|
|
dseidman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 362
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good range, solid build, fast and accurate autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS/VR and the lens is a little heavy but that's to be expected.
|
|
I bought this lens a few years ago after reading lots of reviews. From what I had read, it appeared that this lens is comparable in image quality to Canon's telephotos of similar zoom range. Well after owning this lens for three years and using plenty of Canon's lenses during that time, I can say that this lens really is as good but at a much better price. I have been extremely pleased with its performance. So far it has survived three camera bodies (20D, 40D, and now 5D2) and it's still going strong.
I mostly shoot landscapes with the camera mounted on a tripod so the f/4 aperture is something I don't have to worry about but I can see it being of some concern for sports photographers. Also, the lack of image stabilization can make it a little tough to use handheld. Other than that, I have nothing bad to say.
Here is a gallery full of images I've taken with it over the years:
http://www.danseidmanphoto.com/keyword/100300
In some of the reviews, people are mentioning that this lens isn't sharp at the long end. I have to disagree with this, unless it's just that they have a bad copy. To prove that the lens is tack sharp through the entire range, I've uploaded a full-size image taken at 300mm and I have done absolutely no adjustments (except for watermarking). You be the judge.
http://www.danseidmanphoto.com/photos/779198906_CXauP-O.jpg
|
|
 Feb 1, 2010
|
|
margilli
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Stunning sharpness across the board. Excellent build quality. Auto focus is fast and never misses. My best lens purchase to date.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter size.
|
|
I replaced a 70-200 vr1 and 80-400 with this lens. I have not missed either of those lenses at all. I now have as good or better image quality and performance, a lighter back pack and a fatter wallet.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2010
|
|
LMT1972
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 230
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open in the 100-250mm range. Well priced.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft @ 300mm & AF is lacking compared to the Nikon 70-200VR. No OS.
|
|
Used this lens on a D300 for about 6 months and as a zoom it's a pretty decent performer but there are compromises.
Wide open this lens is tack sharp @ 200mm (at least as good as the 70-200VR and better in the corners) but gets softer near 300mm. While it's still useable, the 70-200VR + 1.4/1.7 TC is just as good in terms of sharpness. Colour and micro contrast are good but still a bit behind the 70-200 IMO.
AF is reasonbly fast in good light but starts to struggle a bit with lower contrast subjects compared to the 70-200VR. The Nikon is also clearly better when it comes to tracking subjects moving directly towards the camera.
Also used the lens with the Sigma 1.4 TC and it works pretty well with minimal loss of IQ (unless you are manual focusing, other TC's are useless on the Sigma lenses).
Build quality is excellent and it is handholdable if you are used to 70-200 2.8 or similar weight lenses.
In summary, if you absolutely need a zoom in this range it's hard to beat as long as you are aware of its limitations. but if you are shooting mainly at 300mm, get a prime lens (I've since bought the Nikkor 300VR 2.8 and the extra cost is most definitely worth it).
Cheers
Leigh
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2009
|
|
Marc Kurth
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2765
|
|
Review Date: Sep 1, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $875.00
|
|
Pros:
|
This is a follow up after 5 years of heavy use. See page 7 for my original comments in 2004.
It's on it's last legs now, after being mistreated for 5 years - but it has been worth a whole lot more than I paid.
|
|
Cons:
|
How can I complain about this lens investment?
|
|
This lens has produced a huge number of my "money shots" in situations that my primes couldn't do it for me. Primarily shooting boat-to-boat in big surf and salt spray. That is a solid statement of lens quality.
http://morrobayphotos.com/uscg/USCG%20MLB%20Action
After all of these years of getting salt water soaked/banged around/dropped, it is finally time to replace or repair it. I don't baby my equipment. Bodies and lenses are tools required to get the shot - sometimes at the expense of the tool. The HSM mechanism has become too sloppy to be reliable. The optics are still stellar.
I've heard complaints about focus speed and accuracy, but they seem to be related to Canon bodies. This lens has always been dead on for me with several generations of Nikon bodies over the years, starting with the D70. It's never been serviced or "calibrated" - it just kept ticking.
Just my two cents about an old f4 workhorse.
|
|
|
Sep 1, 2009
|
|
ajnspencer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Most of the build quality, image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus issues on three copies, tripod collar.
|
|
Ok, let's get the plus points out the way, this is a well built lens that feels great and sturdy, it really feels like it could have mechanically lasted a long time. Also, when it worked properly the image quality was excellent but, and it's a big but, it rarely did.
When I got it home and checked the images I'd shot out and around Brixham and on the way home... out of the 200 or so different shots I'd taken only about 10 were actually usable, and before anyone cried "user error" (I probably would) some of these were tripod shots at 1/1600th of a static subject, nigh on impossible to blur as much as I was seeing.
After a few tests I found out that the lens was front focussing badly, a good inch too far forward, and this was causing nightmares at smaller apertures.
Deciding against having to wait for Sigma to mess around with it I took it back to where I got it (Mifsuds, can't praise that shop highly enough!) and two of the shop staff and I spent half an hour doing a variety of tests on my original copy and the other two they had in stock at the time, only to find all three had the same issue, ranging from an inch to two inches front focussing.
I had been confused by the reviews on here, when most were saying it was excellent at all settings but some were complaining of image quality wide open, I now wonder if their copies may have the same issue as these did...
So, seems to be a great lens but may have some build issues with the focussing to worry about... in the end I decided to bite the cash bullet and rather than wait for the lenses to get calibrated and sent back I got myself a Canon 300mm f/4 prime instead.
