First pic taken w/ 120-300mm Sigma F2.8 EX/HSM/HSM

CDS,
I was wondering what you thought of the moon pic? How does it stack against the L glass you have shot with before and to you 50-500mm Sigma lens for that matter? I'd like to get an opinion on that pic before I send any more your way.

Cheers,
Canuck

No pic...

I'm aware there is no pic, I'm waiting on CDS to post it. I sent the pic to him early Friday morning. I have yet to hear his thoughts on the pic. I would like to see what he thinks of that one and then I'd send them one at a time to him...waiting on CDS...

Cheers,
Canuck

Were are the PIX's . Also what did you pay for the lens. I am seeing it is in the $1650.00 range on ebay for a USA warrenty of 4 years. Not to bad if it is sharp.

Yeah about $1,750.00 retail I think?

The pics were posted here;

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=17667

Here are some cropps of Canuks pics. (reduced jpegs)

Hi!
I paid $1900 and have had it about a month. It is plenty sharp. Note the pics posted are reduced quality JPEGS. I was stunned myself, just look at the moon pic and that's all I have to say!

Cheers,
Canuck

Excellent pics.... these were shot at 300mm?

Wow they look great. I guess I am gona have to order one. I wonder how it dose on skin tones? By the way were you useing the lens at 300 mm for the moon pix?

Hi!,
You bet! Both moon pic and Wales one were taken w/ 120-300 F2.8 EX monster lens. Be warned, it weighs a massive 5 3/4 lbs! The moon pic was at 300mm and the Wales one at 120mm. Be ye also warned that is isn't cheap either! It is around $1900 before filters. If I'm not mistaken, I used a UV filter on both pics. I took the moon pic on tripod and the Wales pic freehand. Also please note that it is a compressed JPEG. The original is around 37MB compressed to 1.7 MB. Believe me the original is a ton sharper!

I can't speak for skin tones as I haven't tried it for that yet. I shoot landscape/nature pics primarily. I have ordered a Canon 16-35mm L that I am going to try for both wide angle and portrait pics if I can get some volunteers. The portrait bit is all new and very experimental for me at this time. I'll no doubt be off for Wales again before too long. I really love it there. Now if I could only get back to Carreg Cennen Castle and get a decent pic of that one I'd be really happy!
Speaking of which, here's a www site for you to look at:
http://www.castlewales​.com/listings.html and they are alphabetical by name. I've seen Carew Castle, Carreg Cennen Castle, Kidwelly Castle, and Manorbier Castle so far. You should check them out they were really interesting to go see and get in the mindset of those days, the 1000s-1200s. You sure won't find anything of the sort in the US.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

Just a fun fact on this lens. I did some research on the lens specs at Popphoto.com Well the Sigma is sharper at 200mm over the canon 70-200 at every F-stop. It is also the same at 120mm VS the canon at 70MM. I was very surprised to see the lens was sharper than the canon at 200MM at every stop. I know the lens is heavy but well worth it. I often use my canon 70-200 Non IS lens with a 2X canon II and do not like the results with light fall off and less sharp images and the cloud effect or so I call it. This lens will do fine for all my wedding "PJ" style work. I am a strong guy so the weight will not be a problem. The only thing I did read that was not to my liking is the review said the lens was shuttering when trying to achieve A/F do you have this problem?

Any way here is the link on the revew on the sigma

http://www.popphoto.co​m …ownload/5202003​163559.pdf


And the canon 70-200 IS
http://www.popphoto.co​m …download/562003​183517.pdf

Here is a moon shot taken with canon 400mm F5.6

http://h000625ee612c.n​e.client2.attbi.com …Web-480x719_7396-b-Cr.jpg

pcho,
Cool pic, thanks! It was wholly amazing I could get that pic considering I'm in England. FYI, England is not known for clear skies and sun, but rather the opposite and fog here is fun as all can be in this part of England. I have seen this wild bit I call tunnel fog, that sits about 4-6 ft off the ground and makes a tunnel if you will. Both above and below are clear but inside is like forget about it. You have not seen fog till you have seen it over here. It has been so bad that I can't see across a street and the streets here are 1/3 the size of the US ones. It's like this, you can make a 3 lane England road out of a 2 lane US road and I'm not joking, then again there are single track roads, but that's another wild fun adventure.

PBE,
Thanks for the info! I was really surprised that it outdid the Canon lens! I will look at them at length later. As it is big 'un I'm glad it made it thru the mail system ok. The box was when it got here beat up. I attribute the survival to the fact it is not a cheap made lens. As for A/F I can't say I've tried it, other than on the moon pic and was so disgusted, that I took AF off and did it manually. It was a hunting like a fool. You know you can set it AF and still MF that lens and will not hurt it, according to the instructions. Also, I plain don't like AF so I never use it. I can't seem to get the same results MF and AF so I shoot MF 99.9% time. I might try it for non important shots. I'm still not liking AF. I can't comment on shuttering for the above stated reason.

Also, I have sent another Wales pic to CDS so it may get posted in the next few days. Punt to CDS (LOL)!

Cheers,
Canuck

lol,.. I'll check my email asap....

P.S.,.. I think I am out of the market for this lens myself for a while,..


Why???

BECAUSE I JUST ORDERED ONE OF THESE!

http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/html/pages/500_45_​EX.HTM

!!!!!!!!

Doh!

CDS,
D'oh is right! I'm looking it up to see the damage (cost). I have been using B&H of late and they seem to be a real good place and reputable. That is my main concern. I'm planning on going there when I return to the US and by it there. I have a question but this is another topic in and of itself! I think you would really like the 120-300 lens. It is interesting to note that it did better than the Canon lens at 200mm. According to B&H it is $3300. OUCH!!! It will be some time before I invest in a prime like that one. I have also sent you an e-mail with a quick question, not the topic I'm about to start.

Cheers,
Canuck

I don't think I would have sprung for a new one,. I had been searching for a used one for months now.

Finally I found one,. and from a dealer that offers 14 day no hassle return and 60 day warranty,. And it was over a thousand off the new price (this is why I was looking for THIS lens used,. as a Sigma,. it doesn't hold it's value like one of the big Canon Primes... frankly I couyld never afford even a used Canon 500mm)

Any way,. I am so psyched,. it should arrive on Monday!!!!