Sigma 300 2.8

[dessie]

Help i was thinking of buying the sigma 300 2.8 Has anyone used this lenes for sport is it any good compaired to the canon 300 2.8 is there much difference between the two thanks:oops:

[bobbyz]

Inspite of what other would say canon 300mm f2.8 along with canon 400mm f2.8 is in a different class IMHO. If money was an issue I would look for canon 300mm f2.8 non IS.

[rovers_Andy]

i havent used the sigma myself but talking to one of the other photographers at a football league game on tuesday who does use the 300mm he said that his decison to get the sigma was because he couldnt afford the canon. He now wishes he had waited and got the canon as he finds the lack of a focus limiting switch and no weather sealed construction to be a handicap (he nearly called off going to the match due to heavy rain during the day)

[Dan-o]

The difference is about $1500 :lol: I haven't heard much on the Siggy.

You can read some reviews from FM http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=128&sort=7&cat=38&page=1

[dmwierz]

The Sigma is a decent lens. The 120-300 f/2.8 actually gets better reviews. If I were you, I'd either consider the zoom, or a series I Canon 300 f/2.8L, which can be had for just over $2K if you shop around.

[namasste]

Just personal experience but I keep trying to like Sigma glass and keep coming back to replacing whatever with Canon. Not to say it doesn't get the job done, I just find the Canon to focus faster and more accurately and the color rendition to be superior.

Experience so far...

owned Sigma 120-300 sold to get Canon 300

owned Sigma 10-20 sold to get Canon 17-40

owned Sigma 24-70 sold to get Canon 100 (different class so not an apples to apples as much)

own now Sigma 24-60 as a stopgap until I can sell it and afford a Canon 16-35 and 24-105 combo.

In each case (save the last) the Sigma glass just didn't compare to what I got from the Canon. I have learned my lesson and will stick to Canon unless the wallet is calling the shots.

[dessie]

Just personal experience but I keep trying to like Sigma glass and keep coming back to replacing whatever with Canon. Not to say it doesn't get the job done, I just find the Canon to focus faster and more accurately and the color rendition to be superior.

Experience so far...

owned Sigma 120-300 sold to get Canon 300

owned Sigma 10-20 sold to get Canon 17-40

owned Sigma 24-70 sold to get Canon 100 (different class so not an apples to apples as much)

own now Sigma 24-60 as a stopgap until I can sell it and afford a Canon 16-35 and 24-105 combo.

In each case (save the last) the Sigma glass just didn't compare to what I got from the Canon. I have learned my lesson and will stick to Canon unless the wallet is calling the shots.

Thanks everyone for the help have to do a bit of serious saveing:lol:

[rovers_Andy]

dessie, have a look regularly on Mifsuds.co.uk or mpbphotographic, they tend to have some good 2nd hand kit in stock

[namasste]

Dessie, don't get me wrong, the Sigma is not a bad lens by any means. Given the choice, its Canon every time but if you can afford the Sigma now, it might not be a bad idea to get it and see if you like shooting with a long prime. When you've saved the difference, sell the Siggy and get the Canon. That lens (especially the 120-300) should hold its value well if cared for.

[primoz]

Sigma 300/2.8 is great lens, 120-300/2.8 is even better, but at least with 300/2.8, Canon is whole different class of a lens. And also whole different class of money.
For lenses like this, my personal opinion is, they should be bought only when you have real business behind. It's too much of money and too specialized lens for hobby shooter. And when it's about business, I would spend a bit more for this particular lens and go with Canon.

[Sauk]

Ok I shot the 120-300 sigma and I own the 300mm F2.8 Sigma, without a doubt to me the prime is much much better.

Is it worth the money sure, if your on a budget get the prime. You won't be disappointed in the prime.

[dmwierz]

Ok I shot the 120-300 sigma and I own the 300mm F2.8 Sigma, without a doubt to me the prime is much much better.

Is it worth the money sure, if your on a budget get the prime. You won't be disappointed in the prime.

