Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM

[jcpoulin]

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 100-300 f4?? My long lens is horrible and would like to upgrade. 300 and 400L are a out of my $ zone and I would like a good sports lens. Any other suggestions are welcome as well. Thanks, Jim

[FlashZebra]

Here is a nice review with pics.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_100300_4/index.htm

Enjoy! Lon

[liza]

I've seen a lot of positive comments posted about this lens. It should suffice in good light, but the f/4 aperture might be somewhat limiting. Another consideration would be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It's a good lens for around 700 bucks that has excellent image quality and lower light capability.

[olz]

The HSM is fast, good for tracking. It very well build. Mine's sharp even wide open but really excels when stopped down a little. It handles TC very well - I got a Sigma 1.4XTC and the results are perfect. Downsides are that it's a little heavy but otherwise it a stellar lens! Runs best with a tripod or monopod. I'll try find some shots...

[grego]

Just know you need to shoot in day light and not in night games. Like the 120-300 2.8 its a monopod lens.

[condyk]

The HSM is fast, good for tracking. It very well build. Mine's sharp even wide open but really excels when stopped down a little. It handles TC very well - I got a Sigma 1.4XTC and the results are perfect. Downsides are that it's a little heavy but otherwise it a stellar lens! Runs best with a tripod or monopod. I'll try find some shots...

Agreed ... I had one. Exceptional lens really.

[olz]

163mm, f/11, 1/200sec, ISO100:
http://olz.dk/hotlink_pic/salina.jpg

Link to original picure: --> LINK <-- (http://olz.dk/hotlink_pic/salina_big.jpg)

[olz]

This one's with the TC:

140mm, f/9, 1/320sec, ISO100:
http://olz.dk/hotlink_pic/girlie.jpg

[EpHeSuS]

Absolutely awesome lens. Sharp at 300mm and very very sharp below 230mm or so.

Two test shots I did recently for another thread about this lens.

300mm f/4:

http://www.danielgphoto.com/IMG_0772.jpg

420mm f/5.6 (Sigma 1.4x TC)


http://www.danielgphoto.com/IMG_0777.jpg

[jcpoulin]

WOW, thank you all very much....a new lens it is!!!!!

[Trung_EP3CTR]

I like to see some more samples please. There's not many online.
Trying to decide between this and the 70-200mm f2.8

[davidfig]

I wish it came in white. ;)

[Orogeny]

I like to see some more samples please. There's not many online.
Trying to decide between this and the 70-200mm f2.8Here you go.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/100-300_4_apo_ex_dg_hsm

About 4,600 photos to look at.:D

Tim

[olz]

I like to see some more samples please. There's not many online.
Trying to decide between this and the 70-200mm f2.8

I thought about the 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma, but suddenly found the 100-300mm used for a very good price. Right now I'm glad that i didn't decide on the 70-200mm. 200mm will be to short for birding and wildlife in general. Actually my TC stays on the lens most of the time making it an 420mm f/5.6. But that depends on what you're planning to use it for.

I wish it came in white. :wink:

Well. I'm glad that it's black. I actually like the black EX series finish better than the Canon L's color that screams for attention. :cool:

[tellingthm]

it's awesome. hsm keeps up with a 1d's ai-servo. plenty sharp wide open. VERY well built. i always use mine handheld, but it does require good light, which imo is it's only drawback.
fwiw, i'll be selling mine in a few days, as it'll be replaced with a 70-200 IS (only doing it for the f/2.8 and IS, not because i have any iq problems with the sigma).

[Knightshade]

great lens..I use it all the time for little league & soccer. since we have so many users of this lens speaking up, anybody use a canon 1.4x w/it or know if it will work?

[Broncosaurus]

312mm, 1/400 sec, f/8, 400iso, Sigma 1.4 TC.
Taken from over 400', and 50% cropped. Slight back focus due to user (me).
Canons 1.4 TC will work, I don't know about the 2x.

[EpHeSuS]

2x TC will work, but it'll be a MF lens on anything but a 1 series camera, because it'll be f/8.

[Tony-S]

These were taken at Andrews Lake in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado. First is full frame reduced to 800x800 pixels, the second a 100% crop. 300mm, 1/800 @ f/4, ISO 200.

[Tony-S]

The following was taken with the Sigma 1.4x TC attached to the 100-300. This fellow hovered for a few seconds, but it was tough to focus on it. Again, taken at Andrews Lake, 368mm, 1/800 @ f/6.3, ISO 400. First is full-frame reduced to 800x800, the second a 100% crop.

[Tony-S]

Here's another with the 1.4x Sigma TC. Wide open (f/5.6), 1/400, ISO 800. First is full-frame reduced to 800 px wide, second 100% crop.

[olz]

I haven't got to use mine that much lately but yesterday i visited the Scandinavian Wildlife Park (http://skandinaviskdyrepark.dk/UK/about.html) with my girlfriend and older brother.

Here's some shots:

http://olz.dk/hotlink_pic/wolfie.jpg
http://olz.dk/hotlink_pic/bear.jpg
http://olz.dk/hotlink_pic/duck_bg.jpg

[condyk]

http://www.buzzdns.com/sheephead.jpg

F4.0 with 1.4 TCon (5.6)

[grimreaper]

anymore?