To be fair the only other problem I had with the lens was the tripod collar being too small to allow good hand holding when switching between tripod and hand.
So, if you really need the zoom, I'd say give it a try. It does seem to be a lovely and solid lens with excellent IQ when working, but for the love of Canon, make sure you run some tests to make sure the focussing is working properly.
|
|
|
May 13, 2009
|
|
NikonianBG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good image quality and color rendering, sharp, constant f4, fast enough, nice and convenient tripod collar, affordable price
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, no OS
|
|
I’ve been using this lens with Nikon D80 quite a lot for more than 2 years and I really love it. It can hunt sometimes but it’s not a problem. Weight – well I’m used to it and I often carry it for several hours in a row while shooting at events with no problems, but for someone it might be heavy. Of course the lack of OS is a drawback for any lens within that range, but for the price you get a very nice piece of photo equipment. I had read tens of reviews before buying it and I was completely satisfied with its image quality, sharpness and overall performance when I got one. After so many photos taken with it I haven’t noticed any flare problems or at least any serious ones. The zoom ring works smoothly. I’ve tried it also with FX and it works wonderful.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2009
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 507
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ from 100-250, constant f4, build
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, IQ from 250-300
|
|
I still think it's a good lens, but here's some observations after using it a bit more. First, in less than perfect light, it can hunt. A lot. I was using it on a sunny day but in the shade. It had real troubles locking on even using my D300. I then tried my 105VR (yes, the macro) and it had no problem. Of course, the macro is a 2.8, not a 4, so I'm sure that had something to do with it.
Wide open, it's sharp, but gets much, much sharper as you go to f8. As most lenses do. I've done some tests and they show as you get to 300mm, it softens up just a bit. Enough to put a bit of blur in a bird's eye that isn't there at 250.
Still and all, for the Nikon system, it's a great lens. Combine that with the price and there's still no competition. That said, I think either my 70-200 (any model) or 100-400 in Canon mounts were far, far sharper when used at the extremes. Any zoom lens, used away from the ends of it's focal range and in the 5.6-8 area is going to be sharp - so that's no surprise here. What sets a lens apart is when it's still sharp at each end of the range and wide-open. I don't think that's the case with the 100-300.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 507
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ!!! AF speed, color rendering, BUILD, constant f4 aperture though zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
WEIGHT, No VR/IS (though I knew it going in)
|
|
I got this used and for a very good price. Tried it the first day I had it on a hawk in flight and wow. Excellent AF speed and accuracy. Very, very nice even wide-open.
No other zoom matches this (in Nikon mount) for range, IQ, and fixed aperture. A real bargain at the price.
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2008
|
|
R10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very impressive image quality, a real bargain lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Edge/corner sharpness wide open, color rendering a bit on the warm side
|
|
IQ of this zoom lens is really impressive. Edge/corner resolution is a bit weak wide open, esp at 300mm, but very good from f8. Center quality is a pleasure throughout the range and at all apertures. Color rendering is, like with many Sigmas, a bit on the warm side. Centering of my sample was excellent. (‘was‘, because I use now the Leica-R 105-280, which is beyond comparison but, unlike the Sigma, no bargain...). The Sigma has a very fast ultra sonic AF, but on my 5D it was often not accurate. Not an issue for me because I rarely shoot moving objects and focus mostly manually anyway, but it’s a bit annoying esp. with such a (potentially) sharp lens. Maybe this was an unusual phenomenon, to a large extend just due to the individual pairing of my samples of lens and body.
In a nutshell – highly recommended!
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2008
|
|
adam613
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 551
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $625.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent image quality, even with a 1.4x TC. Accurate and reasonably fast AF. Smooth zoom and focus rings. Compact, given its capabilities. Inexpensive on the used market.
|
|
Cons:
|
Paint peels off (like most Sigma EX lenses)
|
|
The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is one of the best deals on the used market right now...the image quality is on par with high-end telephoto zooms such as the Canon 100-400. AF is reasonably quick and quite accurate. The zoom ring is very usable for manual focus. While not a small lens, it's reasonably-sized for a 100-300 f/4 zoom. The build quality isn't in the same league as the high-end lenses from Tokina and Canon, but it's solid other than Sigma's typical paint-peeling issues.
I wouldn't recommend buying this lens new...current prices are around $1100, and at that price there are other options. But it's selling for $650 or so used, and it's a steal at that price...L-level image quality for a non-L price.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2008
|
|
Etienne Otero
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 10, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 443
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
super fast and accurate AF, large rings, super sharp, well constructed, light and compact in comparison to others in its class, reliable.
|
|
Cons:
|
only f/4...
|
|
It seems everything has been said already... I just love my copy.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2008
|
|
packpe89
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 414
|
|
Review Date: Jul 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, AF Speed
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight
|
|
I recently got this lens to replace a 300F4 L, non-IS. I really liked the 300, but had always wanted to try the Sigma. Before trading the 300, I did some test and, yes the prime was a bit sharper at 300 and F4 about equal at 5.6, but at 200, the Sigma was as good as my 70-200 2.8IS. What really surprised me, was the AF. It is on par with the Canons. At least as fast as the 70-200, and very close to the 300. It is heavy, but I usually shoot sports with a monopod, so no problem there. Focus was good with both my 30D and 1dmk2. A great sports lens!
|
|
|
Jul 7, 2008
|
|
|
