Sigma 120-300 f2.8

Greetings,
I mean the EF300mm F2.8L IS. Sorry for the mixed up. Enjoy...

Agreed, as the 2.8 zoom is many times more expensive. Is 2.8 worth an additionall 1200 us? If you need the low light speed and focus, yes... otherwise save your money and enjoy the cheaper lens.

The 120-300EX is truly sui generis: in a class by itself. It's optically the best zoom I've ever shot with and not only stellar wide open throughout the focal range but excellent with a TC. Try it out though because it is heavier than most lenses.

I have the 120-300/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 IS and the 300/4 IS. Side by side tests: The 120-300 beats the 70-200 almost all the time. (Unless you are looking at weight.) The 300 IS and the 120-300 at 300 - I cannot tell the difference at f4, 5.6, 8. The 120-300 does take TC's better than the 300 IS. But, I'll keep the 300 IS since it does much better at macro and the IS in a must have sometimes.

Nice one. good to see some sofistickashun here for a change

I'd agree with Glen on the relative merits of the 100-300 f4 and 120-300 2.8, based on owning and liking the former and checking lots of comments and images from the latter when I was considering buying one or the 100-400 IS L or 300 f4 IS L. The 100-300 f4 really is a great lens and absolutely worth considering here. The 120-300 2.8 is faster and heavier and better, but it's personal choice. For practical reasons of IS and weight I went for the 100-400 IS L in the end, but not because ultimately I believed it was better than the Sigma. It just isn't.

Still a bargin for about 1900 at Sigmasforless for a 300 2.8.

condyk wrote:
Nice one. good to see some sofistickashun here for a change

Well, you know Dave, I am very well edumacated

Very true. I've rated a couple of my lenses there that I would rate differently now. The 16-35L was the best thing since sliced bread when I gave it a 10. Having lived with the lens for almost a year, and on 3 different sensor sizes, it's still the best ultra-wide I've used, but it isn't quite a 10. Maybe an 8.5 or so. Still looking for something that goes wider than 24 mm and can be described as a 10.

Past experience and application do tend to alter subjective ratings. Still, use the FM tool along with all the other opinions and tests on the net to help form your opinion.

^^Also, the amount of votes can play a huge part. Some of the reviews only have a handful, some have enough to keep you reading for a whole night or a few days.

I have owned the 100-400. It was a good lens. Then I sold it for the sigma 120-300. The sigma is not only a great lense, but the best lense I have used to date. It just is amazing. I have never taken a bad picture with it. It is heavy, that is for sure. I am however going to purchase another 100-400 so that I can take wildlife shots out my truck window. The 120-300 is really to heavy and a pain in the *ss to do this with. If you want one lense to do it all, even with a 1.4 or 2x converter, the 120-300 is it. The price tag is a little hefty, but you will not be disappointed when you see the results.

Mike

The tag is hefty, but a great deal for a 300 2.8 type lens.

Defintely needs a monopod, great for the sports shooter.

Greetings,
One more thing this Sigma 120-300 attracts my attention is that even when coupled with a 2xTC, the f5.6 aperture means my 350D is still able to auto focus, which the EF100-300 F4L will not.

Ok stop it everyone!!!!!! Now I HAVE to try out the sigma just to settle my mind that the 100-400 is good enough for me. JK. I have been happy with it so far but it eats light.

grego wrote:
The tag is hefty, but a great deal for a 300 2.8 type lens.

Defintely needs a monopod, great for the sports shooter.

I would have expected the price to be higher for a lens like this.

I can think of 1 plus and 1 minus about the 120-300/2.8 not mentioned so far (Ok, I'm getting picky.) It is not parafocal. If you are focused in at 120 and zoom to 210, you'll have to refocus. Not a big issue but one you need to know going in. One nice thing I notice that it does do (that I haven't noticed on any canon lens,) let's say you are a little too close (inside the min. distance) and you try to AF. The lens doesn't keep searching - it goes to the closest and stays there. Speeds things up when I move back or decide to go to manual.