Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM

[CountryBoy]

Hmm, I use mine at f/4 @300m all the time for sports, softness is not a problem. Got any real world shots ?

[Kristian]

40D, 300mm, f/5.6:

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/3930/web4sp3.jpg

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4386/web3nk8.jpg

I use mine almost only for soccer. Might be getting the EF 300 f/4L IS instead, but haven't decided yet.

[CountryBoy]

40D, 300mm, f/5.6:

I use mine almost only for soccer. Might be getting the EF 300 f/4L IS instead, but haven't decided yet.

Nice shots. Would you use a 2 body setup then ? One for closer shots and the prime for longer shots ?

[photobitz]

Hi,

I just got the lens and it seems a bit soft 250-300mm at f/4-5.6, at f/8 the softness is gone. I haven't seen any chart shots so I'll post some samples just to be sure that it's normal.

300mm f/4 iso200
http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/a_f4.JPG

300mm f/5.6 iso200
http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/a_f56.JPG

300mm f/8 iso 200
http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/a_f8.JPG

A shot from the shop:
300mm f/4 iso800
http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/sample2.JPG



The softness isn't an issue in some situations though.

300mm f/4 iso800
http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/sample.jpg

100% crop
http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/crop.jpg (http://hurricane.pri.ee/sigma/crop.jpg)

I don't think these shots are bad... the one at f/4 is a little soft but considering you were pretty close to the subject, your DOF is going to be pretty small which might be why it appears soft.
Do you use a filter on your lens? I found that my shots came out soft when I used a filter. Granted it was only a cheap one.
I would try using it more outside where it will perform at its best.

BTW, I also found that mine tends to back focus a little. Try manually focusing and see if you notice any difference.

[Kristian]

Nice shots. Would you use a 2 body setup then ? One for closer shots and the prime for longer shots ?

Don't think so...Can't afford it I'm afraid :) Besides, I tend to stay at 300mm most of the time.

[Hurricane]

A couple of shots from todays trip. The lens is very sharp, no softness in real-life situations. I'm very pleased with it.

300mm f/4 ISO160
http://hurricane.pri.ee/images/20080627212304__mg_8322_crop.jpg

300mm f/5.6 ISO200
http://hurricane.pri.ee/images/20080627194158__mg_8228.jpg

300mm f/4.5 ISO320
http://hurricane.pri.ee/images/20080627193152__mg_8711.jpg

[CountryBoy]

[quote=Hurricane;5804921]A couple of shots from todays trip. The lens is very sharp, no softness in real-life situations. I'm very pleased with it./quote]

:D Nice shots !

[Kristian]

300mm, ISO 800, f/4, 1/1000 sec:
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3531/web3cw4.jpg

[STONEBLUE]

Here are two pictures of my kids rabbits. I purchased my 100-300 used and it had a serious backfocusing issue. I sent it to Sigma under warranty and now it seems to focus great! I really like this lens.

[1downfall]

can we get any more pics from this lens....I just started reading the reviews on it and it looks quite stellar for a great price. This and my 1.4x would go nicely for soccer!

[Kristian]

300mm, ISO 400, 1/1000, f/4:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6564/ig8l00041rs4.jpg

[p360]

This will be my next buy. I am very impressed.

Thank you, all.

[Kristian]

You already have the 200 f/2.8L and a 50-135mm, so why not get the 300 f/4L IS instead? Even though the Sigma is a stellar lens, you have to be very lucky to get one as good as the Canon.

[p360]

You already have the 200 f/2.8L and a 50-135mm, so why not get the 300 f/4L IS instead? Even though the Sigma is a stellar lens, you have to be very lucky to get one as good as the Canon.


A few reasons, the way I see it.

Sigma gives me a flexible range, 100 to 300mm, rather than just 300. It's a bit sharper at its sweet spot than Canon 300 f/4L. It costs almost $200 less, and it's BLACK..!! (I am not a fan of white lens.)

Correct me, someone, anyone, if I am wrong.

Having said that, Canon 300 f/4 L does look very enticing. And it has IS. Hmm..!!

[darkninja67]

A few reasons, the way I see it.

Sigma gives me a flexible range, 100 to 300mm, rather than just 300. It's a bit sharper at its sweet spot than Canon 300 f/4L. It costs almost $200 less, and it's BLACK..!! (I am not a fan of white lens.)

Correct me, someone, anyone, if I am wrong.

Having said that, Canon 300 f/4 L does look very enticing. And it has IS. Hmm..!!
You are going down the road I may oneday travel. The Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non IS keeps calling my name though.

Copy variation bothers me with Sigma. I really do not want to send a brand new lens in for calibration. Gonna be hard to find a sharper lens than my Toke 50-135mm.