[L.Morey]

Here's my contrabution, this was taken ae f4.5 in not the greatest of light at iso 200 and if you look close you can see MHS on the moving ball. They were about 80-90 yda away


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/TruTurn/BEYER_11copy.jpg

[BobbyT]

Here is a couple of contributions from me

my daughter
http://images22.fotki.com/v723/photos/9/949682/3800985/img9165bw-vi.jpg

my dog
http://images21.fotki.com/v515/photos/9/949682/3800985/IMG_9158-vi.jpg

[grimreaper]

I so want this lens , for some out door sports shots.

[looop]

F4.5 at 300mm

http://i.pbase.com/v3/37/571137/1/46120464.CRW_1395copy.jpg

F5.6 at 420mm with the 1.4tc

http://i.pbase.com/v3/37/571137/1/46210573.CRW_1556copy.jpg

F5.6 at 420mm with 1.4tc

http://k53.pbase.com/o4/37/571137/1/63120390.U6T9Zef4.IMG_5270copy.jpg

F4.5 at 300mm

http://k53.pbase.com/v3/37/571137/1/45366574.IMG_0302.jpg

F11 at 420mm with 1.4 tc

http://i.pbase.com/v3/37/571137/1/50321369.IMG_3957.jpg

[JaGWiRE]

How does this work with Canon's 1.4x MK II TC?
Any worse then the Sigma?

[BobbyT]

A couple more of the dog

http://images21.fotki.com/v758/photos/9/949682/3827794/IMG_9450-vi.jpg

not a crop but an extreme close up instead
http://images24.fotki.com/v764/photos/9/949682/3827794/_MG_9479-vi.jpg

[grimreaper]

Still not bought it yet , but keep coming back to this archive :) , but no one seems to post samples of it :(

[wonny]

I've rented on from rentcameragear.com for my vacation next week. I'll post pictures when I get back!

[CRE@TE]

I love this lens.

[grimreaper]

I love this lens.


Looks nice and crisp.
Whats it like at 300mm f4, I suspect it wont be as good as the canon 300 f4 prime but how much worse is it than that, if any, if theres alot of difference then I might have to rethink and get that then save up for a 70-200mm but that wouldnt till later in the year , start of next year :confused: .
Theres a fine line between Photography being a hobby and a obsesion :lol:

Has anyone got any Football[Soccer] or Motosport shots taken with the 100-300mm ,as thats what i'll be using it for mainly , I wont be using it indoors so f4 should do for outside I think :confused:

cheers, James:D

[CountryBoy]

I wish it came in white. ;)

I'm glad it's black !

It's my favorite lens. Without a teleconverter, I handhold it most of the time. But a monopod or tripod helps. I just bought a tripod and took some sample pictures and it really makes a difference. Now if it would stop raining:cry: .

The pictures I was going to post are to big. But you can click on the links in my signature. I'll try to get some posted here, over the weekend or next week.

[wcl4]

Surprisingly sharp, great bokeh (9 blades!), great colors and contrast. Opted for this lens over the Canon 70-200 2.8IS as this lens is far sharper than either copy I once owned. F2.8 would be nice, but then we're talking a much larger lens. Hardest part is the lack of IS.

[lungdoc]

Love this lens, apart from it's size!

http://lungdoc.smugmug.com/photos/150409969-M.jpg

http://lungdoc.smugmug.com/photos/142938956-M.jpg

[wonny]

I just got this lens in the mail... I would have to agree with everyone that it's a well built MONSTER. It's very, very dense which makes it a challenge for me to handhold. Focusing is quick and accurate.

http://x0c.xanga.com/e2bd440425730122341093/w88284689.jpg



I got a couple test shots below...

http://x26.xanga.com/87fd500bc8731122341082/w88284680.jpg
Wide open at 100mm

http://x1d.xanga.com/c96d4b0425530122341077/w88284675.jpg
100% crop from above.


Hopefully we'll put this to use at Olympic National... if not, I'll have carried around all week for nothing! :lol:

[CountryBoy]

I leave the tripod collar on at all times. I let it rest in the palm of my hand, and work the zoom with my thumb and finger. It might not work for everyone, but I found it's best for me.

I'll be trying it out more with the teleconverter and tripod this week.

[KevNJ]

Hopefully we'll put this to use at Olympic National... if not, I'll have carried around all week for nothing! :lol:


If your saying that cause you think you'll get rained out. Let me know before hand, and we can extend your rental period ( no cost ). So that you'll be able to get some use out of it even if its not for the event you wanted to shoot.

Kevin

[condyk]

Looks nice and crisp.
Whats it like at 300mm f4, I suspect it wont be as good as the canon 300 f4 prime but how much worse is it than that, if any ...

Had both and think that overall, unless you want IS, that the 100-300mm is a better lens. It has the x factor and at the price is one of the great bargains in photography.

