Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 users

[TimNYC]

I'm contemplating buying this lens. Any users out there with good/bad reports? Thanks for your help!

[Canuck]

I'm contemplating buying this lens. Any users out there with good/bad reports? Thanks for your help!

My 2 pence, if you have the money, hell yes, get it!!! It rocks! The best bit is that if you stick a 2x TC, you get a 600mm at F5.6 (or 960 if you factor in the 1.6 crop. What the hell can't you do with a lens like this?
I can show you all kinds of awesome pics. Just e-mail me thru the Forum, and I'll be happy to send a few. Believe you me it rocks! I have a moon pic, a shot of Tenby Beach, Wales, and more!

It set me back $2226.35 including lens, 105mm CPL and UV filters and shipping. Just FYI.

[westfalcon1]

Shuttterbug(Feb. 2004) just did a review of the lens and the review was positive....He loved the lens and thought it was a bargain. He said that the lens was very comparable to Canon L lenses and the author had the 300 f2.8 and other high priced L lenses. Check it out....Brian

[lteton]

I've had mine since Sep. now, and love it. Great for wildlife. Just be prepared for the size and weight. It's a handfull if your not used to a big lens. The only complaint I have is the Zoom ring is pretty stiff.

[Canuck]

I've had mine since Sep. now, and love it. Great for wildlife. Just be prepared for the size and weight. It's a handfull if your not used to a big lens. The only complaint I have is the Zoom ring is pretty stiff.

I definitely agree, but look how much glass you are moving! I've had mine since mid Aug and it is my favourite long distance lens!

[timmyquest]

Would you guys recomend it over the 50-500mm...for shooting football for example

[lteton]

I've never tried the 50-500. Terrific Zoom range, and I've heard it's a sharp lens. That being said, I believe I would recomend it for about any sport. You don't have as much Zoom, but much faster optics leading to the ability to use faster shutter speeds in lower light, and faster focus also.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have owned (and loved) the 50-500mm

It is wonderfull wildlife lens,. excellent for out door photgraphy.

I have not used the 120-300mm though,..

But based on what I know of the one lens,. and based on what I know of a 300mm f/2.8 prime...

... I would defineatley opt for the 120-300mm f/2.8 EX for sports!

300mm f/2.8 primes are "The De'facto" choice of many sports photographers. The combination of focal range and speed is spot on for the application.

Sigma's zoom is the only one of it's kind, and it has convinced a small handfull of dedicated Nikon and Canon prime shooters to switch to a Sigma zoom. It;s flexibilty in a fast moving sporting event can not be argued (zoom wise)

And I hear it is tack sharp with the 1.4X Sigma T-con as well. Allwoing a 168-420mm f/4.. still pretty fast!

The 50-500mm is f/6.3 :( Not the best choice for fast moving action.

[TimNYC]

Thank you all for your help. Special thanks to Canuck!
I appreciate the advice from y'all.

[Canuck]

Thank you all for your help. Special thanks to Canuck!
I appreciate the advice from y'all.

Tim,
First, you're welcome.
I need to find the original of the Tenby Beach pic that is on this forum and post it to the site I am working on. This si not the one you saw on my site already. I have used it for a football game here locally under some really crappy light here in England and it worked brilliantly. It was just a nasty day all around, 20MPH wind, and a very damp cold. Still no problems at all. I can't remember the setting I used off the top of my head but it was all good. I did get some rather odd looks weilding it as I call it. The phrase "Would you like some digital camera to go with your lens?" apples.

Most importantly, there is NEVER a "y'all" in New York City!!! Just remember who won the war! The North!

[morenoar]

First I want to say thanks to Canuck, he has been trying to help me with some pictures I took when I had the 50-500mm. Thank you very much.

Second, I have seen 2 places that carry the 120-300 Sigma lens for about $1650, without the Filters of course. The question I have for all of you is as follows.

Do I go for the 120-300 f2.8 or the Canon 100-400 IS L, if there is only a $200 difference in price. I will use this for Soccer Shots on a DREBEL. And as of last night, I may need to use it at night with only the Football Field lights as my light source. I will try to get a Flash for the camera to help me, but either $1400 or $1600 will HURT. Thanks for your advise on this

Still have not decided which camera to take to Tokyo, the DREBEL or G1. My main concerns are Securith issues when I don't have the camera with me in Tokyo. I won't be with the Camers, most of the day, for the first 10 days of my 14 day trip.

[Tom W]

Morenoar - For security, you may want to ask about whether the place you're staying in Tokyo has a safe. If its a large chain Hotel, they might have a secure place to keep valuables behind the desk. Get a receipt if you use such a service.

As for the lens, it sounds like an awesome lens, but it sits well out of my price range.

[Canuck]

Morenoar - For security, you may want to ask about whether the place you're staying in Tokyo has a safe. If its a large chain Hotel, they might have a secure place to keep valuables behind the desk. Get a receipt if you use such a service.

As for the lens, it sounds like an awesome lens, but it sits well out of my price range.

morenoar:
Your welcome, just hope it has given you a much better idea of what you can expect from it and I am NOT a pro by any stretch of the imagination.

Tom:
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times about how much it rocks! If anyone is interested, please contact me thru the forum and I'd be happy to send some examples. At 300mm and F2.8 at full length, even the primes have trouble keeping up, pricewise. Now you stick the 2x tc on there and you have out to 600mm and F5.6 and if you are using it on the 10D it is effectively a 960 at F5.6. You can't shake a stick at that! Just some thoughts...

[morenoar]

Señor Canuck, what do you think of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8? I was thinking of this one also and then adding the 2x for 400 f5.6. Any ideas?