[CountryBoy]

I haven't read of too many complaints with this lens. And I wouldn't worry about copy variation with it either. It's a gem of a lens.

But it and the 300mm f/4 are very good lens. So it comes down to zoom or prime.

Yes it is black , which I like. But a Nikon user thought I was using a nikon :mad:. I had to explain I was using a Canon body and a Sigma lens. It got worse after that !

When I told him it was the Sigma 100=300mm f/4 EX, he said " It doesn't zoom ? "
"Yes, it does" I replied," it just doesn't extend "
He looked at me and then the lens and said , " That means it's a prime lens !" :D
I really don't want to stand there and explain it again, So I said ,"Sure , that works for me ;)

[1downfall]

I haven't read of too many complaints with this lens. And I wouldn't worry about copy variation with it either. It's a gem of a lens.

But it and the 300mm f/4 are very good lens. So it comes down to zoom or prime.

Yes it is black , which I like. But a Nikon user thought I was using a nikon :mad:. I had to explain I was using a Canon body and a Sigma lens. It got worse after that !

When I told him it was the Sigma 100=300mm f/4 EX, he said " It doesn't zoom ? "
"Yes, it does" I replied," it just doesn't extend "
He looked at me and then the lens and said , " That means it's a prime lens !" :D
I really don't want to stand there and explain it again, So I said ,"Sure , that works for me ;)
i got a kick out of this......:D:D
I am holding off...actually saving right now for this exact lens. I just try and think that with my 1.4 ext....i can save money and still get to 400 if I HAVE to in lieu of buying the 100-400.;)

[photobitz]

i got a kick out of this......:D:D
I am holding off...actually saving right now for this exact lens. I just try and think that with my 1.4 ext....i can save money and still get to 400 if I HAVE to in lieu of buying the 100-400.;)

It is a great lens and at almost half the price of the Canon is definitely a contender. I noticed recently that mine was back-focusing. Was probably that way when I bought it new :confused: I just never noticed because I usually focus manually.

Since I have also bought myself the 100-400. In comparison the Sigma is very slightly sharper but I find the IS of the Canon very handy plus it is also a little lighter to carry.

[olz]

Check out my page at www.dexpo.dk (http://dexpo.dk).

I used it for all the furry and feathery friends there. It's a lovely lens. All the shots were done handheld, and I often use it wide open at f/4. You won't find anything like it for the price IMO. Now that I got to use it more, I'm not too kind of using the TC. This lens produces perfect OOF backgrounds, but not at f/5.6 wit the TC unless the background is faaaar away.

[CountryBoy]

Check out my page at www.dexpo.dk (http://dexpo.dk).

I used it for all the furry and feathery friends there. It's a lovely lens. All the shots were done handheld, and I often use it wide open at f/4. You won't find anything like it for the price IMO. Now that I got to use it more, I'm not too kind of using the TC. This lens produces perfect OOF backgrounds, but not at f/5.6 wit the TC unless the background is faaaar away.

Here's one at f/6.3 @ 420mm.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2133/2383482575_dae690364f_o.jpg

[olz]

Here's one at f/6.3 @ 420mm.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2133/2383482575_dae690364f_o.jpg

Looks superb, but as I said, you probably have quite some space before hitting the background?

[CountryBoy]

Looks superb, but as I said, you probably have quite some space before hitting the background?

Thanks
Yes. Since this is not a cropped photo, you can tell how close I was to the bird. I was in a blind, the bird was hearing my AF beep. I have started turning the sound off of my camera now. But it did work out forthe best in this case ;)

The grass at the bottom part is maybe 20ft, the out line of the trees in the upper part are across a pasture a great distance away.

I do have some at 5.6 and 6.3 with the background closer, but I will have to look thru my external hard drive to find them. When I do, i'll post some of them.

[olz]

Thanks
Yes. Since this is not a cropped photo, you can tell how close I was to the bird. I was in a blind, the bird was hearing my AF beep. I have started turning the sound off of my camera now. But it did work out forthe best in this case ;)

The grass at the bottom part is maybe 20ft, the out line of the trees in the upper part are across a pasture a great distance away.

I do have some at 5.6 and 6.3 with the background closer, but I will have to look thru my external hard drive to find them. When I do, i'll post some of them.

