Sigma HSM

I consider buying a telephoto lens. Does anyone know about Sigma's

300/2.8 HSM since it's a lot cheaper than Nikon's AFS and also comes with a polarizer?

 

Sorry about my english.

If Popular Photography's test is a reliable indication of how good the lens is---many here are skeptical of Pop. Photo tests---then the lens should be very good in the center, but noticably less good at the edges. If HSM is a necessity then it might be worth a look. FWIW, Pop. Photo's recent test of the similarly-priced Tamron indicated that while it is not quite as good in the center, it is better at the edges. No HSM, however, is available with this lens. I've used the older MF Tamron---same optics---and found that it was comparable to Nikon's 300 f/4, a very good lens indeed. If you can actually test the Sigma before you buy then that will be the best test as to whether it is worth buying. Others will warn you, with good reason, that 3rd-party lenses are sometimes rendered obsolete when camera makers change the electronics in their cameras. You might want to check and see whether the lens' electronics can be upgraded later.

I don't actually own the lens, but I have been considering purchasing it for some time now. I had the oportunity to use it at a local store on an F100 body, and I found that it focused just as quickly and accuratly as the Nikkor 80-200 AFS. It was very enjoyable to use, and had no trouble locking onto targets. I was particularly impressed with the lens' (and the camera's) focus tracking ability. They worked well together.

Photodo has an MTF test of a Sigma AF 300mm f2.8 lens, but I don't know if it is the most recent one with HSM:

 

www.photodo.com

I can't speak for this lens, but in general I think it's usually better to buy a used Nikon or Canon lens than a new Sigma (or other 3rd party) lens. First, the lens will probably hold it's value much better. Second, I can't think of any examples where a 3rd party lens is BETTER than the equivalent Nikon or Canon, but there are many examples of where it is worse! Third, certainly with Canon, there are many examples of 3rd party lenes malfunctioning on camera bodies released after the lens was designed. This hasn't been a concern with Nikon, at least so far.

I do not entirely agree with Bob Atkins comments.

 

1.Quality and value for money

The current Sigma EX 300/2.8 and 4.5/500 are on par with similar lenses from Nikon and Canon. In the UK both lenses have been tested

and the end result was that these lenses perform both technically and

optically on a same level as Nikon and Canon.

I do agree that " cheaper 3 party lenses" perform underpar when compared with original Nikon or Canon lenses.

 

2. Cost and part exchange

I do not agree with Bob's statement that Nikon and canon long lenses, cause thats what we are talking about here, keep their value better than similar Sigma lenses.

The Sigma 2.8/300 EX lens costs apprx GBP 2.250,= and the IS Canon lens approx GBP 3.500! A price difference of 35%. Of course this will be reflected once you want to part-exchange. The second-hand market is relatively small for lenses like this soexchanging it via a dealer would cost you more than selling it privately. Also i do not think that this issue is very relevant...i thinkthat once you buy an expensive lens like the Sigma or Canon you want to stick with it! Unless you are a techno freak and go and buy an IS Canon lens or similar.

 

3.Interface problems between Sigma lenses and Canon

Yes this is true but Sigma solves this without charging any cost.I have the 2.8/105 EX macro lens from Sigma and it didnt work on my Canon bodies. I shipped it to Sigma and they rechipped the lens...all works fine. You can ask yourself why, we as consumers, have to go this way to solve a problem that should have been solved between Canon and Sigmabefore they ever launched the lenses....lack of communication maybe??

 

Conclusion:Get yourself a 2.8/300 EX or if you really want to splash out get yourself a Canon 2.8/300 IS.

Rene,

 

Why in the world would Canon want to "communicate" with Sigma about how a Sigma lens performs on a Canon body? Canon designers are probably sitting back at their desktop stations laughing because an off brand manufacturer is not able to reverse engineer their lenses well enough to work on a Canon body. Canon, Nikon and Minolta don't want the competition; manufacturers like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron cut into their profits.

 

From experience, and I think a lot of readers will agree, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron make some great lenses. But when it comes to telephotos at 300mm+, I would seriously consider sticking with the manufacturer's brand (used) unless you cannot afford to pass up the Sigma.

Buy what you like. If you can't afford a Canon/Nikon, then you don't have much choice but to go 3rd party. Some 3rd party lenses are pretty good.

 

 

 

However, consider this. I've never heard of anyone trading in a Canon/Nikon telephoto lens for an equivalent Sigma. There are many examples of Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lens owners trading "up" to Nikon/Canon lenses. There's a reason 3rd party lenses are cheaper, and it's not just a lower profit margin.

 

Also consider performance with 1.4x and 2x TCs. All the test data I've seen so far indicates that 3rd party lenses don't quite perform as well with their "matched" TCs as Canon/Nikon lenses do with Canon/Nikon TCs - and I know the Canon/Nikon TCs are expensive too. I know from my own shooting experience that I use a TC on my telephotos a good deal of the time.

 

Lots of people own 3rd party lenses and are happy with them. I've even owned a few myself (in the past, but I don't have any of them left...). Sometimes "good enough" is good enough.

Hi Erick,

 

i have an 2,8/300 AFI to sell. The lens is in good condition (A-/A-B) and i sell it because i have in addition a 4/500 AFI and i always use the longer lens.

 

Price to be discussed about 2.000 Euro. For fourther details you can mail me under Sven.Huesges@t-online.de

 

Kind regards

Sven H|sges

I too can't see why Canon would ever release the body/lens interface specification to any third-party manufacturers. That is Canon's competitive advantage.

 

A friend of mine had a Sigma 400mm/f5.6 AF a few years ago. It was working fine until he bought a new Canon A2 body as the Signma lens would lock up his camera. He got in touch with Sigma in the US and the only answer he got from Sigma was "too bad." He has sinced upgraded to a Canon long lens.

Thanks everybody for all the comments.Maybe I should point out that I already own a F100 and a Nikkor 300/4 EDIF but I'm a little deceived of it's AF speed.Given the same 2.8 aperture lenses, AFS and HSM are a lot quieter but are they much faster (AF speed)? How about AFI? I'm also worried about all those horror stories of F100 and Sigma incompatibility.

Erick, I have both the Nikon 300mm/f4 AF and the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S. Even though the f4 version doesn't have an internal motor, its AF speed is quite fast because it has IF (internal focusing). The advantage of the AF-S is that it can AF with matching 1.4x and 2x telecovertors. IMO, unless you really need f2.8, stick with the 300mm/f4 AF because it is much lighter and cheaper. (And hopefully Nikon will produce a 300mm/f4 AF-S some day.) If you have extra money to invest in a long lens, consider a 500mm or 600mm AF.

 

By the way, Canon EOS isn't the only brand that has compatibility problems with 3rd-party lenses. In the last day or two, there is a case report in the Nikon Digest (mailing list) that somebody's Tamron 300mm/f2.8 AF can AF with the F5 but not the newer F100. They are waiting for a software upgrade from Tamron to fix the problem.

Well, Canon and/or Nikon fast telephoto lens are no doubts better than the analogous ones of Sigma. But if one would compare, for example Nikon 400 mm lens, slower than f/2.8 (i.e. like f/3.5 or even slower) - it is a sort of unfairly expensive optical junk when compared to Sigma 400 mm f/5.6 HSM lens.

So guys, you are rather paying for the Name - not for the Quality.

Vitaly