 |
|
|
MichaD
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,840.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast and it zooms
|
|
Cons:
|
Non-Parafocal! 105mm filters
|
|
|
A 300/2.8 with the ability to zoom out is just too damn useful! This has to be one of the best deals in the Sigma lineup.
It's very sharp and also handles the 1.4x TC very well.
At first I though I wouldn't be able to handhold this baby as well but it balances nicely and after a little getting used to I can now handhold it basically all day. I'm by no means a bear, quite the wimp actually. A monopod isn't the worst thing to use of course.
The zooming action isn't the smoothest around and also has some play when tilting the lens straight up and down while the focusing is buttery smooth and the AF is fast and precise.
I got mine before the DG version came out and had to buy the larger tripod socked, the supplied one was a joke for a lens of this caliber. I hear it's included on the current model now.
The only real gripe I have about this Lens is it being so massively non-parafocal. A slight change in focal length sets the focus way off. It's not a deal breaker but can surely slow you down.
I'd rate the Bokeh pretty high. It's not 200/1.8L smooth, but nothing distracting, doubled or fuzzed up. Very circular highlights, even stopped way down. Things get ugly in the background when using TCs though.
I really like the design of the shade, provides great mechanical protection of the front element and mounts bullet proof. The leather "lens cap" should fit when the lens hood is mounted and not only when it's reversed.
|
|
 Sep 14, 2005
|
|
gamecockfan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 75
|
|
Review Date: Sep 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,875.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Value, build quality, sharpness, contrast, good zoom range for sports
|
|
Cons:
|
Tracking with 1D MKII
|
|
|
I have been very pleased with this Sigma. Last year I swore off ever buying another Sigma after a less than satisfactory experience with a 24-70. A close encounter with this lens’s little brother, the 100-300 f/4 convinced me that Sigma could indeed make an excellent glass so I gave this one a shot.
In most respects it equals my Canon 70-200 f/2.8. There are three areas where it trails the L: ability to track moving objects on my 1D MKII, it seems to add a very faint yellowish cast and, to a very minor degree, sharpness. The different in sharpness is only apparent when making very large prints or 100 % crops .
As an outdoor sports lens it is without equal…because no one else makes a zoom in this range, sharpness, speed, ect. Primes rule in landscapes, stills and portraits but action sports BEG for a fast zoom. You just miss too many shots without a zoom. IF Canon made a similar white lens in this range it would no doubt cost twice as much, weigh more and could not possibly be much better but would likely be a little sharper.
If, and until, a better sports zoom lens comes along this is the fat cat daddy. It isn’t perfect but as the standard bearer by default it is a 10.
|
|
|
Sep 9, 2005
|
|
Baden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build and Quality, Very sharp at 300 2.8, Great zoom range.
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far.
|
|
|
So far i am very very happy with this lens. Its tack sharp on both my 1D and 20D body. The AF is very pricise - no back or front focus here. The sharpness and great AF is just as good as the 70-200, maybe a little better. I am looking forward to be using it for Soccer very soon. The overall feel is superb, build and design is great and I will have no problem using it handheld even if it is a littele heavy. Love this nice EX glass.
Regards
Allan
|
|
|
Jul 5, 2005
|
|
Geofn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 841
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,815.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optical Quality, Build Quality, Internal Focusing, the new tripod mount design.
|
|
Cons:
|
A wee bit on the heavy side (but then again, think about what you have here!). Would like to see a real lens cap. Also would be great to have OS!
|
|
|
This is one amazing hunk of glass! Focusing is as fast and accurate as any of my Canon L's. Background blur at 2.8 is wonderful - this will be an awesome portrait lens. My copy is tack sharp across the whole aperture range at all zoom steeings. At the 300mm setting I can't see a whole lot of difference between this lens and my 300/4 L prime, and even at the 135mm setting this isn't much worse than my 135/2 L prime (the 135/2 does beat the Sigma in the corners, especially at f4 and wider - duh!).
This lens could really benefit from OS - while it's possible to hand hold this beast, you really ought to plan on a (sturdy) tripod.
I bought this with the Sigma 1.4x tele, and the combination is also tack sharp, as is the lens when used with my Canon 2x. Autofocus works perfectly with both extenders.
