Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 APO HSM

[redmule]

Anyone used, owned or have ideas or info, on the lens? Need this zoom range for low light static & wildlife pics.
Sigma (http://www.digitalliquidators.com/detail.asp?id=sg12030028exapocn)

[MarkH]

The link provided is to Digital Liquidators, please ensure that you don't purchase from them!

Here is their profile at resellerratings:
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller2375.html

Clearly a company to avoid.

[condyk]

This is a very well rated lens for sure and would be quite formidable with a 1.4x ... good heads up from Mark tho' re the link offered. Lots of user info over at the review section of fredmiranda.com if I remember correctly.

[Croasdail]

awsome lens - brother in law has it and I have used it... best place for price and good service is sigma4less.com.

[redmule]

Thanks for the info all and for the link Croasdail. Greatly appreacated

[Hellashot]

awsome lens - brother in law has it and I have used it... best place for price and good service is sigma4less.com.

I haven't heard good things from that site. Beware. If a site doesn't give much information about a product, stay away.

[condyk]

Even tho' I'm in UK and so irrelevent, even I remember the many good comments posted here about the sigma4less store over the last several months. Check here too:

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller9336.html

I would know all about a product before buying and so don't want loads of sales and cribbed rubbish from manufacturers in my way when I go to buy an item. Personal choice ... doesn't make a shop bad one way or the other :confused:

[dmwierz]

I haven't heard good things from that site. Beware. If a site doesn't give much information about a product, stay away.

Oh, for the love...urban legend. Have you actually SPOKEN or corresponded with anyone who actually has purchased from sigma4less.com? :mad:

Go to resellerratings.com and see that they have a 9.57/10 rating:

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller9336.html (oh, just noticed somebody else also linked to this site)

I have bought several items from them, including a 120-300mm f2.8 EX HSM and have nothing but good things to say about David and the group there. They give you a soft sell for accesories and warranties, but they ARE in sales, after all. I guarantee you will NOT beat their prices. Shipping is a bit high, relatively speaking, but as with most transactions, don't be afraid to haggle.

One of the problems of the Web is folks can pretty much say anything they want and pass along any rumor they want to without anyone challenging them.

The lens is amazing, and with the 1.4x TC, you have a constant aperture 168-420mm f4 zoom (converts to an 269-672mm f4 zoom with the FOV multiplier!). Sharp images, fast AF (even with the TC), and with a monopod, it's maybe the best sports zoom combo for the buck you can get.

[danphoto1]

I agree. I have owned the 120-300 sigma for two years. It is fast and sharp. i use it to shoot volley ball and basketvall indoors . Iuse it with the 2x multipler to shoot softballbatter facing the pitcher from the outfield fence. It is a great peice of glass.

[dpurslow]

Hi there, I am a photog from the UK, I shoot a lot of sports for newspapers etc.

About 2 years ago I changed from Nikon to Canon, I had been building up my collection of equipment for years so dumped it all on Ebay and started to build up my Canon collection.

The biggest loss for me was my 300mm F2.8 Nikon AFS lens. Being that I needed to get a ton of equipment quickly I decided to go with the 120 - 300 over the Canon 300 2.8 the main reason was cost, I could buy a little more stuff with the savings of around $2000.

When shooting football before I would have one body with a 70-200 and another body with the 300

What I found is that my second body now HARDLY got used last year. The Sigma 120-300 effectivly took the place of my 70-200 and my 300mm. I shoot with a 1dMK2 and a 20D I have the 120-300 on the 1D and the 70-200 on the 20d - If I shot 5 pictures with the second body per game last year, that would be a lot. Towards the end of the season I stopped using the 70-200 (IS L USM) model all together and put on ultra wide lens for creative shots and just used the 120-300 for everything.

With the 1.3 on the 1dMK2 and the 1.6 on the 20d I think the difference is only a few mm's anyway.

I know the 120-300 is not quite as sharp as the 300mm f2.8 and its NOT WHITE :-( but the benefits to me GREATLY outweight the slight (and I mean slight) loss of pin sharp quality.

When I first strated using it I only used it as a 300mm, it was not until I started using the zoom that I fell in love with the lens.

Lots of the other press snappers look at it with a funny expression, but after plalying with it for a few minutes, they all seem to love it.

hope this helps,

Regards,

David Purslow

Image taken with the 120-300 - at around 240mm



http://www.davidpurslow.com/ebay/kj8y6230.jpg

[condyk]

Welcome ...

Nice contribution and very nice shot. Everything I read about this lens I like. I'd love to try it with a 1.4x ... any experience of that?

Great colours and contrast on the photo and I can almost smell the grass (hope it's the grass!!!), though maybe it's because I'm at my main work computer for the first time since joining this forum rather than my usual 'go everywhere' laptop :lol: :lol:

[dpurslow]

Here is one I grabbed quickly, heading out the door now. I was tracking the player in white when this red blur came into shot, night game, so low DOF but snapped a couple of shots. this was taken using Canon 1.4 tele and Sigma 120-300 at 300

http://www.davidpurslow.com/ebay/14and300.jpg

[JABACo]

Got mine today from CordCamera. Lens with overnight shipping was $1849.00. Absolutely no problems with them at all. Spoke with TobyLyn.

