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

CDS,
How many of us average people could afford the stack of Canon L primes/zooms needed to do it right. Not many unless you happen to be independently wealthy. Coming back to reality, It makes you appreciate the lens more, having to save up for a few months to make said purchase. I know it does for me. I'd be curious to see how you do with the newest lens to your collection.

Cheers,
Canuck

Canuck,

I am getting ready to order one Sigma 120-300 APO,HSM,EX lens. The best price I have found is $1649.00 USD and it has the 4 year sigma warranty. Now how much will a 105MM UV filter run. I am sure a lot not under a $100.00 it is a bit much I wonder if you really need it? But a circular polarizer is a must. I guess with the UV,and the CLP filters it will all run around $1849.00 so I hope. I am ordering this lens over the 70-200 IS lens. I currently have the 70-200 L and the 2X extender and do not like the combo that much. This lens is heavy and big and is ok with me. I am not a big fan of Sigma lenses as I have used them for years and have had a lot of problems with them in the past. I recently received the 105 Sigma Macro and the lens is Super sharp and well worth the money all and all it is a great value over the canon lens in its range. I still have my canon "L"s which sigma in the same focal range just are not even as good as the canon's not even close. Like the 24-70 L and the 17-35 L, and the 85 1.8, 28-135 IS, 50MM 1.0 L,EF 14MM L, TS-E 24MM L and the TS-E 90 MM L . My hope's are that I can use this lens at weddings when I am not aloud to use flash and cannot walk around the church. With the Sigma's focal range of 120-300 it should be all I need to get as close as I need to be. Also with a lens like this one I and Zoom in and out when I need to not like the canon 300 F2.8 Prime lens. I just hope it is sharp the test data shows it's a sharp lens and the canon has nothing over this lens optically at all. So when my ebay auction ends I will order the lens. I will next have to sell off the 2X II canon extender.

PBE,
I am looking it up, I know that I paid over a $100 each filter. The UV filter doubles as a lens protector. Which would you rather replace, the $1900 lens or a $150 filter should you scratch one of them? I vote for the filter! I am checking w/ B&H Photo in NYC where I got it, and the prices are for UV filter $110 and CPL $170. These filters are the EX filters too! The lens is still $1900. I think that the results of the pics I've taken speak for themselves. All I needed to do was look at the terminator on the moon pic and that was awesome.
Speaking of which, the moon is waxing again so I think I may have another go at different stages of the waxing and waning of the moon.
BTW, I have had not a single problem with this lens so far shooting w/ the 10D. Good luck, I just hope you have the success I've had. One note, though, I've shot exclusively outdoors w/ that lens. I have no doubt it will do well indoors given you have enough light, but that is true of any lens. You can't expect to get good pics w/o any light around. Just my 2 pence...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

Canuck ,

Yes sir the filters for this lens are not cheep at all. The CLP is a must. I wonder in B&W or Tiffen have filters in this size range or Hoya for that matter. Other brands are just as good as the Sigma filters. By the way I am ordering the lens on ebay they have the best price so far. Can any one beat the price of $1648.00 with the 4 year USA warrenty? If so email me the link thanks.

Wow,. you'd spend $1600.00 on Ebay? Insist on escorw if I were you!

Well the Vender on ebay sold me the Sigma 105 Macro for $279.00 with the USA 4 Year warrenty with no problems. I also just got the new 24-70 L on ebay USA goods with shipping for $1186.00. If they have a positive feed back of 98% or higher and a power seller I should be fine. By the way my old 28-70L was not any sharper this seems to be a mith of sorts that the old one is sharper. NOT!

http://www.photosig.co​m/go/photos/browse?id=​21475

The landscape pic looks rather crap i must say but it's impossible judging by one pic what a lens is like.The link above has some more pics with this lens from several different people.
.....It looks abit like many of the pics are oversaturated to try to make up for the traditional sigma lack of contrast/saturation...​.I'm guessing of course but they just don't look great

Nice pic of Amroth beach..... Thinx I can just see myself on there!...... Was that took from the road down into Saundersfoot?

Slow,
I do believe so. It was taken on that steep hill going down to the beach. It is truly a nice place to be! I have sent a 3rd pic to CDS and you shall see it whenever he posts it. (Punt!)

Sorry for not getting back sooner, as I was in Wales again, this time to take 2 on Carreg Cennen Castle and Caerphilly Castle.