Ahh - okay. Yea - the closer to the minimum focusing distance you get, the better the OOF backround - but that should be the rule wit any telephoto I guess. The TC do come in handy sometimes, but usually I have to use a tripod/monopod then. Here some more pictures:

http://www.wiolsen.dk/wp-content/2008/09/pp_dexpo_dk___0001-16.jpg

http://www.wiolsen.dk/wp-content/2008/09/pp_dexpo_dk___0001-15.jpg

http://www.wiolsen.dk/wp-content/2008/09/pp_dexpo_dk___0001-14.jpg

http://www.wiolsen.dk/wp-content/2008/09/pp_dexpo_dk___0001-13.jpg

[1downfall]

yes!! keep them coming guys.....I am tryin hard to save for this lens....this helps!!:D

[1downfall]

dead thread......:confused: i am now looking for a siggy hsm......:D

[photobitz]

dead thread......:confused: i am now looking for a siggy hsm......:D

Not dead, just "slowed"

When you buy one, you'll have to upload some shots here then!

[1downfall]

Not dead, just "slowed"

When you buy one, you'll have to upload some shots here then!
yes. I most definitely will! (i just need to find one for a good price!);)

[Shasta]

Its a fantastic lens but I find it bit slow at focusing for motor events, so not as many keepers.

I'm just comparing it to say my old 70-200mm F4 L before buying this one.

[photobitz]

Its a fantastic lens but I find it bit slow at focusing for motor events, so not as many keepers.

I'm just comparing it to say my old 70-200mm F4 L before buying this one.

That's odd... mine was lighning fast. More to do with the body you used it with perhaps?

[CountryBoy]

That's odd... mine was lighning fast. More to do with the body you used it with perhaps?

I agree. It's at least as fast, if not faster.

[Shasta]

That's odd... mine was lighning fast. More to do with the body you used it with perhaps?

Using a 1D and its definitely a tab slower on AI Servo. It's still fast but I did notice a difference taking some jet ski pictures in the summer. I love it being black too. Mind you I was using a CPol when I noticed this slight hesitation so it might have caused the slightly slower focus, so it did hunt a bit more with the lower light.. Its a beautiful lens and quality in my opinion doesn't get any better.

[photobitz]

Using a 1D and its definitely a tab slower on AI Servo. It's still fast but I did notice a difference taking some jet ski pictures in the summer. I love it being black too. Mind you I was using a CPol when I noticed this slight hesitation so it might have caused the slightly slower focus, so it did hunt a bit more with the lower light.. Its a beautiful lens and quality in my opinion doesn't get any better.

Ahhh... yeah, the CPL would explain it. That would drop it to f/8 for focusing which is not ideal. You'll notice the same thing adding TCs.

[Shasta]

^ Ah thats good to know then, it does make sense.

[BrewsterPilot]

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/3387/img5105gz2.jpg

[Cadwell]

Mind you I was using a CPol when I noticed this slight hesitation so it might have caused the slightly slower focus, so it did hunt a bit more with the lower light..

AI Servo AF sampling rate is varied by the camera depending on the amount of light hitting the AF sensors. If you've just chopped the best part of two stops of light out by using a polariser it is going to slow to a crawl.

[1downfall]

Stunning shot in more ways than one Brew!~
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/3387/img5105gz2.jpg

[Shasta]

Yeah the servo worked light years faster once I removed the filter, didn't realize how much it stopped it down.

http://usera.ImageCave.com/DMIMAGE/Misc/whippets800.jpg

[photobitz]

Yeah the servo worked light years faster once I removed the filter, didn't realize how much it stopped it down.

http://usera.ImageCave.com/DMIMAGE/Misc/whippets800.jpg

Nice one :)

Save the CPL for landscapes ;)

[Maximono]

Awesome pics Guys! I've just managed to pick one of these up on ebay for £295, used but seeing as there £750 new I couldn't let it go for that price. It originally didn't sell due to the reserve but the guy second chanced it so I snapped it up, your pics really helped alot. Im really hoping I've made the right choice :D

[photobitz]

Awesome pics Guys! I've just managed to pick one of these up on ebay for £295, used but seeing as there £750 new I couldn't let it go for that price. It originally didn't sell due to the reserve but the guy second chanced it so I snapped it up, your pics really helped alot. Im really hoping I've made the right choice :D

Rest easy. You'll enjoy ;)

[NorCalAl]

Thanks guys - this thread was what I needed to push me over the edge. Getting this lens for the long end on my D300.

[Hurricane]

http://hurricane.pri.ee/images/20081215004135_tallinn_panoraam_small.jpg

http://hurricane.pri.ee/images/20081215010920__mg_2556_c.jpg

[Hurricane]

Stunning images Hurricane!:D
Tallinn, if I am not mistaken?

Thanks for sharing,
-BrewsterPilot

Thanks a lot. And yes, it is Tallinn.

[ishida]

This lens is awesome. I used it on my 30D and loved it...now I use it on my 5D and love it even more! HSM is excellent though I wish sometimes there was a focus limiter.

