I know some people are interested in this lens so here are a few of my shots with it and the 1.4x. Mine had the focus slip issue but optically was very good. I got a refund, the shop sent it back to Sigma. It came back fixed and was £500 cheaper so I repurchased!








News just in "Harbourphotog uses lens not made by Canon"


















Also got this on a very wobbly tripod. Look forward to trying it again with my good tripod... it is hard to get a clear night round here, there is always so much light pollution.




Thanks for looking and please feel free to share 120-300 pics if you wish.

Could you post 100% crops of some of these and I assume they were shot at f/4?
Thanks

Is the bokeh the same without the TC? It seems to be a bit bussy not letting the images pop that much.

Yeah, those are not suitable for evaluting IQ. What is the focus slip issue?

EBH

Hi, sorry I was not posting these for evaluating IQ. Just some shots I took the first few times I tried it out. No they are not all wide open.

I will look out some more with the convertor when I have more time. I think it is superb without the 1.4x and pretty good with it.

Focus slip is an issue where the AF slips when the lens is pointed directly up at the sky at the 300mm end. I think it was the first batch of motors that could not take the weight of the glass when at that angle.

Here is a 100% crop, 420mm f4

Wow.

That is sharp.

Time to start saving up for one.

fraga wrote:
Wow.

That is sharp.

Time to start saving up for one.

This is about as close to a poor mans 200-400 f/4 as we'll get. Looks great. I saw this online for just $2400 from HK, which is damn good value IMO.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
This is about as close to a poor mans 200-400 f/4 as we'll get. Looks great. I saw this online for just $2400 from HK, which is damn good value IMO.
The OS version is $2400? My god this is insanely cheap.

I've been burned by Sigma too many times to fall for this one.

EBH

Snopchenko wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This is about as close to a poor mans 200-400 f/4 as we'll get. Looks great. I saw this online for just $2400 from HK, which is damn good value IMO.
The OS version is $2400? My god this is insanely cheap.

Yeah, crazy cheap

http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=3344

Maybe if it is really the OS lens. The detailed specs are for the non-OS lens.

EBH

EB-1 wrote:
I've been burned by Sigma too many times to fall for this one.

EBH
I knew you'd say something like this.

Well, I suffered from the older 120-300/2.8.

EBH

EB-1 wrote:
Well, I suffered from the older 120-300/2.8.

EBH

Yes, we've heard about it....in every 'Sigma 120-300' thread for the past 6 years

Pixel Perfect wrote:
fraga wrote:
Wow.

That is sharp.

Time to start saving up for one.

This is about as close to a poor mans 200-400 f/4 as we'll get. Looks great. I saw this online for just $2400 from HK, which is damn good value IMO.

I still have one of the older non OS 120-300 Sigmas. For my money it is my first choice for some types of shooting I do a lot. Stuff like kids sports, little league and pre teen girls softball are places where the zoom really shines. I know the Canon 300/2.8 is a great lens but at any other focal length than 300mm the Sigma has a big advantage. This is an example of the IQ

I have the 50mm f1.4 and I really do not like it on full frame. I have the Sigma macro 70 which is superb. I really do think it is great value. I was toying with the version 1 Canon 300f2.8 but after playing with it I really could not justify the money.... I also loved not having to change lenses when at the touring cars and zoo... I only ever intend on using this type of lens for fun and I guess if I was looking to 'go pro' in this area my views may be different.

With the money I saved I also got a 85 f1.2II and had some change so I aint compainin!

harbour photog wrote:
I have the 50mm f1.4 and I really do not like it on full frame. I have the Sigma macro 70 which is superb. I really do think it is great value. I was toying with the version 1 Canon 300f2.8 but after playing with it I really could not justify the money.... I also loved not having to change lenses when at the touring cars and zoo... I only ever intend on using this type of lens for fun and I guess if I was looking to 'go pro' in this area my views may be different.

With the money I saved I also got a 85 f1.2II and had some change so I aint compainin!

I recently acquired the 120-300... I also have the Canon 300 2.8 IS.. My initial impression is the Sigma is more lens for the "Buck"... 1/3 the cost of a new Canon 300 and similar, not superior, IQ...

EB-1,
i, too, have had negative experiences w/ the older sigma tele-zoom. several copies, several sigma fix attempts and still,
front or back focus issues. I have gone to prime tele's and could not be happier. Still, when the focus worked, the zoom
range was great.
I do shoot w/ a pair of sigma 70-200's, the non-OS and have compared images w/ friends shooting the canon version,
the images are interchangeable, could not tell sigma from canon.
just my 2 cents worth.
B

oldrattler wrote:

I recently acquired the 120-300... I also have the Canon 300 2.8 IS.. My initial impression is the Sigma is more lens for the "Buck"... 1/3 the cost of a new Canon 300 and similar, not superior, IQ...


And I will bet the Canon focuses faster, and that it performs better with TC's.

Has Sigma figured out yet that they should put focus-limiters on their telephoto lenses

Imagemaster wrote:
oldrattler wrote:

I recently acquired the 120-300... I also have the Canon 300 2.8 IS.. My initial impression is the Sigma is more lens for the "Buck"... 1/3 the cost of a new Canon 300 and similar, not superior, IQ...


And I will bet the Canon focuses faster, and that it performs better with TC's.

Has Sigma figured out yet that they should put focus-limiters on their telephoto lenses


They used to. My old non digital compliant 300/4 HSM has one