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0204sb_sigma/


After a day of shooting hockey with both lenses it was time to examine the files. At first it was tough to figure out which images were shot with which lens. Eventually I figured out which lens shot which images, and the differences were incredibly small. Yes, the best fixed focal length lenses are sharper wide-open than this excellent zoom lens. How much sharper? Just a little bit. On a big file like the EOS-1Ds, the difference is noticeable. On the EOS-1D, probably not. The last time I did this test it was with the Sigma fixed 300mm f/2.8 APO lens. At that time I felt that the Canon, for my needs, was clearly a better lens, yet here a Sigma zoom was performing seemingly better. How could this be?

I called Tom Sobey at Sigma to report my findings. He confirmed what I had experienced. Sigma’s optical engineers have produced a 120-300mm zoom lens that does in fact outperform their fixed 300mm lens. Wide-open I would say that it is noticeably sharper than the 300mm f/2.8 fixed Sigma lens.

[clarence]

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0204sb_sigma/

less glowing...
http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/sigma/35mm-zoom/PRD_171782_3128crx.aspx

[dmwierz]

less glowing...
http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/sigma/35mm-zoom/PRD_171782_3128crx.aspx

This site, as opposed to the one I quoted, is comprised of user reviews. As someone who actually owned a 120-300 and made a good bit of money with it over 2 seasons, I can state without equivocation that the biggest problem with this lens was my own operator error. The user must, repeat must, refocus if the lens is zoomed in or out, before firing the shutter.

If you don't follow this advice, you will spend all your time accusing the lens of failing you rather than investigating what you, the user, could be doing wrong.

Not to say there aren't bad copies of the 120-300 out there, but IMO these are far less prevalent than a user review site like Photography Review would seem to indicate.

Here's another review of the 120-300 (there are many) that comes from an "independent" organization:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-F-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

[Sauk]

dennis

I must have had a bad copy of the 120-300 dennis because I have shot thousand of images with both and I can say without a doubt my nikon mount sigma 300mm F2.8 lens was much sharper and produced better images then the 120-300.

But again my 120-300 might not have been as good as yours, we all know sigma doesn't produce quality like a canon.

[dmwierz]

Matthew - That's certainly possible, as your ability as a photographer is well established. I also know Paul Alesse from FM has had sporadic issues with his 120-300 as have other skilled shooters like yourself.

Were you always certain to refocus after every zoom? Like I said, there are bad copies out there, and after all, there are reasons why the Canon EF 300 f/2.8L IS costs almost twice as much, and they're not all for the white paint.

Every time I was willing to write of my copy of the 120-300 (up until I sold it to a friend of mine who just entered the PJ program at Mizzou)) it would produce genuinely dazzling results. Not as consistent as my EF 400 f/2.8L IS but then again this lens cost 4X+ what the Sigma did.

[Dan-o]

I think that is the problem with Sigma. Inconsistency. It took me 2 returns to get a good copy of the 10-20. The one I have now is awesome. Problem now is my MIIn and it don't get along so it just sits. :(

[Sauk]

Dennis,

Yeah it wasn't so much of the images being out of focus, it was just as not sharp as the prime I have from sigma.

But being that I have yet to shoot any of the nikons 300/400 but I have shot the 300/400 from canon and there is nothing in the world to compare to them right now.

Those lenses are simply amazing and worth every penny they cost!

If you get a good copy of a sigma they are really good.

[namasste]

Matt, my experience has been like yours I think. It wasn't that the 120-300 was producing oof images (although sometimes it did...my fault, not Sigmas :lol:). It just wasn't as sharp as I expected and the colors were iffy. Possibly a bad copy but I am much happier with the Canon prime.

[Sauk]

Yeah the canon 300 produces such amazing colors and contrast. I rarely ever had to do a ton of PP with them. It was so nice.

[Hockey Photo]

I have owned the 120-300 f/2.8 sigma. And to be honest being on a slightly limited budget I wish I would have never sold it. I do own a couple prime lenses and have used a 300 L the Canon lens rocks. But the Sigma "if you get a good one" Can be awesome.