The matte black crinkle finish is peeling off of mines. Has anybody else had this happen?

Canon EOS 5D
300mm, 1/1250 sec. @ F/4, ISO 50
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/3125818633_ab86f0b005_o.jpg

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
420mm, 1/25 sec. @ F/11, ISO 100
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/2400498204_6de38ec6fc_o.jpg

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
300mm, 1/200 sec. @ F/11, ISO 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2390630619_e726d15a63_o.jpg

[tom s]

The matte black crinkle finish is peeling off of mines. Has anybody else had this happen?



It's normal with all EX lenses. Lens coat (TM) is recommendable, there is even one in black color which mimics Sigma's original color. :cool:
Lovely pictures, by the way, the 2nd one is awesome.

[Redlineracer12]

Bumping this thread, just got one of these :)

Wide open with 1.4x (slight crop):

http://www.shineyphotos.com/images7/IMG_2232copy.jpg

[Redlineracer12]

Another goose, this time without extender. Still cropped.

http://www.shineyphotos.com/gallery/Wildlife/imgs/IMG_2372copy.jpg

And here is a 100% crop (with some usm applied, something like 250,.3,0)

http://www.shineyphotos.com/images7/IMG_2372100copy.jpg

I'd say that's pretty darn sharp for wide open :D

[_aravena]

It's awesome to see how well this works with a TC. Can anyone compare this with the 70-200? I want more reach and I doubt I'll be getting a 100-400L for awhile so I'm curious about how well this performs compared to the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

I don't shoot at 2.8 that often and of course it's not very sharp but it does do well at F4 and I use it for weddings, but still, not sure how much I shoot at F2.8 since I try to use flash or boost the ISO sometimes.

[Redlineracer12]

With the 1.4x at 420mm.

http://www.shineyphotos.com/gallery/Wildlife/imgs/IMG_2963copy.jpg

Again with 1.4x, even though I didn't need it...

http://www.shineyphotos.com/gallery/Wildlife/imgs/IMG_3335copy.jpg

Both had some USM applied.

[photobitz]

It's awesome to see how well this works with a TC. Can anyone compare this with the 70-200? I want more reach and I doubt I'll be getting a 100-400L for awhile so I'm curious about how well this performs compared to the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

I don't shoot at 2.8 that often and of course it's not very sharp but it does do well at F4 and I use it for weddings, but still, not sure how much I shoot at F2.8 since I try to use flash or boost the ISO sometimes.

A 2x TC on the 70-200 will degrade the image noticeably but I found very little difference when I used a 2x on the 100-300 (when I had it). I have since gone to a 100-400 but it was a tough decision between which of the two to keep. The 100-300 is a solid performer.

[Mr. Clean]

It's awesome to see how well this works with a TC. Can anyone compare this with the 70-200? I want more reach and I doubt I'll be getting a 100-400L for awhile so I'm curious about how well this performs compared to the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

I don't shoot at 2.8 that often and of course it's not very sharp but it does do well at F4 and I use it for weddings, but still, not sure how much I shoot at F2.8 since I try to use flash or boost the ISO sometimes.
In my experience, the 2x TC belongs no where near ANY 70-200 :D

[_aravena]

Not with a TC, I just meant the lenses themselves.

[Tony-S]

Holy crap! Has anyone seen the price of this lens now? Almost US$1,400. Glad I got mine when it was only $1,000.

[CountryBoy]

It's awesome to see how well this works with a TC. Can anyone compare this with the 70-200? I want more reach and I doubt I'll be getting a 100-400L for awhile so I'm curious about how well this performs compared to the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

I don't shoot at 2.8 that often and of course it's not very sharp but it does do well at F4 and I use it for weddings, but still, not sure how much I shoot at F2.8 since I try to use flash or boost the ISO sometimes.

I think the !00-300mm f/4 was/is a much better lens, both in IQ and AF speed.
I might have tried a bad copy.


Holy crap! Has anyone seen the price of this lens now? Almost US$1,400. Glad I got mine when it was only $1,000.

I posted something about that last week, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=696486 ,

I bought mine when it was around $900.

I didn't check, but I bet the 120-300mm took a price hike also.

[Tony-S]

Went back and double-checked; mine was $899 in August of 2006. That's better than the stock market. ;)

[prime80]

I didn't check, but I bet the 120-300mm took a price hike also.