[LightRules]

This is one of Sigma's absolute best lenses; they might not have a better lens, period. In addition, Canon has no answer to this lens. Lastly, Sigma4Less is very reputable.

[danphoto1]

I agree It is almost always with me when ever I shoot sports. You are right Canno does not have answer for it.

[mdmedicgod]

When I recently orderd my 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG (week ago). I got one phone call from sigma4less. It was to confirm my shipping address, because billing address was diffrent. Only up sell he tried. Was to ask me If I would like to buy hoya filter to for the lens. I polite said no, and that was that. Lens arrived 16hrs later(overnite shipping)

[Cadwell]

Ah the Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX. Take all my other lenses off me if you like, but attempt to make me part with this baby and you'll have to kill me to get it. Simply the best.

Gorgeous optics (wipes the floor with my 100-400L), fast and accurate AF and built like a brick outhouse.

[JABACo]

and built like a brick outhouse.

...and about as big as one. I had no idea it was this big. Can't wait until 5:30 CST to try mine out. Just got it today.

[Cadwell]

...and about as big as one. I had no idea it was this big. Can't wait until 5:30 CST to try mine out. Just got it today.


:lol: Yeah, it's not subtle is it? Needs a monopod or tripod. Not something you want to try and hand hold too often although it is quite good for pan shots. I think the sheer weight of the thing forces you to follow through properly :lol: Once you've got it swinging it's kinda hard to stop!

[wilflee]

Just playing the devil's advocate.

This lens uses a 105mm size filter. So if you need to get a polarizer or Haze2 filter, it's quite expensive. Don't know why Sigma didn't choose to use a drop-in filter?

[Cadwell]

Just playing the devil's advocate.

This lens uses a 105mm size filter. So if you need to get a polarizer or Haze2 filter, it's quite expensive. Don't know why Sigma didn't choose to use a drop-in filter?

Over this side of the pond the lens sells for about £1,600. Compared to that, the £120 Sigma charges for the 105mm UV filter is a drop in the ocean.

Quite frankly I prefer the front filter. It gives the front element of the lens a bit of extra protection from all the gravel flying around when I take it rallying.

[MadMesh]

Ah the Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX. Take all my other lenses off me if you like, but attempt to make me part with this baby and you'll have to kill me to get it. Simply the best.

Gorgeous optics (wipes the floor with my 100-400L), fast and accurate AF and built like a brick outhouse.

WOW,... are you telling me... That sigma is better than the 100-400 L ??? I dunno how many people can suport me, but i think ur wrong? Ive seen 100-400 picts and WOW, also the ultra versitile ability to use IS is just insane.

Maby in sharpness it might be the same. It is a little faster, But can you tell me WHY it wipes the floor with your 100-400 L? =)

[Croasdail]

Maby in sharpness it might be the same. It is a little faster, But can you tell me WHY it wipes the floor with your 100-400 L? =)

Just do a search on his post... I think they speak for themselves... or just cruz over to the sports section... it should remove any doubt.

[Cadwell]

WOW,... are you telling me... That sigma is better than the 100-400 L ??? I dunno how many people can suport me, but i think ur wrong? Ive seen 100-400 picts and WOW, also the ultra versitile ability to use IS is just insane.

Maby in sharpness it might be the same. It is a little faster, But can you tell me WHY it wipes the floor with your 100-400 L? =)

Do you have both lenses or have you used both lenses in order to make a comparison? I own them both and have done for some time and that's what I base my opinion on.

The 120-300mm is sharper, even wide open. It's colours are more vivid and it has better contrast. It doesn't display any CA whatsoever... the 100-400L does (just a little but it's there), focusing is faster and more accurate. In reality it's 3 stops faster than a 100-400L at the long end because you don't really want to shoot a 100-400L wide open at 300mm or 400mm if you can help it - no problem with the 120-300mm.

The 100-400L has it's attractions for sure. It's a good lens. It's light, portable and good enough optically and yes, IS is sometimes useful although not for what I shoot most of the time.

When I go to shoot motor-racing the first lens in my bag is usually the 120-300mm, often accompanied by the Sigma 500mm EX f/4.5 prime. The only time the 100-400L gets to go out to play is if I need something light weight and portable... now either I'm a masochist or there's a reason behind my choices... ;)

[MarkH]

WOW,... are you telling me... That sigma is better than the 100-400 L ??? I dunno how many people can suport me, but i think ur wrong? Ive seen 100-400 picts and WOW, also the ultra versitile ability to use IS is just insane.

