Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

[milton-chris]

I've read bunches of reviews and so far haven't found a reason to not buy this

lens. I'm looking for any current user comments on it. The price on it in USA

is exceptionally low right now - $1,995US vs $3299CDN - so I guess I'd have to

go save $1,000 and buy it in Buffalo, which would be a good excuse to hit the

Anchor Bar again. Anyway, I digress, any reasons to not buy this lens for use

with XTi for now then MkIII for indoor hockey and night baseball?

[mark u]

A lot of good advice about that lens in this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JvNg

 

You will want a monopod (especially with the XTi, where balance may be a little trickier). You will find a load more user comments at Fredmiranda:

 

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

 

I think you might find is a little long and perhaps not quite as fast as you might wish for indoor hockey on an XTi.

[keith_lubow]

At B & H they are $2,600. The $2,000 price appears to be for Sigma mount only.

 

The reviews on B & H do not paint the best picture of this lens. Two people claim that the zoom ring no longer works below 200m, that the lens hood is crap, and that the tripod collar is also crap. It is also mentioned that autofocus is notably worse than a Canon lens, as is image quality. Also, the lens has apparently gone up in price by $600 over the last three years. By the time you have paid to upgrade the tripod collar to a heavier-duty model, and sent the lens in to repair the stuck zoom, you might as well have just bought a used Canon 300.

 

While it sounds like a great lens, and I have not ever used it, I would only purchase it if I knew that the store had a no-questions-asked, hassle-free return policy.

 

Keith

[mark_chappell]

Obviously, it's not stabilized. If you have enough light in your sporting events to shoot at a

high shutter speed (like, 1/250 or faster) or if you can support it on something firm, this may

not be an issue. Personally, I'm not much tempted by any lens of 200 mm and above that

isn't stabilized.

[carnagex_carnagex]

So far its the best long zoom out (way way sharper then the Canon 100-400 copies ive

tried out against it). The major drawbacks are the lack of IS (although the 2.8 does make a

differance), and the size/weight issue. (its heavy, about 6 lbs.) Its not a sharp as the Canon

300 2.8, but then again youd be comparing a zoom to a prime. (its like saying the 24-70L

sucks because its not as sharp as the 35L).

 

 

--------

P.S. - Why do people post reviews on lenses they have never used ? All they do is repost

something they read on the net. (I mean, how hard is it for me to make up a couple dozen

sites bad mouthing a lens, and then hot cheat google for placing them at the top of a

search, I should do that just to see how many people here and on other forums would

point to it as a reference, instead of giving real hands on advice).

[keith_lubow]

The poster stated that he had read a bunch of reviews and had not found a reason not to buy the lens. I immediately found a few that gave several reasons. I simply summarized a few reviews that stated otherwise, and expained how they would affect my imaginary potential purchase. I offered no review of my own. So what?

 

Also, everybody has different reasons "not to buy", depending on their preferences. Personally, the lens sounds like all Sigma lenses...a pile.

 

Nothing you read from ANYBODY on the Internet will replace a rental of the lens...although I doubt you can rent Sigma equipment...which I why I suggested buying from a store that would accept a return.

 

Keith

[steve torelli]

Chris,

 

Without comment as to the Sigma's quality or worthiness, I stumbled across this at B&H's open box special page :

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=9414

 

Thought you may be interested. Good luck.

[leopoldstotch]

<p>Hello again Chris, if you read <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-F-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">This review</a>, it says:</p> <p><i>"..has a significant shortcoming that affects action sports photography - Autofocus can't keep up with action rapidly moving toward or away from the camera"</i></p>

<p>That said, shouldn't be a problem for baseball or hockey (Since action will be perpendicular to the lens), just thought you should be aware of it before you buy. Good luck!</p>

[ron_van_lew1]

This is a great lens. i have had 2 and they are really worth the money if you are shooting indoor hockey etc and cannot afford the high price for a Canon. The weight does take a bit to get used to but you can shoot handheld. That is the only way I use it.

[mike_earussi1]

A sharper, lighter weight and cheaper alternative is the sigma 100-300 f4 if you can handle one stop slower.

[milton-chris]

Thanks for the responses gents. I had read the reviews and threads referenced and was not particularly put off by them. I can easily use tripod for the baseball and hockey - monopod doesn't work well for me as I have some wobblies balance challenge. F4 just won't cut it. Even 2.8 is tough for the baseball and sometimes not enough for hockey but as he moves up a level they will play most games in one arena which is the best-lit in their league, so it will be easy to figure out the lighting and record custom settings during team training in August and September. RAW & PSE 5 overcome most, and my planning of the baseball shots helps too - shoot field shots before it gets dark and then get hitting and scoring shots with 85mm f/1.8.