B&H now lists it for ~$3200...used to be $2700

[olz]

http://www.kindanatural.com/images/20090526203312__.jpg (http://www.kindanatural.com/)

[olz]

http://www.kindanatural.com/images/20090612092418__.jpg (http://www.kindanatural.com/index.php?showimage=37)

* Camera: Canon EOS 20D
* Focal Length: 300 mm
* Aperture: f 4
* Shutter: 1/800 sec
* ISO Speed: 200


http://www.kindanatural.com/images/20090612092610__.jpg (http://www.kindanatural.com/index.php?showimage=38)

* Camera: Canon EOS 20D
* Focal Length: 237 mm
* Aperture: f 4
* Shutter: 1/500 sec
* ISO Speed: 100



http://www.kindanatural.com/images/20090612093007__.jpg (http://www.kindanatural.com/index.php?showimage=40)

* Camera: Canon EOS 20D
* Focal Length: 300 mm
* Aperture: f 4
* Shutter: 1/6400 sec
* ISO Speed: 200


http://www.kindanatural.com/images/20090612100918_tele sunset.jpg (http://www.kindanatural.com/p/43)

* Camera: Canon EOS 20D
* Focal Length: 300 mm
* Aperture: f 16
* Shutter: 1/8000 sec
* ISO Speed: 400 - don't ask... ;)

[rodrt121]

I love this lens, so sharp although heavy.

[Denis99]

Some wonderful images with this lens (on the thread), has convinced me to buy the 100-300 f4.

What mono pod do users recommend? I'll be using the lens for the typical motorsport / action and wildlife shots.

[_aravena]

Man...I wish I got this when it was cheaper. I'd sell the 70-200...

[Sibil]

I am interested in this lens for soccer, with a 1.4 teleconverter. I have seen action shots posted with this lens that looked very good. Now my question is how much does AF suffer when using this lens with a 1.4 converter in AI Servo mode?

[CountryBoy]

I am interested in this lens for soccer, with a 1.4 teleconverter. I have seen action shots posted with this lens that looked very good. Now my question is how much does AF suffer when using this lens with a 1.4 converter in AI Servo mode?

Check this out .

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=750041

[Sibil]

Check this out .

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=750041

Great thread and just what I wanted to see. The hunt is on for a used 100-300 :D

[twoshadows]

As some of you may know, I managed to buy back the 100-300 I sold 2 years ago. I knew I missed it, but I forgot just how special this lens is. I'm currently using it with the Sigma 1.4x TC for soccer and I'm psyched about the results. I own the 300 f/4 IS, which is a great lens, and the 100-300 f/4 holds its own for a zoom. :)

http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/117122476/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/117148917/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/117148919/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/117148922/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/117148923/original.jpg

[Denis99]

http://www.pbase.com/denis99/image/117225368.jpg

[zincozinco]

A few reasons, the way I see it.

Sigma gives me a flexible range, 100 to 300mm, rather than just 300. It's a bit sharper at its sweet spot than Canon 300 f/4L. It costs almost $200 less, and it's BLACK..!! (I am not a fan of white lens.)

Correct me, someone, anyone, if I am wrong.

Having said that, Canon 300 f/4 L does look very enticing. And it has IS. Hmm..!!

whats the sweet spot on this baby?

[zincozinco]

seems like a great lens, just picked a copy up at ebay for 650 dollars!! I hope its worth it!!!

[CountryBoy]

seems like a great lens, just picked a copy up at ebay for 650 dollars!! I hope its worth it!!!

That's a good price . If it's been taken care of and AF is fine , no doubt it's worth it. But buying used , you do take a chance on any lens.

[zincozinco]

Im guessing some one had it and it was maybe not so good in focus, why else such a low price, i might have to send it to sigma for calibration, but still the closest i got was 750 euros this turned out at around 441 euros.....

[Denis99]

Another speedway shot earlier today, f9 1/640th iso400

http://www.pbase.com/denis99/image/117460225.jpg

[zincozinco]

great shot!! Now im just waiting...

[Denis99]

great shot!! Now im just waiting...

Thanks, there's plenty more at the link below - use this lens regularly for speedway photos.

My only criticism would be that it's not quite so good in low'ish light - but produces excellent images given the right conditions - judge for yourself.

http://www.pbase.com/denis99

[zincozinco]

Nice shoots on your page! Im sure im going o be happy with im shooting golf... :)

[Sibil]

I thought I'll ask the folks who use this lens.

Does anyone use a shorter hood with this lens (on a crop body)?

The OEM hood is very long.

[olz]

I thought I'll ask the folks who use this lens.

Does anyone use a shorter hood with this lens (on a crop body)?

The OEM hood is very long.

Can't help you, but why would you want to? The only annoyance I found using the loong hood was the problem with attaching the lens cap while the hood is on. I solved that problem by buying a 5 USD center pitch cap on e-bay.
402053
The reversed hood also offers good protection while the lens is stored in the bag.