[tunin]

Is there a better price anywhere? http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=154649f8d8e6446/shopdata/0010_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0040_Tele+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0760_Sigma%2BZo om%2BTelephoto%2B100-300mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B4%2BEX%2BAPO%2BIF%2BHSM%2B Autofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG1003 00F4CA%3D29

THANK YOU:

[Tony-S]

This shot was with the Sigma 2x DG teleconverter attached. A bit soft, as expected, but not too bad. 1/640 at f/20, 600mm, ISO 800, full-frame with no pp.

[Reed Goodwin]

300mm f/5.6 1/320
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i225/bnnnboy/IMG_3478s.jpg

300mm f/5 1/3200
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i225/bnnnboy/IMG_1937es.jpg

263mm f/8 1/640
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i225/bnnnboy/IMG_2977_3x2s.jpg

137mm f/5.6 1/2000
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i225/bnnnboy/IMG_2607_2x3BW.jpg

[goatee]

I'm getting a 70-200 f/4 this summer, and then I saw someone else mention this lens, found this thread, fell in love, and then saw how much more it is than the Canon :( Also, you can get grey Canon imports, but with Sigmas, they refuse to do warranty repairs on grey imports :(.

[EOSAddict]

There are quite a few second hand ones floating around.... It is a beauty.

[goatee]

I think even secondhand will be too pricey :( (can get the 70-200 for £370 new)

[EOSAddict]

Sell your 24-70 and get the Sig 24-70, 100-300 combo ;) (only flaw is that the 24-70 doesn't have HSM dammit!)

[goatee]

Only got the 24-70 a coupla weeks ago, and love it to bits. Actually, I'd sell the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 85mm f/1.8 possibly. . . . hmmm :)

[EOSAddict]

Where N of london are you goatee? Could meet up and let you have a play with my 100-300 in return for a clutch of your 24-70! ;)

[goatee]

Sounds like a plan :) Lets continue this via PM :D.

[Klippie]

Here's a few shots taken with my 100-300mm Sigma, this is a great lens and fantastic value for money. It also works very well with my 1.4x and 2.0x converters.

These are with my old 350D...

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/604/tornado800x600jt1.jpg

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/3889/mig29800x600ym0.jpg

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/5334/daytona675800x600id4.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6034/bikevz5.jpg



With 30D...

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c115/Klippie/Motorcycle%20Racing/East%20Fortune%20April%202007/Pic31.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c115/Klippie/Motorcycle%20Racing/East%20Fortune%20April%202007/Pic39.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c115/Klippie/Stock%20Cars/Knockhill%20May%202007/Pic13.jpg



http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c115/Klippie/Stock%20Cars/Knockhill%20May%202007/Pic32.jpg

[olz]

Heres a couple of mickeys shot with the Sigma teleconverter:

420mm, f/8, 1/250sec (430EX max sync), ISO 200:
http://www.50mm.dk/potn/mus_01_lille.jpg
312mm, f/5.6 (wide open), 1/250sec (430EX max sync), ISO 200
http://www.50mm.dk/potn/mus_02_small.jpg

[Ospi]

Any1 have photos of birds and stuff with and without a TC attached?

[Reed Goodwin]

I do. I'll try to post some tomorrow. You can also search for threads by me in the Bird forum since most of those are taken with the 100-300mm.
Reed

[Ospi]

Thanks Reed, will do.

[photobitz]

Here's a couple of test shots I took yesterday...

My comparison is between the 100-300 vanilla and the 100-300 with a Canon 1.4x extender. I think you'll agree the effect of the extender is seemless. (EDIT: by that I mean effect on IQ... there is a definite degradation in AF speed)
Somehow this goose managed to strike the same pose twice..? These are all straight from the camera - no PP except for resize.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 @ 300mm, f/14, 1/250, ISO100 hand-held

194174

Sigma 100-300 f/4 with Canon 1.4x Extender @ 300mm (420mm effective), f/14, 1/250, ISO100 hand-held

194175

[photobitz]

...and 100% crops. Same shots as previous post.

Vanilla

194177

With 1.4x extender

194178

I think the first shot shows a slight bit of blur due to camera shake - handheld after all.

[Ospi]

hand held at 1/250th at 300 and 420mm and they are still quite sharp. Nice shots, great lens.

[photobitz]

I guess not quite hand-held... I was sitting on the ground and resting the lens on my knee. It's a super lens and I am definitely impressed with it although I can now appreciate why people love IS at long focal lengths. Weight is a bit of an issue if you are shooting for long periods of time so a monopod would be beneficial (next on my to-buy list ;) )

If Sigma stuck OS in this lens it would be killer although that would increase the price at least 50% and make it even heavier.

[CountryBoy]

I do. I'll try to post some tomorrow. You can also search for threads by me in the Bird forum since most of those are taken with the 100-300mm.
Reed

Some very nice work .


I guess not quite hand-held... I was sitting on the ground and resting the lens on my knee. It's a super lens and I am definitely impressed with it although I can now appreciate why people love IS at long focal lengths. Weight is a bit of an issue if you are shooting for long periods of time so a monopod would be beneficial (next on my to-buy list ;) )

If Sigma stuck OS in this lens it would be killer although that would increase the price at least 50% and make it even heavier.