Maby in sharpness it might be the same. It is a little faster, But can you tell me WHY it wipes the floor with your 100-400 L? =)

Although I don't own either lens, I can understand how the Sigma can come out ahead. The Sigma is not a little faster, it is 2 stops faster. The IS on the Canon maybe be useful in some situations, but since it is 2 stops slower the Sigma can match it in low light and the Sigma can use its 2 stops for moving subjects (like sports or kids at play) whereas the Canon lens can only use its IS for reducing blur from camera movement.

Now if Canon would release a 100-300 f2.8L IS lens that was not too much dearer than the Sigma and had the sharpness and contrast to match the Canon 70-200, then I would be happy to save for the Canon. Unfortunately Canon has no answer to the Sigma unless you go to a prime at a much higher price.

[muscleflex]

:lol: Once you've got it swinging it's kinda hard to stop!

LOL! that's funny! i can only just imagine what you mean!

[wiselion]

This lens is mind blowing. I went out and bought the canon 2x converter to see how the pictures would come out attached to the 120-300. It really suprised me. I took shots at 200 yards away and the pictures were fair at 5.6. When I stopped down to f/8 and f/11, the pictures were tack sharp. People told me not to get the 2x for reasons of sharpness. Well, You must try for yourself to know for sure. This gives me a 960mm focal length with my crop factor on my 20D. It will come in very handy for wildlife. I'll share some 960mm Deer pics when I get some.

[CyberDyneSystems]

WOW,... are you telling me... That sigma is better than the 100-400 L ??? I dunno how many people can suport me, but i think ur wrong? Ive seen 100-400 picts and WOW, also the ultra versitile ability to use IS is just insane.

Maby in sharpness it might be the same. It is a little faster, But can you tell me WHY it wipes the floor with your 100-400 L? =)

As one of this forums more oputspoken 100-400mm fans..

I have to tell you that these two lenses are not even in the same league!

the Sigma is a far superior lens all around...
Of course they do very differnet things!

But side by side the 120-300mm is supreme.. it competes with Canons 300mm Prime wich sells for over $3K US.. and competes well...

[Canuck]

As one of this forums more oputspoken 100-400mm fans..

I have to tell you that these two lenses are not even in the same league!

the Sigma is a far superior lens all around...
Of course they do very differnet things!

But side by side the 120-300mm is supreme.. it competes with Canons 300mm Prime wich sells for over $3K US.. and competes well...

CDS,
This I find most amusing for the reason you said above. I have stuck to my 105mm howitzer (as one of my friends in England used to call it)...I mean Sigma 120-300.

You know, catch-up is hell :rolleyes:

[grego]

As one of this forums more oputspoken 100-400mm fans..

I have to tell you that these two lenses are not even in the same league!

the Sigma is a far superior lens all around...
Of course they do very differnet things!

But side by side the 120-300mm is supreme.. it competes with Canons 300mm Prime wich sells for over $3K US.. and competes well...

Best 300 f/2.8 value for the money. :)

[liza]

WOW,... are you telling me... That sigma is better than the 100-400 L ??? I dunno how many people can suport me, but i think ur wrong? Ive seen 100-400 picts and WOW, also the ultra versitile ability to use IS is just insane.

Maby in sharpness it might be the same. It is a little faster, But can you tell me WHY it wipes the floor with your 100-400 L? =)

Probably the constant f/2.8 aperture. I really want this lens for field sports. There's no zoom better than this one, IMO.

[grego]

Probably the constant f/2.8 aperture. I really want this lens for field sports. There's no zoom better than this one, IMO.

There's no zoom at 2.8 that covers the 201-300mm range. It's all alone. And even then Sigma charges for a very reasonable price.

For 120-200, I'd probably take my 70-200 IS, otherwise, its the Sigma. :)

[danphoto1]

CDS,
This I find most amusing for the reason you said above. I have stuck to my 105mm howitzer (as one of my friends in England used to call it)...I mean Sigma 120-300.

You know, catch-up is hell :rolleyes:
I agree I love my 120-300. It serves me well.

[Juan Zas]

Oh, for the love...urban legend. Have you actually SPOKEN or corresponded with anyone who actually has purchased from sigma4less.com? :mad:

Go to resellerratings.com and see that they have a 9.57/10 rating:

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller9336.html (oh, just noticed somebody else also linked to this site)

I have bought several items from them, including a 120-300mm f2.8 EX HSM and have nothing but good things to say about David and the group there. They give you a soft sell for accesories and warranties, but they ARE in sales, after all. I guarantee you will NOT beat their prices. Shipping is a bit high, relatively speaking, but as with most transactions, don't be afraid to haggle.

One of the problems of the Web is folks can pretty much say anything they want and pass along any rumor they want to without anyone challenging them.



I am surprised also for the result from resellerratings. Looks like they have been punished in the chapter Return & Replacement. Anyway I did buy from them my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX & the Flash Sigma 500 Super DG without any problem at all. Arrived to Spain and the Siggy performs perfect from the beginning, focusing very well.