[twoshadows]

http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/118705847/original.jpg

[Sibil]

^^^
Great timing

[twoshadows]

^^^
Great timing

Thanks, Sibil :) . Btw, how are you liking your new 100-300 f/4?

[Sibil]

Btw, how are you liking your new 100-300 f/4?

I love it. It's much better than I thought it would be. The AF is really quick, but I wish it had a limiter. Although heavy, somehow it feels better balanced on my 40D / 1DII bodies, than the Canon 70-200 / 2.8 I had tried. With its huge hood, it attracks lots of attention too.

[zincozinco]

Af is a quick as my old 70-200 2.8. but yeah i miss the limiter as well for even faster "grip" here is some golf...

[syntrix]

I just grapped one out of the processing going on right now, not a bad lens!

http://www.swankmonkey.com/images/IG4R0287.jpg

[syntrix]

http://swankmonkey.com/images/IG4R0322.jpg

[Denis99]

Hasn't been an image posted for a few weeks - one I took yesterday at Newport Speedway.

Took using my 7D, but slowly moving towards getting a full frame camera. Sold a few lens but really like this one.

Can anyone enlighten me - will this lens fit on a full frame body?

Anyway, here's an action shot

http://www.pbase.com/denis99/image/124140928.jpg

[olz]

Can anyone enlighten me - will this lens fit on a full frame body?


It will! In fact. On a crop body you're not using all of the glass in that lens. ;)

[Denis99]

Thanks olz

Won't be upgrading anytime soon, but my longer term goal is to get a full frame.

Knowing that this superb lens fits helps me out greatly.

[MNUplander]

Just got my copy from a fellow POTN member a few days ago. My initial impressions are good, here are some examples with the 1.4x at 420mm - cross posted from the Birds forum:

http://www.northerncaptures.com/Wildlife/Birds/Purple-Finch1/862772964_M7A2G-L.jpg

http://www.northerncaptures.com/Wildlife/Birds/American-Gold-FinchColor-Turn/862772493_Dcpq9-L.jpg

Ive done my final PP to these images but I like the results, even with the 1.4x.

[wtlwdwgn]

I just picked up a new to me 100-300 to use on my not so new 1D Mk II N. I went out to the ol' pond to try my luck at some geese. I think the lens is a keeper. :D

http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Birds/Canon-BIFs/Goose-BIF-0108/952917568_a9ZG8-L.jpg

http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Birds/Canon-BIFs/Goose-TKOF-0044/952916644_oXJya-L.jpg

http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Birds/Canon-BIFs/Splashdown-0111/952917577_xVFVs-L.jpg

[Denis99]

My first attempt at taking images of birds of prey, it was quite difficult - but I thought this one was worth sharing.

I'm even thinking about selling this lens and replacing with a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS with 1.4 TC.

This image has made me question whether this would be a wise move.

C&C welcome.

http://www.pbase.com/image/127367787/original.jpg

[wtlwdwgn]

Denis, with a sharp image like that I'm not sure I'd switch either. :D

[syntrix]

Denis, with a sharp image like that I'm not sure I'd switch either. :D

Agreed!

I've noticed that my shots with this lens need just a tad more sharpening, but all the detail is there.

[86er]

here are some I took with this lens use it all the time for motorsports

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4880265735_f9ccab75c8_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4880881426_4bb113279b_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4880265293_4d5a54b713_b.jpg

[Denis99]

Another one from this weekend using the 100 - 300 f4 , still thinking of getting rid of this.

Can't make my mind up, seems pretty sharp to me - when I get it right that is.

http://www.pbase.com/denis99/image/127443824.jpg

[CountryBoy]

Another one from this weekend using the 100 - 300 f4 , still thinking of getting rid of this.

Can't make my mind up, seems pretty sharp to me - when I get it right that is.

Hang onto it untill Sigma comes out with the OS model. :lol:

[Denis99]

Here's why I'm considering selling it.

Going to buy a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark 1, will probably fit a 1.4 TC on it to give me the focal range similar to the Sigma when I need it.

So, I would have two lens that are pretty similar, but would pick up the canon 90% of the time for its better performance and versatility.

Sometime, in the future, plan to buy a Canon 300 f4 prime if my need for that type of focal length is proven. Looking at most of my shots with the Sigma, they're around 180 to 220mm.

Good images in reasonable light though.

[CountryBoy]

Here's why I'm considering selling it.

Going to buy a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark 1, will probably fit a 1.4 TC on it to give me the focal range similar to the Sigma when I need it.

So, I would have two lens that are pretty similar, but would pick up the canon 90% of the time for its better performance and versatility.