Yes OS would be nice. But it is still a great lens. Add a tc and it still performs great. In the 100-300mm range, or the 70-300 range, it just can't be beat.
Unless you get the EX 120-300mm 2.8.

[f1nut]

I tried this lens out today. It did seem to be fast and sharp but it would not auto focus with a kenco 2x teleplus pro 300, this is on a mk2n. It would just not lock on to anything. Which converter do you guys use? and could you also post a few pictures with the converters in action. Below is one of my first shots with this lens.

Thanks

[Tony-S]

I tried this lens out today. It did seem to be fast and sharp but it would not auto focus with a kenco 2x teleplus pro 300, this is on a mk2n. It would just not lock on to anything. Which converter do you guys use? and could you also post a few pictures with the converters in action. Below is one of my first shots with this lens.

Thanks

I use the Sigma 1.4x and 2x DG EX extenders. It only autofocuses with the 1.4x (f/5.6) on my 30D. The 1.4 works great, the 2x only so-so. I have no hesitation using the 1.4x, but the 2x only if I'm desperate. Heck, I've even put both extenders on, but its FL is not reported correctly (840mm is reported as 552mm). Below is an example (and 100% crop) with both extenders, with Auto Levels adjustment in PSCS3.

[Tony-S]

OK, nothing too fancy. Here are four full-frame shots of the same thing at f/11 (except 840mm; see next post) with my Sigma 100-300. Shots are at 300mm (no TC), 420mm (1.4x TC), 600mm (2x TC) and 840mm (2x/1.4x TC stacked).

First two at 300mm and 420mm.

[Tony-S]

And at 600mm and 840mm. I think the 840mm lens was probably at f/16 (one stop down) because with both TC on it seems to report the 2x TC (i.e., it's one stop off).

[photobitz]

I think I should mention that the AF does dull down with a TC on. With a 1.4x it will still AF, but I found it a fair bit slower and not as accurate. It tends to hunt around more frequently. For a stationary subject (like the goose I posted previously) it's fine, but I took it out today to shoot some hawks in flight and was a bit disappointed with the tracking speed.

Has anyone else noticed this or do I just need practice?

[f1nut]

Thanks guys

I guess that I now need to get my hands on these?

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=99499

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=99553

Are these the right sort of converters that I need and is this the ones you guys use???.

[photobitz]

Thanks guys

I guess that I now need to get my hands on these?

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=99499

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=99553

Are these the right sort of converters that I need and is this the ones you guys use???.

Errr... not the second link... that one's for the evil N*k*n!!!

[f1nut]

Oh well spotted. I have ordered a x2 from park cameras so that should have me up and running in the next few days:)

[CountryBoy]

I think I should mention that the AF does dull down with a TC on. With a 1.4x it will still AF, but I found it a fair bit slower and not as accurate. It tends to hunt around more frequently. For a stationary subject (like the goose I posted previously) it's fine, but I took it out today to shoot some hawks in flight and was a bit disappointed with the tracking speed.

Has anyone else noticed this or do I just need practice?


What Tc was you using ? I use the Sigma 1.4 and it works fine. I tried a kenco and it seemed to hunt more and slowed it down some. Same thing when I tried it with my EX 50-150mm , so I just use the Sigma Tc.

I haven't tried a 2x Tc. I think thats asking too much, and you loose AF.

[photobitz]

What Tc was you using ? I use the Sigma 1.4 and it works fine. I tried a kenco and it seemed to hunt more and slowed it down some. Same thing when I tried it with my EX 50-150mm , so I just use the Sigma Tc.

I haven't tried a 2x Tc. I think thats asking too much, and you loose AF.

Was with the canon 1.4x... as per my post on the last page.

[CountryBoy]

Was with the canon 1.4x... as per my post on the last page.


That's what I get for posting before the first cup of coffee. :)

I never tried the cannon.

[photobitz]

Hmmm... now that I try it without the TC, I think the speed is ok but the accurancy does seem to be off. Me shooting without a pod probably doesn't help with tracking though!

[f1nut]

The way I understand it the lens will be a F8 when used with the times 2 converter which I believe will still auto focus with a 1dn11.

[photobitz]

Could I get some ppl to post some f/4 pics (with 100% crops too)? Something furry or feathered would be nice so we can see the level of detail.

I'd just like something to compare my shots to...

[Chris R/T]

Has anyone used this in low light? Or not hte best lighting? Perhaps a college or high school football game at night?

[angryhampster]

Has anyone used this in low light? Or not hte best lighting? Perhaps a college or high school football game at night?



You'll want an f/2.8 lens for that.

[Chris R/T]

I guess that empty-wallet mod is going to come up soon, huh? lol

[photobitz]

Has anyone used this in low light? Or not hte best lighting? Perhaps a college or high school football game at night?

Yeah, it aint the best in very low light unless you have some sort of IR emitter for focus assist.

I have noticed recently that mine won't focus spot-on within about 4 metres. Past that, its very precise. Not sure if this is a problem specific to my unit or not??

[Chris R/T]

Well, i'm not in very low light. It is a well lit stadium, the sidelines however, are somewhat not very well lit.

