day. My hopes are that the quality is good and will last. So far I am very impressed with the 105 macro it is better than the canon optically. Some sigmas are good and some are not at all. Like the canon 24-70 L and the Sigma 24-70 EX you just cannot compare the two the sigma is not in the canon's class. But the Sigma 70-200 VS the Canon 70-200 Non IS lens the sigma is just as good as the canon. My view as I own the canon 70-200 L .

[ron chappel]

I think it could be the shake issue canuck just mentioned.
Please don't get me wrong..i WANT this lens to be good!! I just haven't seen enough evidence yet.

[Canuck]

Ron,
I think that it isn't the lens, as it does it w/ both lenses, the 120-300mm and 28-80mm. As noted before, the moon pic is only a crop with the rest being night sky. That is the umodded pic I took, on tripod other than the crop aforementioned. The Tenby pic, too was taken w/ the 120-300mm lens and has been compressed to hell to be able to fit on a web page. You know as well as me posting an almost 3 MB pic would not go over big. I can send you the original, provided it is under 3 MB (I recon) and you can see the real deal. It will however have to wait till next week. I have to sort a ton of stuff and should be much easier to send next week.

Believe me I have a lot of good pics I could send you, including some of Carreg Cennen Castle, in Wales (I recon). I haven't looked thru all them yet. There is also Caerphilly Castle that I used the 28-80 super cheapie lens on. I was really hoping to get the Canon 16-35mm L lens before going to Wales this past weekend. So much for that idea! :( The bit I don't get is that it was sent 23 Sept and is still not here. I checked w/ whom I ordered it and they said it was sent. This one sent in 2 lots. The tripod, sent a day later, has been here for like 5 days. The stock on US Mail is dropping rapidly. Where is British Mail when you need it? Talk about lightning fast!!

Anyway, I am stunned with how it takes pics. Reviews are really good and I wanted to step up to a pro lens and this is all that and some (including price)! Put it this way, I originally wasn't going to take the plunge into the pro lens arena as it is extremely expensive, but I can say that your pics are a direct reflection of the glass in front of the CMOS sensor (pun intended :))! I didn't lug it up to Caerphilly Castle as there wasn't a need, I was shooting up close and that would be the 28-80 lens.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[boobops]

Photography By Evangelos wrote:
RON,

Like the canon 24-70 L and the Sigma 24-70 EX you just cannot compare the two the sigma is not in the canon's class. But the Sigma 70-200 VS the Canon 70-200 Non IS lens the sigma is just as good as the canon. My view as I own the canon 70-200 L .

Ron,

I agree with you totally, Canon for the wides and Sigma for the longs. Seems as if Sigma have the same lens design software as Canon - at least for the long primes and zooms!

Steve

[Canuck]

This is 2 months+ on and I feel as I have grown another appendage, the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L/10D with Big Ed. It isn't cheap but man can you take pics with it and then manipulate them in whatever program you have to get what you want in colours. As I tweeked the pics I took this past Friday, I was taking pics of a 6 month old daughter of a coworker. I was looking at the subtle colours like the pinks on the fleece she was wearing and skin colour. It was spot on after a little and I do mean very little tweeking! This continues to amaze me, and get this, I was shooting small/fine and the pics look stunning according to friends. I may have me a few other jobs forthcoming in the way of family pics/portraits. This ought to be interesting. Nothing will happen until at least the new year. The sad part, I wasn't shooting RAW and couldn't show the true capability of the camera. However, they wanted the pics real fast so that kinda made it harder to shoot RAW. It just takes that much longer and I took like 20 pics. I will admit I was being a little lazy too. It is also easier to send JPEGs then RAW pics.

Cheers from England,
Canuck