Sometime, in the future, plan to buy a Canon 300 f4 prime if my need for that type of focal length is proven. Looking at most of my shots with the Sigma, they're around 180 to 220mm.

Good images in reasonable light though.

Not sold on the idea you'll get better performance with the Canon.

[twoshadows]

Here's why I'm considering selling it.

Going to buy a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark 1, will probably fit a 1.4 TC on it to give me the focal range similar to the Sigma when I need it.

So, I would have two lens that are pretty similar, but would pick up the canon 90% of the time for its better performance and versatility.

Sometime, in the future, plan to buy a Canon 300 f4 prime if my need for that type of focal length is proven. Looking at most of my shots with the Sigma, they're around 180 to 220mm.

Good images in reasonable light though.

Denis,

I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mkI, the 300 f/4 IS and the 100-300. In my experience the 7-2 + TC is a poor substitute for the Sigma. I tried it for two years and even stopped down to f/5.6 it couldn't match the IQ and AF speed of the 100-300 f/4. And while the 300 f/4 IS is slightly sharper than the Sigma, I find the overall IQ of the Sigma is better (bokeh, PF, saturation, rendering of in and out of focus areas). I also find the prime to be very limiting for some field sports when compared to the zoom.

YMMV

Ian

[Denis99]

Thanks Ian

Gives me some first hand real world experience to ponder - might not be in so much of a rush to sell this one.

[MNUplander]

I picked up the 100-300 f4 after getting rid of my 70-200 f4IS. Although not quite as sharp as the uber-sharp canon zoom, it is still an exceptionally sharp piece of glass in a more convenient focal range for me. It was a good compromise between the 70-200 and 100-400 in that I still get f4 when I want it and a pretty decent lens at 420mm with a 1.4x.

As was mentioned earlier, there are other elements that contribute to overall IQ that the Sigma does very well with, too.

[wtlwdwgn]

I took these images at close to MFD, 1/1600 @ f/5.6, ISO 200 on a 1D2N.

250mm.
http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Macro/Macro/Flower-II-0019/985668390_UrGD5-XL.jpg

300mm.
http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Macro/Macro/Flower-IV-0026/985668673_GL5gi-XL.jpg

[twoshadows]

Below is a link to a comparison I did of the 100-300 vs 300 f/4 IS for shooting sports:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=930262

It includes links to full sized images taken with the 7d...

[Zigot]

Thanks for the links.

[Nikolas]

http://nickaxrs.customer.netspace.net.au/GOR/IMG_0878.jpg

http://nickaxrs.customer.netspace.net.au/GOR/sunset2.jpg

@100mm
http://nickaxrs.customer.netspace.net.au/GOR/sunsetoverGellibrandriver.jpg

http://nickaxrs.customer.netspace.net.au/Airshow/IMG_2028.jpg

http://nickaxrs.customer.netspace.net.au/Airshow/IMG_2102.jpg

http://nickaxrs.customer.netspace.net.au/Airshow/IMG_2154.jpg

[wtlwdwgn]

Here's a couple from an early evening at KBIL. 1D2N, ISO 400, 1/400 @ f/10.

FedEx B722
http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Airplanes/FedEx-B727-On-Approach-To-KBIL/1085170641_xbLuj-L.jpg

UPS A306
http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Airplanes/Airplanes/UPS-A306-Landing-At-KBIL/1085170456_hqcoK-L.jpg

[ckkone]

^^^Nice^^^

[KJEphoto]

Has anyone used this lens with a Canon 1.4x or 2x extender? Or the sigma extenders? I tried it with a kenko extension tube and the results were horrible, would not focus.

[shoenberg3]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5146/5703074622_61fbe47311_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5703074622/)
g1024 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5703074622/) by shoenberg3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/84512959@N00/), on Flickr




http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5702578001_a689cf36e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5702578001/)
1024 bw (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5702578001/) by shoenberg3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/84512959@N00/), on Flickr




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/5704760767_d892211cf5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5704760767/)
gold (1 of 1) c (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5704760767/) by shoenberg3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/84512959@N00/), on Flickr




Love the lens. Won't part with it for LONG time.

[wtlwdwgn]

From Yellowstone last week. On a 1D2N + 1.4 TC.

A coyote on the Swan Lake Flats.
http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Other/Yellowstone-52011/i-fmskPMw/0/L/Coyote-1621-L.jpg

Two headed pronghorn. :D
http://wtlwdwgn.smugmug.com/Other/Yellowstone-52011/i-5ZmtPnc/0/L/2-Headed-Antelope-1394-L.jpg

[Tony-S]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/5704760767_d892211cf5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5704760767/)
gold (1 of 1) c (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/5704760767/) by shoenberg3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/84512959@N00/), on Flickr

This is a fabulous shot. Can you tell me where it's taken from? Is this Point Reyes park?