[CountryBoy]

I have noticed recently that mine won't focus spot-on within about 4 metres. Past that, its very precise. Not sure if this is a problem specific to my unit or not?? I think it might be a problem with your unit . Did you try it on a tripod ?

Has anyone used this in low light? Or not hte best lighting? Perhaps a college or high school football game at night?

I tried it on a very well lighted baseball game, and it did great. But on other fields where the lighting wasn't so good, it didn't fair so well. It doesn't need bright sunshine. I've used it on cloudy, overcast day, and into the late evening, and it did great.I just had to adjust the ISO. But for night games I would lean towards a 2.8 lens.

[tomekay]

I am still quite new to photgraphy...so be gentle.

People state that the lower the f* the quicker the lens (ie opens wider lets more light in, quicker shutter speeds), so why do I see many shots with this lens that are quite high f numbers?:confused:

I would have thought that would be the last thing to do if you are handholding this lens...as its heavy and wobbly at 300mm

I did think that haveing a higher f number would just increase the depth of field and slow the shutter speed.

I obviously have a lot to learn

Regards

[Reed Goodwin]

"stopping the lens down", i.e. narrowing the aperture by increasing the f-stop, often makes a lens sharper, to a point, and reduces vignetting. I usually shoot with this lens at f/5.6 to get pretty good sharpness while still hand-holding it.
Reed

[photobitz]

I think it might be a problem with your unit . Did you try it on a tripod ?

Not yet, but I don't think I need to. Focus, even in bright sun is quite noticeably off. It appears to be back-focusing somewhat. I must admit I hadn't noticed this when I first got it. At further distance I think the greater DOF is masking the effect. I am wondering whether the cheapo UV filter I bought for it is causing the issue?

[Shasta]

...and 100% crops. Same shots as previous post.

Vanilla

194177

With 1.4x extender

194178

I think the first shot shows a slight bit of blur due to camera shake - handheld after all.


Are you using the DG version?

[photobitz]

Are you using the DG version?

Yep. Purchased new a couple of months ago.

[nwa2]

The physical size of this lens puts me off (1.5kg).

How do you think it rates against the Canon 70-200 F4 L?

I appreciate the canon has shorter reach.

[Mr. Clean]

... I am wondering whether the cheapo UV filter I bought for it is causing the issue?
9 times out of 10, that's the case.

[CountryBoy]

The physical size of this lens puts me off (1.5kg).

How do you think it rates against the Canon 70-200 F4 L?

I appreciate the canon has shorter reach.

I liked it better, a friend sold his 70-200mm f.4 and bought the Sigma. But he used his Canon with a tc most of the time and thought the native glass of the Sigma was better. Also the way the sigma handles a sigma 1.4 converter at 420mm was a big plus. But both are very good lens, it just depends what your using it for. For youth baseball , the Sigma is the way to go. It also double as a very good wildlife lens.


Not yet, but I don't think I need to. Focus, even in bright sun is quite noticeably off. It appears to be back-focusing somewhat. I must admit I hadn't noticed this when I first got it. At further distance I think the greater DOF is masking the effect. I am wondering whether the cheapo UV filter I bought for it is causing the issue?

About the only way you'll find out is to, take the filter off and mount it on a tripod .

[photobitz]

The physical size of this lens puts me off (1.5kg).

How do you think it rates against the Canon 70-200 F4 L?

I appreciate the canon has shorter reach.

You're right, it is a heavy bugger but it's workable.



About the only way you'll find out is to, take the filter off and mount it on a tripod .

Now why didn't I think of that ;) LOL

[lungdoc]

Could I get some ppl to post some f/4 pics (with 100% crops too)? Something furry or feathered would be nice so we can see the level of detail.

I'd just like something to compare my shots to...

Full size is at http://lungdoc.smugmug.com/gallery/3495111#197002579-O-LB

http://lungdoc.smugmug.com/photos/197002579-M.jpg

[photobitz]

9 times out of 10, that's the case.

About the only way you'll find out is to, take the filter off and mount it on a tripod .

Well, looks like that was the problem. I guess that confirms my theory... Genuine Hoya filters should cost more than $15. LOL

[CountryBoy]

Well, looks like that was the problem. I guess that confirms my theory... Genuine Hoya filters should cost more than $15. LOL


:D Glad to hear, you have it figured out. :D

[photobitz]

:D Glad to hear, you have it figured out. :D

Yeah, I can't believe how much difference it makes. I'd be interested in finding out the physics behind this phenomenon.

Unfortunately now it means I don't have any lens protection and I don't really want to spend $150 on a Pro UV filter to fit it but then what choice do I have? On that note, can anyone recommend a quality filter they've tried and proven on this lens?

[CountryBoy]

Yeah, I can't believe how much difference it makes. I'd be interested in finding out the physics behind this phenomenon.

Unfortunately now it means I don't have any lens protection and I don't really want to spend $150 on a Pro UV filter to fit it but then what choice do I have? On that note, can anyone recommend a quality filter they've tried and proven on this lens?