I have been having some issues w/ the 10D of late...it looks perfect in the viewfinder and looking at them on the LCD screen, but when I got back home, the pics were mostly junk! It looks as if there was a major shake in the pic. I took them handheld, but never had problems like this! I'm hoping not to have to send the camera back to the US for repairs. This is rather odd!
I may however be able to salvage them by shrinking them to 1/3 original size. I will try that.

I have a trip planned to Hastings next week. (This is most noted for Battle of Hastings, where William the Conqueror in 1066 fought. This is when what I call modern English history starts. I could go on but this is off the subject. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to continue.)

Still waiting on the 16-35mm F2.8 Canon L lens!

Cheers from England,
Canuck

RON,

Not sure if this is the case with this lens. This lens has a very good rating so far with all the European mags and some of the US mags like popular photography. But the truth is in the using it for your self. I am willing to take the chance. I have just today used the Sigma 70-200 HSM F 2.8 lens and my canon has not a thing on this lens. It is a very sharp lens. I am not sure of the lens quality but fit and finish look very good. I have often over looked Sigma and have not used their lenses but they have a very impressive line up and it is growing every day. My hopes are that the quality is good and will last. So far I am very impressed with the 105 macro it is better than the canon optically. Some sigmas are good and some are not at all. Like the canon 24-70 L and the Sigma 24-70 EX you just cannot compare the two the sigma is not in the canon's class. But the Sigma 70-200 VS the Canon 70-200 Non IS lens the sigma is just as good as the canon. My view as I own the canon 70-200 L .

I think it could be the shake issue canuck just mentioned.
Please don't get me wrong..i WANT this lens to be good!! I just haven't seen enough evidence yet.

Ron,
I think that it isn't the lens, as it does it w/ both lenses, the 120-300mm and 28-80mm. As noted before, the moon pic is only a crop with the rest being night sky. That is the umodded pic I took, on tripod other than the crop aforementioned. The Tenby pic, too was taken w/ the 120-300mm lens and has been compressed to hell to be able to fit on a web page. You know as well as me posting an almost 3 MB pic would not go over big. I can send you the original, provided it is under 3 MB (I recon) and you can see the real deal. It will however have to wait till next week. I have to sort a ton of stuff and should be much easier to send next week.

Believe me I have a lot of good pics I could send you, including some of Carreg Cennen Castle, in Wales (I recon). I haven't looked thru all them yet. There is also Caerphilly Castle that I used the 28-80 super cheapie lens on. I was really hoping to get the Canon 16-35mm L lens before going to Wales this past weekend. So much for that idea! The bit I don't get is that it was sent 23 Sept and is still not here. I checked w/ whom I ordered it and they said it was sent. This one sent in 2 lots. The tripod, sent a day later, has been here for like 5 days. The stock on US Mail is dropping rapidly. Where is British Mail when you need it? Talk about lightning fast!!

Anyway, I am stunned with how it takes pics. Reviews are really good and I wanted to step up to a pro lens and this is all that and some (including price)! Put it this way, I originally wasn't going to take the plunge into the pro lens arena as it is extremely expensive, but I can say that your pics are a direct reflection of the glass in front of the CMOS sensor (pun intended )! I didn't lug it up to Caerphilly Castle as there wasn't a need, I was shooting up close and that would be the 28-80 lens.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

Ron,

I agree with you totally, Canon for the wides and Sigma for the longs. Seems as if Sigma have the same lens design software as Canon - at least for the long primes and zooms!

Steve

This is 2 months+ on and I feel as I have grown another appendage, the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L/10D with Big Ed. It isn't cheap but man can you take pics with it and then manipulate them in whatever program you have to get what you want in colours. As I tweeked the pics I took this past Friday, I was taking pics of a 6 month old daughter of a coworker. I was looking at the subtle colours like the pinks on the fleece she was wearing and skin colour. It was spot on after a little and I do mean very little tweeking! This continues to amaze me, and get this, I was shooting small/fine and the pics look stunning according to friends. I may have me a few other jobs forthcoming in the way of family pics/portraits. This ought to be interesting. Nothing will happen until at least the new year. The sad part, I wasn't shooting RAW and couldn't show the true capability of the camera. However, they wanted the pics real fast so that kinda made it harder to shoot RAW. It just takes that much longer and I took like 20 pics. I will admit I was being a little lazy too. It is also easier to send JPEGs then RAW pics.

Cheers from England,
Canuck