[garry-f]

Just Picked one of these up.
Always been on my wish list.
Thought I would post a couple to keep the thread active.
Garry

[dmnelson]

Waterski photos from today with 1Ds Mark II and Sigma 100-300 f/4. More on Flickr. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/sets/72157627066906073/detail/)

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6148/5935900343_53d58e9951_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/5935900343/)
Louie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/5935900343/) by davidmnelson (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmnelson/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6144/5936454888_ac3363f645_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/5936454888/)
Ted - Splash! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/5936454888/) by davidmnelson (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmnelson/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6010/5936442998_e436ebd91e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/5936442998/)
Angela (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmnelson/5936442998/) by davidmnelson (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidmnelson/), on Flickr

[canons900]

A few of mine to keep the thread going. All shot with the 1D Classic.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/6005092951_9eed27e0a7_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6008/6005637826_aa7d40aed9_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6149/6005092481_535edcb11c_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6143/6005637072_d03d6d1b3b_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/6005636826_80fff8e471_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/6005091417_164ec9b2f6_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6012/6005636144_c28450842a_z.jpg

[shoenberg3]

I will help out too.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6013/6007439539_5ae813d258_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/6007439539/)
mission (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/6007439539/) by shoenberg3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/84512959@N00/), on Flickr


at 280mm with 5D

[theextremist04]

I got one of these brand new from KEH in the mail yesterday...based on ten minutes of walking around outside all I have to say is wow. This thing is killer sharp.

[shoenberg3]

It sure is a underrated, unknown lens for its quality.



http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6124/6012680751_9dc815f874_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/6012680751/)
Sunol Wilderness (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84512959@N00/6012680751/) by shoenberg3 (http://www.flickr.com/people/84512959@N00/), on Flickr

[garry-f]

Couple to keep the thread alive.
Both with Sigma and 1.4 EX
http://flic.kr/p/b3RDxX

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35665621@N03/6595887489/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35665621@N03/6595887481/

[elogical]

Just got the lens recently, winter here and I've been busy so it'll be a while till I have any images worth sharing but I am wondering....

I have a sigma 1.4x TC and am considering upgrading to the canon 1.4x TC MKII. Can anyone confirm that this works and fits fine? And is it worth the upgrade from the sigma? Probably will cost about $150 to upgrade by the time I sell one and re-buy the used canon. I hate asking these kind of questions here but I couldn't find it anywhere else so I thought I'd at least ask...

EDIT: Thanks for the reply below, didn't want to gunk up the thread with a separate response, I'll look into this there.

[CountryBoy]

Just got the lens recently, winter here and I've been busy so it'll be a while till I have any images worth sharing but I am wondering....

I have a sigma 1.4x TC and am considering upgrading to the canon 1.4x TC MKII. Can anyone confirm that this works and fits fine? And is it worth the upgrade from the sigma? Probably will cost about $150 to upgrade by the time I sell one and re-buy the used canon. I hate asking these kind of questions here but I couldn't find it anywhere else so I thought I'd at least ask...

I'd ask in the lens section .

[shoenberg3]

More shots from this trusty beast:


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7037/6867867891_4bbb309766_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53393917@N05/6867867891/)
IMG_7505 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53393917@N05/6867867891/) by v1rtu0so (http://www.flickr.com/people/53393917@N05/), on Flickr






http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7056/6868376833_d1ac660695_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53393917@N05/6868376833/)
IMG_7631-Edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53393917@N05/6868376833/) by v1rtu0so (http://www.flickr.com/people/53393917@N05/), on Flickr

[TenaCJed]

Has anyone used this lens with a Canon 1.4x or 2x extender? Or the sigma extenders? I tried it with a kenko extension tube and the results were horrible, would not focus.
I have used it with the sigma 1.4X TC, it is pretty much always on the lens. Great combination, still very sharp. I also have the sigma 2X TC that I have used a couple times, manual focus obviously. I just got the kenko extension tubes, but I have not used it yet with this lens, but I do plan on it.

[raid3]

My contribution to this thread. This lens is amazing!!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xlY4KuCug6Q/T2Fr1stTpVI/AAAAAAAAAk8/CKCKZ1DPrLU/s800/MK3_1335.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Utrl9L8nt2c/T2FtydsaAwI/AAAAAAAAAlM/pnjHqAZzA4E/s800/MK3_1181.jpg

[twoshadows]

Your first pic is a classic example of the beautiful Sigma rendering. Nice job. ^^^ :D

[raid3]

Your first pic is a classic example of the beautiful Sigma rendering. Nice job. ^^^ :D

Thank you