Sigma 120-300 f2.8

Greetings,
I'm looking around for a new 100-300mm range zoom lens. Currently I'm using the EF100-300 f4-5.6 USM. I think I've outgrown this lens as I begin to compare it to my prime and L lenses, it's quality is lacking behind them. I read of good reviews of both the Canon 100-400 IS L and also the very affordable 300mm F4L. Then I came across this Sigma 120-300 mm F2.8. It is a bit expensive but this is the fastest around. Of cause there is the Canon 300mm F2.8L but it costs much more. Any comments...

You could check photographyreview.org and fredmiranda.com for reviews, they both have lots.

from what I read the 120-300 is a cracking lens, 2.8 all the way and a good zoom range...seems like a good one to me! but then I do have the 100-400

I have both IMO the only drawback with the Sigma is its weight, I thought the 100-400 was heavy until I got the 120-300, but there again its f2.8 and therefore has a lot of glass so you expect it to be heavy, I would have liked IS with it though Terry

I've recently seen full size example images posted from this lens (will have trouble finding them though...)

It is abit softer wide open but still- i think 'cracker of a lens' is still a valid overall description

ron chappel wrote:
I've recently seen full size example images posted from this lens (will have trouble finding them though...)

It is abit softer wide open but still- i think 'cracker of a lens' is still a valid overall description

Really? Must have been out of focus or it was a deffective one then. My one is one of only two lenses I own that I will happily shoot wide open.

The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX is arguably the best zoom lens in the world. Certainly it outperforms any other zoom over 200mm. The downside is of course size and weight although even then it's surprisingly compact for what it is... it weighs about the same as the Canon 300mm f/2.8 prime, for example and is actually slightly smaller.

If the weight of the 120-300 f/2.8 is too much for you, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is said to be just as good (and some say better). I've heard people say it's the sharpest lens Sigma makes, including their primes.

I've used both... the 100-300mm f/4EX is good - in fact four of my friends have one on my recommendation because it's stunning value, but it's not in the same league as the 120-300mm f/2.8EX, sorry.

Next time you hear them say that say "Shut up, you haven't got a clue" to them.

I would add that the 120-300 works beautifully with the 1.4 EX Teleconverter. My only complaints with the lens is I get some PF in harsh lighting conditions (back lighted white uniforms) and the tripod mount isn't as smooth as I would like when rotating the lens from portrait to landscape and back again. Other then that, it feels and behaves just beautifully and regardless of it's price, is probably one of the most versital lenses you can buy for the money.

Glenn - perhaps your 100-300 / 120-300 experience was based toward the 120-300, but sample variation can make a difference. A quick glance at the FM reviews section shows the 120-300 rating 9.3, and the 100-300 rating 9.6, so make of that what you will. Either way, both lenses are outstanding, and also unique (at least compared to Canon's lineup) for their focal length / aperture combination.

The 120-300 f/2.8 that I tried out (not extensively, just about 15 shots) wasn't quite as sharp as my 80-200L when wide open, but it did have outstanding image quality and was a real pleasure to use, even for the short time it was on my camera.

Greetings,
Thanks for your comments.

My fav camera shop has one in Nikon mount and I have a good feel of it. It is heavy but not exactly huge. One good thing about this lens is that its length remains the same when zooming or focusing. So it is actually shorter than the EF100-400 F4L but heavier. However, it uses huge filter, 105mm if I remember correctly, this is one thing Sigma likes to do, huge and odd filter sizes.

If all reviews posted are good to words, then I think this lens is a bargain, comparing to EF100-300 F2.8L IS, which costs about USD1500 more. I really want to be sure about Sigma quality before it spend on this lens as it is still quite a lot of dollars.

Enjoy...

You need to consider who is doing the rating. A lot of people who have used the 120-300 lenses are comparing it to other big glass that are 2x it's price. On the other hand, 100-300 is a moving up lens, and when compared with other lenses of it's price range, it is a cracker of a lens. FM is great, but you don't get to see what the past experience levels of the reviews are, so the numbers are somewhat relative. It's a great service..... but you just need to be carefull.

What lens is this? Canon doesn't make a 100-300 f/2.8L. The only L class telephoto zooms Canon makes are the three 70-200L variants and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. Is this an older, discontinued lens I haven't heard of?

Mark - I'm not saying either way...just that there are some comments in those reviews of people who own both, and prefer the 100-300. Also, a few say the 100-300 is better than the 70-200 f/2.8L that they also own. I take all of these with a grain of salt, as with all comparisons. There are also plenty of reviews of the 120-300 that say the same thing in reverse. Conclusion: both lenses are outstanding.

I don't need to look at reviews for the lenses, I've used both. I wonder how many of the reviewers on FM can say the same? I suspect very few if any...

However, if we must quote numbers how about the www.photozone.de lens performance survey which gives the 100-300 4.29/5 and the 120-300mm 4.71/5...

I'm really not trying to argue either way here....just that a lot of the comments about the 120-300 were about the weight...I was simply relating that the 100-300 is another excellent option if you don't need the extra stop, and while you have determined that the 120-300 is superior (I can't say either way) that there are those who have used both that prefer the 100-300 f/4. I'm not an advocate of either lens. I own neither, and only have (limited) experience with the 120-300.