 

I found the pricing of $1995 on (I think) pricegrabber and then checked out the physical store on various sites and have no challenge there. I need to actually pick up the lens or the customs charges could be brutal.

 

Someone implied that Sigma lenses are not that good - my experience is different. The 70-200 2.8 is a great lens and the unscientific tests comparing it to the Canon 2.8IS do not reveal anywhere enough difference to me or the pro shooter who owns the Canon to make up the massive difference in cost. Sigma 10-20 is an awesome lens - again, not enough difference when comparing in my use to the Canon to make up the cost difference. Sigma 17-70 I am not totally enamored with but it is my most-used lens and is my walk-about. Maybe I have exceptional copies of the 70-200 and the 10-20.

 

Thanks again.

[walang_pangalan]

<i>I need to actually pick up the lens or the customs charges could be brutal.</i>

 

<p>Nah. If you avoid UPS and its brokerage scam, you'll only pay the usual GST/PST when ordering stuff from the USA. Do note that if you go into Buffalo itself you'll pay New York sales tax at the counter, and then be hit with the taxes at the border coming back. Unless, of course, you are thinking of <i>smuggling</i> the item across the border, but I guess thats a subject best left undiscussed at a family oriented website like photo.net ...

[eagleeyephotography]

I feel all of sigma EX series lens are excellent. No other company (even canon) can offer a lens with the flexibility the zoom allows, the long focal length, and the speed for low light situations. I have had mine for a few years and use it shooting many different high school sports. Yes IS would make this lens even better but I use it only with a mono pod as it is a heavy lens. If you are able to be a steady hold shooter IS is just a higher priced "gimmick". As for hockey I have shot used it to shot some pics of local minor league team and have had great results.<div></div>

[eagleeyephotography]

Opps forgot to downsize it to post it.<div></div>

[larry h.]

First, Lensrentals.com rents the Sigma for $79.00 for a week. Well worth it to try it out. The only thing is I don't know if they will rent to Canada. Call Roger and ask.

 

Second, I own this lens and the Canon EF70-200/2.8 IS. I recently rented the EF300/2.8 IS (from Lensrentals). I did a newspaper test of all three. My unscientific conclusion was that the Sigma at 300mm & f/2.8 has equivalent sharpness to the EF70-200 at 200mm and f/2.8 (adjusted for distance to account for the different focal length). Neither was anywhere near as sharp as the EF300/2.8, but that's not a surprise.

 

The Sigma did well with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter and OK with the Canon 2x teleconverter (better than the 70-200 did with the 2x teleconverter). With the 2x, try to stop the lens down to an effective f/8. Overall, I thought it is a respectable showing for a third party, wide aperture zoom telephoto (no-one else makes one).

 

I bought mine used from KEH in bargain condition for $1300. Some of the finish was rubbed off, but who cares. You may want to check the ...bay to see if a used one happens to be for sale. Good luck.

[kin_lau]

I have it, and it works well with both 1.4x & 2x TC's. It's not an easy lens to handle, but a tripod will help considerably.

[John Crowe]

I am trying to find an alternative to this zoom that is too cheap to be truly useful and too slow for hockey. 800 ISO in any camera just does not cut it for me and while Ben's first shot is quite good the focus is on the linesman and the boards rather than the two combatants. That could be the camera though. I am also in a quandary (I think that is how you spell it) because you seem to have a fast 85/1.8 and 70-200/2.8 making another f2.8 zoom that only goes 1.5x farther a little redundant, especially at that price!

 

 

I'll keep thinking about the lens. At least a used unit is a promising alternative.

 

 

In the meantime I wonder if you can even find this lens in stock in Buffalo and also while UPS and Fedex do have scams they are easily avoided but you have to be 100% sure that the US store you are dealing with, 100% promises to use one of the UPS or FEDEX services that INCLUDES the brokerage fee. These shipping methods are usually about $65 to $100 USD for items of that size and value but well worth the savings in bokerage. The best way of course is USPS since Canada Post only tacks on a $5 flat fee plus the taxes that the others do as well.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Personally, I'm not much tempted by any lens of 200 mm and above that isn't stabilized.

 

Me too. In fact, this is the only reason that caused me to sell my 200/2.8 USM L.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.