Check this out, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177

I don't use a UV filter on mine . I just use the Hood and a "hood hat" . It slips on the hood in between shots.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=hood+hat&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=catalog.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t

[Eric&Susan]

Can some one who has this lens please measure how long it is with the hood attached? I see it is 9 inches in the specs but I don't know if that includes the hood, I don't think it does.

Thanks,

Eric

[Reed Goodwin]

From the end of the mount to the end of the hood, it's about 13"
Reed

[Eric&Susan]

From the end of the mount to the end of the hood, it's about 13"
Reed


Thanks for the reply.

I just bought one yesterday and I'm making sure it will fit in my 6MDH. Might have to get a bigger bag too;)

Eric

[Reed Goodwin]

Haha, always a good feeling. And for those who were asking, I actually got a chance last night to shoot a high school football game with the 100-300mm. Definitely would have been nicer to have a f2.8 lens, but I managed. I was shooting ISO3200, wide open, just to get in the 1/250th-1/400th range. I got some good shots and I'll post once I process them. But rarely did a miss a shot for focus, so I was quite pleased in that respect.
Reed

[Reed Goodwin]

As promised, pictures from the event: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=382114
Reed

[prime80]

w00h00!!! My new one is at the house! Thanks RikWriter!!!

[CountryBoy]

Haha, always a good feeling. And for those who were asking, I actually got a chance last night to shoot a high school football game with the 100-300mm. Definitely would have been nicer to have a f2.8 lens, but I managed. I was shooting ISO3200, wide open, just to get in the 1/250th-1/400th range. I got some good shots and I'll post once I process them. But rarely did a miss a shot for focus, so I was quite pleased in that respect.
Reed

I took a look at your images. Not bad for shooting under those conditions . Most High Schools don't have the best lighting.

[Nikolas]

Ok i picked this up from a vendor in Hong Kong second hand.
The exDG version.
WOW almost if not as sharp as my 300 f4L and imho sharper than my 70-200 f4 at 300mm :)
Very impressed. I find the hsm identical to the usm of my L lenses, only factor is the weight but even that is not an issue imho.
some examples
300 at f4 in the rain iso 800
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/leamoon.jpg

250mm f4 iso200
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/siggy100-300/rings.jpg

crop straight from the raw completely untouched.
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/siggy100-300/crop.jpg

100% crop of the dogs head
f7.1 iso 200
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/siggy100-300/oscarcrop.jpg

[CountryBoy]

Looks like a keeper to me !

[photobitz]

Ok i picked this up from a vendor in Hong Kong second hand.
The exDG version.
WOW almost if not as sharp as my 300 f4L and imho sharper than my 70-200 f4 at 300mm :)
Very impressed. I find the hsm identical to the usm of my L lenses, only factor is the weight but even that is not an issue imho.


Congrats... super lens ;) Nice shots too.

[Shingle]

I'm quite interested in this lens, anyone got more photos from this lens, that they would like to share please?

Kind Regards.

[NCSUphotog]

Hey, i just bought this lens off of keh.com, and after receiving it and testing it today i noticed that the auto focus is very "clunky" its not very smooth. Also i noticed that the manual focus ring moves/jumps during auto focus. It seems sharp, ill have to do more testing tomorrow when its sunny, but i need to know if something is wrong with the focusing before i send it back. One other problem i saw with it was that if shooting far out like at 10 meters then try to move my focus to something very close it wont go, i have to tap on my focus button and it will jump....jump.....jump till it makes it in focus. If anyone could tell me about your operation asap that would be great, only got a few days to deal with keh if the lens is broken.

[photobitz]

Hey, i just bought this lens off of keh.com, and after receiving it and testing it today i noticed that the auto focus is very "clunky" its not very smooth. Also i noticed that the manual focus ring moves/jumps during auto focus. It seems sharp, ill have to do more testing tomorrow when its sunny, but i need to know if something is wrong with the focusing before i send it back. One other problem i saw with it was that if shooting far out like at 10 meters then try to move my focus to something very close it wont go, i have to tap on my focus button and it will jump....jump.....jump till it makes it in focus. If anyone could tell me about your operation asap that would be great, only got a few days to deal with keh if the lens is broken.

That doesn't sound right at all. Are you sure it is the 100-300 f/4? The focus ring should feel very solid and rotate smoothly. It should feel well dampened too. AF also should be very fast and accurate.

[NCSUphotog]

Yeh, Its the 100-300 f4 IF HSM APO EX, I got it from keh for 645 in EX+ condition. But like its not nearly what i thought it would be after reading hundreds of reviews. The focus ring does rotate smoothly, but for some reason the actual autofocus it clunky. also it makes a high pitch whine every so often when the focus is moving out toward infinity. Does your foucs ring move during af?

[dbdors]

Mine focuses very smooth. The ring is smooth, and the focus acquisition is also very quick.

[Reed Goodwin]

Yeah, there's something wrong with your lens. Should not be doing that.
Reed

[CountryBoy]

It was a used lens ?
The focus ring does not move, AF should be smooth and quite .
Send it back .

[olz]

HSM on the 100-300 f/4 can be a bit clunky - mine is, but it's focusing perfect, and it's fast too. On a mint copy both focusrings should be a bit stiff - but they loosen up along the way.

