New Sigma 120-300mm 2.8

footman said:
The 1D4 does AF at F8, it's the 1Dx that doesn't.
I'm getting hold of a Canon 300L f2.8 IS Mk1 at the weekend to replace my 500.
The present owner uses MkIII TC's with it and says the IQ is better than with the MkII's.
Click to expand...

It does with the 1.1 fw havent stepped down to f8 to try. The mk iii extenders also have better af performance especially with the mk ii teles

Was that the 500 f4?
 
An Exception said:
Most of Canon's primes don't have sealing either though to be fair.
Click to expand...

King Damager said:
Doesn't really matter. We have to remember that they're not just competing with canon but Nikon also. It's actually quite interesting regarding business models.

kd
Click to expand...

Exactly, nikon seal a lot of their nano coated class. The 85 and 105 macro are both weather sealed for example. Some of their zooms are also, such as the 24-70 F2.8.
 
londonbairn said:
It does with the 1.1 fw havent stepped down to f8 to try. The mk iii extenders also have better af performance especially with the mk ii teles

Was that the 500 f4?
Click to expand...

Ahh, I knew the 5D3 had an FW upgrade but didn't know it also applied to the 1Dx.
Yes it was the 500L f4, just got a bit tired of lugging it around, the 300 seems like a feather compared.
I took it to Florida recently and my gear bag weighed 13Kg, if it didn't destroy my back it tried to destroy my hands!
 
I have used the current 120-300 f2.8 a bit, and I've been quite impressed with it. I also enjoyed using a 50-500 Bigma in my Pentax days, as long as it was stopped down, and after that a 120-400 OS in Nikon fit, which was a bit soft.

Since my move to Nikon, I have owned a succession of the Nikon Super Tele's, including the 200-400 f4 as I found the zoom pretty useful. I actually sold a non OS Sigma 300 f2.8 to part fund the 200-400, and it was a mistake in hindsight. The Sigma 300mm f2.8 lens I had was stunningly sharp, even wide open, and very very close to the Nikon version in terms of speed of focus and contrast, but not so good with the Sigma TC's.

I sold the 200-400 as it wasn't very good for wildlife at 300mm +, which kind of defeated the object a bit, but I'm very happy with my current Nikon 300mm f2.8 which is exceptional even with a 1.4TC, and also very good with the 2.0TC III, and all wide open.

I really want to see Sigma succeed at this end of the market, Nikon/Canon need competition and they are a viable alternative to folks who don't want to spend the often eye watering amount of cash the big two expect you to lay down for lenses.

I've purchased all my Sigma kit new, the Nikon's have all been second hand...
 
How much did you pay for your 300mm F2.8 Tooks if you don't mind answering? I was offered a sigma version for around £1200 a few months back but ended up putting the money into something else!
 
Last edited:
Lovely pics. I had the 300mm F4 lens which was tac sharp and a bargain of a lens, but it didn't give me enough reach when I went FX compared to when I had my D300s so I got rid (it was the older AF one, not AF-S, so quite a slow focus).

I'm annoyed that the sigma 35mm F1.4 lens is like gold dust at the moment in terms of stock. The price also appears to be rising :( Might put the cash towards a telephoto instead lol.
 
This 120-300, depending on the price (although I've no problem importing again), looks like my kind of long range ticket :)
 
I wish Sigma would sort out their quality control issues on some of their lens.

I'm in the process of sending back the Sigma 1.4 50mm as I'm not after trying to create a hazy dream like photograph.

I'm giving them one more shot before I throw the towel in. The 50mm is riddled with people complaining about AF issues or soft issues, seems like Sigma haven't done a thing about this.
 
2StepSteve said:
I wish Sigma would sort out their quality control issues on some of their lens.

I'm in the process of sending back the Sigma 1.4 50mm as I'm not after trying to create a hazy dream like photograph.

I'm giving them one more shot before I throw the towel in. The 50mm is riddled with people complaining about AF issues or soft issues, seems like Sigma haven't done a thing about this.
Click to expand...

Do you shoot Canon or Nikon, if Nikon then the Nikon 50mm f1.4 is better than the Sigma (and cheaper), heck even the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is better and even cheaper.
 
D.P. said:
Do you shoot Canon or Nikon, if Nikon then the Nikon 50mm f1.4 is better than the Sigma (and cheaper), heck even the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is better and even cheaper.
Click to expand...

I shoot Canon. I'll be one to say that Nikon's 50mm offerings beats Canon in the performance to price ratio.
 
2StepSteve said:
I wish Sigma would sort out their quality control issues on some of their lens.

I'm in the process of sending back the Sigma 1.4 50mm as I'm not after trying to create a hazy dream like photograph.

I'm giving them one more shot before I throw the towel in. The 50mm is riddled with people complaining about AF issues or soft issues, seems like Sigma haven't done a thing about this.
Click to expand...

+1 completely agree, quality control is their main negative.
It took 3 attempt's to get an 85mm 1.4 I was happy with (one was truly FUBAR), but I was very happy when I did get a good copy (although I have the Nikon 1.4 now).

Most of the issues are with simple front or back focus (not really a physical fault and easy to correct), did you try to micro adjust the camera to suit the lens? I'm not saying you should do that and keep the lens, but at least that way you can see if the IQ of the lens is up to your expectations.

Most of these issues will be a thing of the past with the new USB dock thing. Due to this I would say it's highly likely you'l have less trouble in the future with Sigma lenses than buying first party lenses.
 
Maybe I got lucky then because all my Sigma primes have been faultless.
 
I've had worse luck with Canon L lenses so that should tell you how varied it is!
 
An Exception said:
+1 completely agree, quality control is their main negative.
It took 3 attempt's to get an 85mm 1.4 I was happy with (one was truly FUBAR), but I was very happy when I did get a good copy (although I have the Nikon 1.4 now).

Most of the issues are with simple front or back focus (not really a physical fault and easy to correct), did you try to micro adjust the camera to suit the lens? I'm not saying you should do that and keep the lens, but at least that way you can see if the IQ of the lens is up to your expectations.

Most of these issues will be a thing of the past with the new USB dock thing. Due to this I would say it's highly likely you'l have less trouble in the future with Sigma lenses than buying first party lenses.
Click to expand...

I spent an hour micro adjusting it. It's better at +20 but it's still way off. To say that I was annoyed is an understatement, it's not exactly a cheap lens like Canons 1.8 50mm - mine is sharper at 1.8 than the Sigma at 1.8.

The USB adjustment feature is a good thing for the end user. But I can't help thinking that it just seems like a way for them to duck out of quality control.

It's luck of the draw with lenses. I agree that the odds of picking a lemon are higher with Sigma.
 
Last edited:
I owned a Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 for a while and it was very impressive.

Some photos

8371130048_6c40344112_b.jpg


An 80% crop

8371109900_3ee7eb3e44_b.jpg


8371110008_de840b8af1_b.jpg


8371110402_6f17de85cd_b.jpg
 
I've had a 120-300 (old Non DG Model) for about 6 years now. It's done a lot of miles and only recently has the AF Motor started to play up.....i need to get around to sending it in. I have the 500 f4.5 too.

*Edit*

Just noticed the 800x600 rule...i'll re-size and re-post some samples later.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom