Just bought a Sigma 120-300m F2.8

SDK^ · 23 Feb 2008 at 17:09

Meet my new lens : Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 HSM EX - It’s a beast !
Out with the old and in with the new

No time for sample images today - I'll post some tomorrow. I'm also still waiting for my 1.4 extender to arrive.

robertgilbert86 · 23 Feb 2008 at 17:17

Looks good, has it been bought for any particular use/subject in mind?

::: CooliceT :: · 23 Feb 2008 at 17:19

where did you get it from SDK in the end?
and the 1.4?

the sigma 120-300mm is my next lens also

how come you didnt go for the 2.0? one...

is there much difference between the two?

SDK^ · 23 Feb 2008 at 17:22

robertgilbert86 said:
Looks good, has it been bought for any particular use/subject in mind?

Wildlife, Motorsport and Aircraft.

::: CooliceT :: said:
where did you get it from SDK in the end?
and the 1.4?
how come you didn’t go for the 2.0? one...
is there much difference between the two?

Bought if from a chap on e-bay; hardly used, perfect condition for £900.

I'll get the 2x later, for now 420mm F4 should do :cool:

Aod · 23 Feb 2008 at 18:11

niceone SDK^

hows the image quality? is it constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range?

Scuzi · 23 Feb 2008 at 18:14

That looks like quite a beast! It looks as if it could be very front heavy, is this the case?

I can't wait to see the sample shots from it. Is there any chance you could maybe write up a comparison between it and the 100-400?

::: CooliceT :: · 23 Feb 2008 at 18:17

Scuzi said:
That looks like quite a beast! It looks as if it could be very front heavy, is this the case?

I can't wait to see the sample shots from it. Is there any chance you could maybe write up a comparison between it and the 100-400?

I agree!

do a comparison! love to see both lenses shoot the same objects...
see what really is the difference between the two.

SDK^ · 23 Feb 2008 at 18:21

Aod said:
hows the image quality? is it constant f/2.8 throughout the zoom range?

It sure is

Scuzi said:
That looks like quite a beast! It looks as if it could be very front heavy, is this the case?

I can't wait to see the sample shots from it. Is there any chance you could maybe write up a comparison between it and the 100-400?

It's very balanced; the front element is massive but the lens is weighty in the middle and at the back. Its total weight is 2.7kg; twice as heavy as the 100-400L.
I intend to do a comparison before I sell the 100-400

Aod · 23 Feb 2008 at 18:48

if only it had Image stabilisation eh?

Shoei · 23 Feb 2008 at 18:53

Very nice, the 120-300 is on my list of "wants".
Tried a 100-300 and it was very well balanced. Spent a day shooting the BSB round and did have any problems with the weight of the lens.
Granted the 120-300 will be heavier, but if it has the same balance as the 100-300 then you shouldnt have any problems using it all day.

Schizophonic · 23 Feb 2008 at 19:13

Aod said:
if only it had Image stabilisation eh?

It doesn't need to. Not with a F-stop of 2.8

I love my 50-150mm F2.8. Works wonders in doors.

King4aDay · 23 Feb 2008 at 19:16

Will be interested to see how you get on, I'm considering investing in one of these in the near future.

^^Gord^^ · 23 Feb 2008 at 20:36

I know two aviation 'togs who use them and both are very pleased, I'm sure you will be as well.

SDK^ · 24 Feb 2008 at 11:06

I can't do a like-for-like comparison against 100-400 until my 1.4x convertor arrives but here is a test shot at 300mm.

Unfortunately today is the dullest day ever so no exciting subjects

Shots were taken on a tripod, mirror lockup and self timer.

The main reason for this 'pixel peep' test was to ensure the Sigma lens is a keeper and it looks superb

All are 50% crops
The bottom shot is at F2.8 and is just for reference - Depth of field is quite small

^^Gord^^ · 24 Feb 2008 at 11:14

Looks good! If you get bored can you do one at f/4 for me?

ichabod crane · 24 Feb 2008 at 11:20

The colours on the 100-400 seem better to me there is more detail in the wood and less noise but that is down to the crop i reckon

SDK^ · 24 Feb 2008 at 11:26

ichabod crane said:
The colours on the 100-400 seem better to me there is more detail in the wood and less noise but that is down to the crop i reckon

Ignore the colours because the camera metered the scenes differently.

Canon shot was 1/250
Sigma shot was 1/160

Which explains why the Sigma shot looks brighter.

^^Gord^^ said:
Looks good! If you get bored can you do one at f/4 for me?

F4 shot added

ichabod crane · 24 Feb 2008 at 11:29

Tut tut

SDK^ · 24 Feb 2008 at 11:52

The thread that got me looking at the Sigma lens in the first place is here : Sigma 120-300 vs Canon 100-400

....and after seeing these two photos I was sold

What I've noticed so far after handling the Sigma is the Canon lens feels like a toy - The sigma feels much more robust.

If you want more photos then go here : http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=277729

This one taken with a 2x extender attached - 600mm

300mm wide open - F2.8

::: CooliceT :: · 24 Feb 2008 at 12:22

those pics are stunning!
would certainly suite me for motorsports!

lol..

who was bidding with me just now, on the one thats on ebay?
I went up to £850, but cant really afford it now.

went for £870 in the end,
I'll wait in for few months.