[photobitz]

It's HSM so the focus ring shouldn't move when it autofocuses. It sounds like there may be somthing jamming the internal workings... sand maybe or the lubricant has just dried up? Unfortunately might need a service but I'd be sending it back to KEH if they didn't note anything wrong with it. Get them to sort it out or refund you.

[TenaCJed]

Just wondering if any one has tried this lens with a 2X TC, whether it be Sigma or some other brand. I know the image would be degraded, just wonding how much. Some people are pickier then others so some pics would be good if possible.

I already have the lens with the Sigma 1.4 TC and love that combo. There are times were I would really like to have some more reach. I just don't have the money to do it the proper way. I realise it would only work well with good light, no auto focus without tape or non-reporting TC, and it will degrade the image quality (the question is how much).

If no one else has tried, maybe I will.

[EOSAddict]

I've tried it. It's ok. IQ is degraded but not hopeless

[gcogger]

I tried it, but wasn't too impressed with the quality. I'm not convinced it was any better than up-sizing an image taken with the 1.4x TC in Photoshop.

Another issue is that it didn't want to auto focus using the 'tape trick' to persuade the camera to at least try. With a Sigma 2x TC, it would not focus at all under just about any circumstances. With a Kenko Pro 2x TC, it would occasionally focus under very good conditions, but still wasn't really usable. By way of reference, a Canon 300mm f/4 L was able to focus with the Kenko Pro 2x, and had acceptable image quality (a fair bit better than the Sigma at 300mm f/4).

[photobitz]

Just wondering if any one has tried this lens with a 2X TC, whether it be Sigma or some other brand. I know the image would be degraded, just wonding how much. Some people are pickier then others so some pics would be good if possible.

I already have the lens with the Sigma 1.4 TC and love that combo. There are times were I would really like to have some more reach. I just don't have the money to do it the proper way. I realise it would only work well with good light, no auto focus without tape or non-reporting TC, and it will degrade the image quality (the question is how much).

If no one else has tried, maybe I will.

See my post near the bottom of page 4 in this thread. The quality using the Canon 1.4x extender was only slightly better than with a Kenko 2x converter. I found the major source of image degradation with the 2x was due to the amplified effects of camera shake at such a long focal length. If you are going to use converters on this lens you need some sort of pod - it's simply too heavy to hold still unless you have arms like tree trunks.

EDIT: I generally manual focus most of the time so I can't really comment on the AF ability using the 2x (note that Sigma only guarantee it to work with a 1.4x) The 1.4x seemed OK when I tried it.

[RikWriter]

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/93285310.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/84710382.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/84710395.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/84748650.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rikwriter/image/84748759.jpg

[CountryBoy]

RikWriter- are these with a 2x ? Those are great ! More info !!

[RikWriter]

RikWriter- are these with a 2x ? Those are great ! More info !!

They're all with the Sigma 1.4X TC.

[TenaCJed]

I will say that this lens handles a 1.4 TC very well. I have the Sigma 1.4 and it is always on.

I think I am going to try a 2X next. Now I have to decide do I go with Canon, Sigma, Tamron, or Kenko. I am leaning towards Sigma, but I have heard good things about the Kenko.

[photobitz]

I will say that this lens handles a 1.4 TC very well. I have the Sigma 1.4 and it is always on.

I think I am going to try a 2X next. Now I have to decide do I go with Canon, Sigma, Tamron, or Kenko. I am leaning towards Sigma, but I have heard good things about the Kenko.

The Canon isn't worth it for the money in my opinion. The kenko seems just as good IQ-wise and can be used on any lens. The build leaves something to be desired. Sigma TCs have protruding front elements like the Canon and can only be used on certain lenses. I haven't heard many people rave about the Sigma TCs or the Tamron ones either.

[TenaCJed]

Well, I decided to go with the Sigma. I have done some google searches and found many people that were happy with the 2X on the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and the Sigma 300 2.8. I know that my results will not be the same due to different lens, but there are plenty of people that are happy with the Sigma 2X. The build quality means a lot to me, and to hear that the build quality is not as good with the Kenko put me off. I also read on a couple of other forums that there have been some issues with the Kenko and Sigma lens, don't know how true it is.

I will post some results when I get it and get some good light to do some real world tests.

[photobitz]

OK, here's one with the 2x Kenko @300mm...

Eastern Yellow Robin - ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/80

256906


100% crop

256907


Bear in mind that this was underexposed and in relative darkness so it's grainy as all heck... still shows a good amount of detail in the feathers.

[TenaCJed]

I think that looks pretty darn good, there is still a good amount of detail in the feathers to me. I know a prime lens at 500 or 600 will have more detail, but I can't afford that. For me this is a good cheap alternative to get the reach I would like to have.

Thanks for posting the example. I almost go the Kenko too, but read a couple of posts on other forums of people having problems. They said that B&H told them there was a known problem withe the Kenko and Sigma lens. Like I said, who knows if it is true, but I decided to go with the Sigma, I like the build quality of the Sigma any way.

[photobitz]

One thing I noticed is that the Kenko won't report it's presence to the camera.

