Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS

AF Speed: Canon 100-400mm MkII
AF Speed with 1.4x: Canon 100-400mm MkII
AF Consistency/Accuracy: Canon 100-400mm MkII
IS effectiveness: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Zooming range: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Zoom speed: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Weight, size and handling: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Image Quality: I'd have to give this to the Canon, but it's near as makes no difference with a good copy of the SIGMA.

f/2.8: (!) SIGMA 120-300mm
Functionality with T-Cons including 2X: SIGMA 120-300mm

IMHO The overall suitability and speed of use for fast moving subjects means the Canon 100-400mm MkII is a significantly more appropriate, and therefore clearly more popular lens choice for birding/and most wildlife.

Id look at one of the 150-600mm's to compare to the 100-400

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17872421
AF Speed: Canon 100-400mm MkII
AF Speed with 1.4x: Canon 100-400mm MkII
AF Consistency/Accuracy: Canon 100-400mm MkII
IS effectiveness: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Zooming range: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Zoom speed: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Weight, size and handling: Canon 100-400mm MkII
Image Quality: I'd have to give this to the Canon, but it's near as makes no difference with a good copy of the SIGMA.

f/2.8!) SIGMA 120-300mm
Functionality with T-Cons including 2X: SIGMA 120-300mm

IMHO The overall suitability and speed of use for fast moving subjects means the Canon 100-400mm MkII is a significantly more appropriate, and therefore clearly more popular lens choice for birding/and most wildlife.

Agreed. Birding/wildlife yes you are correct.

Inside Dance recitals, plays, graduations, weddings, 300mm 2.8 portraits, kids sports, any sports, choir concerts, general indoor 2.8 shutter intensive reach needs, basketball, baseball, birthday parties...

120-300 wins I'd never bring a 100-400 to a dance recital yet I see a few everytime who do. I'll still sport my sigma proudly and walk away with acceptable image quality at lower ISO.

Yes, agree completely. I shoudl have mentioned that for most sports, certainly any indoor sports and other low light venue shooting, that f/2.8 wins all around.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17873681
Yes, agree completely. I shoudl have mentioned that for most sports, certainly any indoor sports and other low light venue shooting, that f/2.8 wins all around.

I believe so. Shot and detail.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

So I was curious what the field of view would look like with the bare lens adapted to a micro four thirds camera (in this case an E-M5). I used a basic adapter with no electronic connection to the lens (I also missed proper focus by a hair).
This is an uncropped quick test on the Great Orion Nebula and Running Man Nebula with the lens at 300mm and f2.8, and the camera at 400iso.

that looks pretty cool to me, is the crop factor of that 2X? i keep wanting to try some astro stuff, but i have no clue where to point the lens ...i also think the weight of this is too heavy for my star tracker

Yeah its a 2x crop, but Olympus still manages excellent image quality with this camera. Careful getting into astro work though, Dre. You'll end up forking over more money on gear and spend perfectly good sleeping time awake and out in the elements feeding the bloodsucking insects or shivering in the cold

Pax2You wrote in post #17881011
Yeah its a 2x crop, but Olympus still manages excellent image quality with this camera. Careful getting into astro work though, Dre. You'll end up forking over more money on gear and spend perfectly good sleeping time awake and out in the elements feeding the bloodsucking insects or shivering in the cold

Truly the downside of astrophotography. I don't so it often, but I've experienced all that in my few attempts at it.

I think there is potential as well.

Terrific! How far were you from the palace?

METAL1 wrote in post #17882141
Terrific! How far were you from the palace?

Probably around 2km

wow. thanks! probably cold mountain air helped, but the amount of detail still amazes me..

Getting ready to buy a used 120-300 OS (non-sport) to shoot my daughters High School soccer games. It will be paired up with my 1D4.

But for out and about casual shooting of wildlife or whatever else I feel like, in good lighting anyways, I have found the Nikon coolpix P900 to be an better option than lugging the large DSLR's and 120-300/150-600 monstrosities around. Obviously the P900 is not for any type of low light photography, I use my 6D or 1D4 for that, but for anything else, the P900 seems to work.

Both images are at a 35mm equivalent 2000mm, (5.6x crop sensor).

Anyways, really looking forward to getting and using the Sigma 120-300 OS.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I think you'll be happy. Mine is my kids sports lens, recitals, plays, choir... etc.