Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX DG HSM on Dig. EOS

[images_in_light_north_west]

Has any one used this on a digital EOS, if so with what results, I

am looking for a lens in this range and price.

 

Thanks

[michaelschrag]

I've been looking at this lens with some interest. My local shop tells me they will have one in I can test soon. Here is a link for reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=104&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

[yakim_peled1]

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_120300_28/index.htm

 

I hope you don't mind me relating to a different lens but for the same price of the Sigma 120-300/2.8 I'd rather get the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4X TC. I'd get:

 

1. Much more reasonable filter size (77mm vs. 105mm). Cost difference is significant.

 

2. Three stops IS.

 

3. Much lower weight, almost 1 Kg.

 

4. The combination of 2 and 3 makes it a very capable while hand-holding. Users frequently report sharp pictures at 200mm at 1/30. At 2.6 Kg and no IS you're much less likely to get sharp pictures at speeds even remotely close to this.

 

5. Much better re-sale value. Third party lenses go for about 40-50% when in mint condition while Canon primes and L's go for about 80%-90%. BTW, my personal experience here is 50%-55% and 100%-105%.

 

What I'd lose? Oh, in the 200mm-300mm range I'll have f/4 and not f/2.8. Don't know what about you but I certainly think it's worth it.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[mark u]

If you need f/2.8 for sport there really is no other choice to cover the focal lengths. Look at the user reviews on Fredmiranda.

[les]

"Third party lenses go for about 40-50% when in mint condition while Canon primes and L's go for about 80%-90%."

 

Well, just recently I put my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM on E-bay at A$850 (US$630). Originally paid US$699 + 10% GST. Sold in 1.5 hrs (at

76% of the original total expense).

[images_in_light_north_west]

Have been considering the 70-200 F2.8 is w/1.4x but reviews on this site don't look favorable for sharpness at the high end with this set up

[mike t.]

Ross, I've used the 120-300/2.8 non-DG extensively for soccer on a 1D. Sorry no experience with the new DG. If you wish I can send you a few samples. There is no question that it's a tremendous lens for the money. My experience:

 

1. Bought for just under $2,000.

2. Quick, sure AF

3. Very sharp, pleasing color, excellent bokeh

4. Sold for $1,500 to fund longer class for full-field sports

5. Miss it - wish I could have managed to keep it.

 

I must politely disagree with Yakim's comment. A 70-200/2.8 + 1.4xTC is not comparable, and I've used one next to the 120-300. If I had to compromise one stop, I'd pick up a Sigma 100-300/4 over the 70-200 + 1.4xTC.

 

Good luck with your decision!

 

Mike

 

But please know that there have been some posts at FM re: the DG version and inaccurate AF. Wherever you buy, be sure you have 100% return/refund right.

[vandit]

I have a friend who shoots wildlife with this lens. The results are spectacular.

 

As soon as Sigma puts an IS on this lens, I am selling my 100-400 and buying this one.

 

Vandit

[larry h.]

I agree with Mike on this one. I have both the 70-200/2.8 IS and the older, non-DG Sigma 120-300/2.8. Due to size and IS, the 70-200 IS and 120-300 are in two different leagues for two different purposes. The 70-200 IS is for handheld use as well as a tripod. The 120-300 requires a tripod, or at the very least, a strong monopod.

 

The 120-300 also works very well with the Canon 1.4x converter to extend to a great lens for field sports like soccer. If you have two bodies, the two lenses make a good tandem pair: 70-200/2.8 IS handheld and 168-420/4 (including a 1.4x teleconverter) on a tripod. Finally, the 120-300 + Canon 2x converter is very acceptable but not great for long reach such as wildlife. Otherwise, I have no way to get to 600mm.

 

My recommendation: See if you can find a used non-DG lens, just to save money.