[TenaCJed]

I have read some other comments that with Sigma it does not, but with Canon it does. Once I test everything out with the Sigma I plan on taping the pins. Not so much for the auto focus, but to get focus confirmation when using manual focus. With the viewfinder of the Rebel XT it is next to impossible to tell if focus is right or not.

[Tony-S]

With the Sigma 2x and this lens, you lose autofocus and it misreports the FL.

[TenaCJed]

Well aware of no autofocus, but that is the first I have heard that it does not report the FL properly. I will have to check that when I get mine.

[photobitz]

I have read some other comments that with Sigma it does not, but with Canon it does. Once I test everything out with the Sigma I plan on taping the pins. Not so much for the auto focus, but to get focus confirmation when using manual focus. With the viewfinder of the Rebel XT it is next to impossible to tell if focus is right or not.

Oh I hear you there!! Sometimes I wish I could sell a kidney and buy a 1Dxxx for that very reason.

With the Sigma 2x and this lens, you lose autofocus and it misreports the FL.

First I've heard of that too. Does it just not report the doubling or does it completely screw up the numbers? The Kenko is invisible to the Camera so you just get the lens FL in the EXIF.

[TenaCJed]

Oh I hear you there!! Sometimes I wish I could sell a kidney and buy a 1Dxxx for that very reason.



:lol::lol: Maybe I will just save up a little and go with a 40D, but from what I have seen from the comparisons, your option is tempting!

[TenaCJed]

Well I got the Sigma 2X in. I don't know why but it is a little larger then I thought it was going to be. Did a quick test in the basement just too see if the focal lenght reported properly, and it does report 600mm on my Sigma 100-300 F4. So not sure what is going on with Tony-S's 2X, but mine does report properly. I won't bother posting the test I did in the basement as the light is not the best. Some outside test coming soon as long as the weather permits.

[CountryBoy]

Well I got the Sigma 2X in. I don't know why but it is a little larger then I thought it was going to be. Did a quick test in the basement just too see if the focal lenght reported properly, and it does report 600mm on my Sigma 100-300 F4. So not sure what is going on with Tony-S's 2X, but mine does report properly. I won't bother posting the test I did in the basement as the light is not the best. Some outside test coming soon as long as the weather permits.

Keep us updated !

[Tony-S]

Well, I just re-checked those files and sure enough they are listed as 600mm in my metadata. I'll just have to chock that up to another (of many) senior moments...

[TenaCJed]

Well, I just re-checked those files and sure enough they are listed as 600mm in my metadata. I'll just have to chock that up to another (of many) senior moments...

Just good to hear that it does work as it should. :)

[photobitz]

I just realised that picture of the robin I posted was handheld with 600mm @1/80 !! Surprising it came out so clear. I must not have had any coffee that day :D

[Nikolas]

The kenko 2x does report with the sigma.
MF on my 20D but the image quality is right up there.

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/100-300x2.jpg

and here's one just with the lens at 300mm

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~smeegles/Stuff/galahs.jpg

[photobitz]

The kenko 2x does report with the sigma.


You must have the newer model (pro 300?). I am using the MC7 type.

[photobitz]

Took this today with the 2x TC once again... handheld too! This little guy was about 5 metres away from me. I stunned even myself with the sharpness of this. Pity about the branch.

This is cropped to about 75% of the frame just to remove all the distracting background
258172

100% crop

258173

[CountryBoy]

Took this today with the 2x TC once again... handheld too! This little guy was about 5 metres away from me. I stunned even myself with the sharpness of this. Pity about the branch.


So, this is with manual focus ?

Looks pretty good for a 2x .

[photobitz]

So, this is with manual focus ?

Looks pretty good for a 2x .

Yep. It just won't lock on with AF except sometimes if it's really bright. I personally prefer to use manual focus anyway so it doesn't really phase me.

[Nikolas]

You must have the newer model (pro 300?). I am using the MC7 type.

Yep the pro dg

[photobitz]

I might upgrade one day. Be nice to have the true FL in the EXIF

[Nikolas]

please delete this post I mucked up. :(

[emseek8]

I have a 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 DL Sigma Lense, Which was bought for my hubbys Pentax.
This is not compatible with the Canon EOS range is it??

[photobitz]

I have a 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 DL Sigma Lense, Which was bought for my hubbys Pentax.
This is not compatible with the Canon EOS range is it??

Depends what series of Pentax it fitted. If it is a manual focus M42 screw mount you can get an adapter but if it is "K" mount you won't be able to use it at all.

You would be better posting your question as a new thread in the lens section rather than in this thread.

[BobbyT]

http://images36.fotki.com/v1174/photos/9/949682/6277112/SenecaPark5259-vi.jpg

http://images36.fotki.com/v1176/photos/9/949682/6277112/SenecaPark52521-vi.jpg

http://images36.fotki.com/v1157/photos/9/949682/6277112/SenecaPark52523-vi.jpg

http://images34.fotki.com/v1196/photos/9/949682/6277112/SenecaPark52520-vi.jpg

http://images27.fotki.com/v971/photos/9/949682/6277112/SenecaPark52529-vi.jpg

[photobitz]

Love the lighting in those sparrow shots.

[Hurricane]

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