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you are comparing the two,. they really don't compare to well with eachother (70-200mm Vs. 120-300mm) simply because of the difference in sheer size! It more of an Apples to Watermelon comparison than apples to oranges! :)

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (a fine lens indeed and a true bargain as well) weighs a scant 43 ounces,.. the 120-300mm is 92 ounces!

Which essentially translates to the 70-200mm being an easy all day long hand held shooter,. while the 120-300mm DEMANDS a tripod/Monopod or some sort of support for anything but the briefest outing. For reference,. the "beefy" 50-500mm that many here own and consider VERY large is only 58 ounces to the 120-300mms 92.

I have taken hand held shots with the 50-500mm.. but it really can't be handheld for longer than a few minutes without a support of some kind.

The point being,. two very different applications and shooting styles with these two lenses.

Optically, the word is that the 120-300mm is the Sharpest most impressive zoom lens Sigma has ever made,. (in fact many owners of this lens are saying the sharpest telephoto zoom ever made period! Last night I read a thread@ Fred Miranda where several were saying they liked it's image quality better than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS,. which is considered to be Canon's best telephoto zoom)


As the two lenses cover such different applications,. you may wnat to consider getting both eventually.. (I own the 70-200 currently,. had the 50-500 but sold it as I now own a 500mm f/4.5 prime... so the 120-300mm is on my list to fill in between the 70-200 and the 500mm)

The question may be which to start with; So what kind of shooting you intend to do most would influence which lens is more appropriate.

[morenoar]

CDS thanks, I had the 50-500mm and loved the ability to stand on one side of the soccer field and shoot all the way to the other side. Like I stated in other discussions, I must have gotten a bad lense cause the majority of my shots where HORRIBLE. The reason I asked about the 70-200 f2.8 is to see if it would be good to get for my Soccer Sports shots. I figure use it, move around (hand holding it) and get a 2x converter for those times that I can not move to the opposing side to take pictures. Are the pictures nice and sharp on the 70-200? will it loose something when I attach a 2x? I want to get the 120-300, someday, but I have a few soccer tournaments comming up and the money for the 70-200 is burning a whole in my pocket. Help

[Wickedfn4u]

Morenoar, I just got done today shooting my daughters soccer game. I stared out with the 70-200 ex and a 1.4 and was able to get some great shots. But what I found is that I was missing some nice close shots. I took off the 1.4 and just used the 70-200.

I looked long and hard at the 120-300 and almost clicked the "buy it now" button on ebay a few times ( oh those shinny objects). I finally just thought I would get the 70-200 for 550.00, and I bought a 1.4 and 2x TC for 225 for the pair and still be under half.

I have not been home yet to download the pictures from the game, but I don't regret it yet. What also sold me was what CDS was saying about weight. I did not know how big that "canon" was until I saw it in person. That thing is HUGE.

[omeyas]

Thank you all for your help. Special thanks to Canuck!
I appreciate the advice from y'all.

Tim,
First, you're welcome.
I need to find the original of the Tenby Beach pic that is on this forum and post it to the site I am working on. !

I have to say, I live near Tenby, know the area very well. and without being unkind, the quality of the shot didn't impress me at all. :-( I'm a rank amateur myself, and wouldn't think of paying that sort of money for a lens, but if I did, I'd be hoping for better than that.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I like the Sigma 70-200m a lot.
I ahven't even figured out if I am going to seel it or the Canon (I now have both,. long story) as I still like the Sigma soo much.

My review of it can be found here;
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=102

And here is a comparison I did with the Canon;

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&thecat=27

[Canuck]

Thank you all for your help. Special thanks to Canuck!
I appreciate the advice from y'all.

Tim,
First, you're welcome.
I need to find the original of the Tenby Beach pic that is on this forum and post it to the site I am working on. !

I have to say, I live near Tenby, know the area very well. and without being unkind, the quality of the shot didn't impress me at all. :-( I'm a rank amateur myself, and wouldn't think of paying that sort of money for a lens, but if I did, I'd be hoping for better than that.

First of all, those in Tenby were the first ever taken with that lens. 2nd I had never used a pro lens before. Second, they are jpegs and jpegs are crap a lot of the times compared to the original! This is definitley the case. If I need anymore clarification, look at the moon pic. Now that was wicked and if you want to be blown away, I have pics that prove this lens is the stuff dreams are made of! That said, my photog ability continues to grow with the lenses I have which include that one and a Canon L glass lens. I can tell you the original is much sharper.

[morenoar]

:D :D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol:
I am SO HAPPY about news I just found out. I can go and RENT the 120-300 lens from one of our vendors here at work. YEAH baby, I just have to drive 70 miles to get it, and wait 2.5 weeks (trip to Tokyo) and then I can test it. OH YEAH BABY. Maybe I will rent the 100-400L also and compare. Would do you guys, that own one or the other or both lenses, think.

I can't WAIT

[Canuck]

:D :D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol:
I am SO HAPPY about news I just found out. I can go and RENT the 120-300 lens from one of our vendors here at work. YEAH baby, I just have to drive 70 miles to get it, and wait 2.5 weeks (trip to Tokyo) and then I can test it. OH YEAH BABY. Maybe I will rent the 100-400L also and compare. Would do you guys, that own one or the other or both lenses, think.

I can't WAIT

Cool! I think you should try both as it would be interesting to compare them side by side. Definitely go with the 120-300 Sigma one, then try the Canon one another day. Just bear in mind the Canon one is much slower, F4.5-5.6 vs F2.8 all the way, if that matters to you. I don't think you will run into the same problem as I would here in that the light is ever changing. It seem to me that where you are it is more or less the same for the most part day in, day out. Here in England, it can change drastically from one extreme to the other. I'd like to see what you can get with it. Try taking some pics of the moon in RAW. It will blow you away. The one I took on the page I am setting up in astrophotography gallery was a 100% crop from a large, fine jpeg pic!