All in all this is a great lens for sports photography and I expect to use it for nature and portraits as well. This is the best priced 300/2.8 on the market, and you get the zoom as a bonus.
|
|
|
May 31, 2005
|
|
jimyd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $3,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
What a LENS...perfect range for sports photography. Very Sharp and excellent contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly heavy...not really considering what your getting.
|
|
|
I have used this lens very closely with my EF300F2.8L, the prime is only marginally better at 2.8, @ f4 and above these two lenses are almost identical in sharpness. The canon focusses quicker and tracks better however the Sigm is not a slow mover either.
I ended up selling my Canon after much thought and tests, ....do i regret it??..not at all. Give me a 120-300f2.8 zoom any day..this lens is a beast that hasnt been given enough respect. Get a good copy and its stays with you for life.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2005
|
|
DSeelig
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 27, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 575
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,900.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom good sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
slower autofocus then canon . actually alittle shy of 300 mm
|
|
|
Well after a year I sold my 120-300. I have felt i was not getting as much critcal sharpness from this lens as I wanted. If I shot nothing but HS or kid sports I would have kept it. But I shoot pro sports and rock and roll for an arena. For my local paper work it was a great lens. but for the critical times I was dissapointed just a bit. so I got a a canon 300 f2.8 is. The autofocus is just a a little slow for the pro sports arena. If canon had its autofocus in it I might still own it. It is aslo a little shy of 300 mm .
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2005
|
|
shadowoa
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1073
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8!, Fast!, Sharp!
|
|
Cons:
|
HUGE front filter. Heavy.
|
|
|
This lens is unbelievable. I have own alot of lenses and this is the sharpest. Even at 2.8 it is sharper than my 100-400IS lens was stopped down. Ultra fast focus, ultra sharp, great color. There is nothing wrong with this lens, but it is very big.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2005
|
|
boris342
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 814
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, better than canon or nikon alternative 300mm F2.8's!! Brilliant wide open, awesome build quality, hand holdabe and cheap for what your getting. Also works great with TC 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x. Woks especially well with 1.7x.
|
|
Cons:
|
Gimmie Is/Vr/Os!!! This lens would be the best thing ever if it had some sought of vibration reduction :D!
|
|
This lens is the best tele lens i've shot with. check out my pics from rally aus, most with this lens http://www.darwinonline.org/thumbnails.php?album=1169 . I handheld the HOLE week end :O, and I really had no problems with it's weight (although I am young). There is one thing I would love to see in this lens and it's optical stabilisation, come on sigma, listen to me here this lens would be a dream with OS. Autofocus is just as quick as nikon's AFS, and canon's USM.
Thanks Alex :D
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2005
|
|
uno1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range, 2.8 through all range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus does not function on Nikon D70
0.2m backfocus at 10m distance.
|
|
|
This would be the lens of my dreams if functioning properly.
After trying 2 different new lenses on 2 different Nikon D70 cameras, focus is in 95 % of images 1-3 dm (4-12 inches) behind the subject I aim for when shooting from 10 m distance. One of the lenses was sent to authorized Sigma service for check between tests, one of the cameras was sent to Nikon for focus adjustment. Problem is still remaining afterwards. Several hundreds of pictures taken, subject NOT moving.
It is very evident shooting at F2.8 from 10 m and zoomed to 300 mm, but at closer distance and / or zoomed out it seems to be OK. Also, first focusing 2 m behind subject and then refocusing on my main subject when taking the picture seems to give worse result than first focusing at closer distance.
My 15 years old AF Nikkor 300/4 provide 100 % images with correct focus under same conditions (same subject, distance, light, camera settings, focus procedure etc.)
On my Nikon F4, I have not observed the problem, although only one roll of film taken and not exactly same distances.
Another odd observation regarding this lens is the focal length when set to 300 mm. I did observe a significant difference to my old Nikkor, which brought me closer to the subject. I took some images of a long ruler from 8 m distance and then calculated the focal length. The Nikkor was 305 mm and the Sigma 270 mm. Sigma Corporation, Tokyo head office, informed me that focal length should be measured focused at infinity. In that case focal length is less than 270 mm since it decreases when focusing to infinity (same result for both 2 Sigma lenses tested). This is not a major problem though.
Sigma corp. answered to my questions regarding focus problem with providing info of the lens optical performance, but did not comment what could cause the focus problem and not what I could do about it.
I have been testing and discussing this issue with my local retailer and Sigma for more than one month now. If they can provide a lens working properly on my D70, I will highly recommend the lens. Now it is worthless.
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2005
|
|
A_Altenburger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1367
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,919.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is by far the best lens I have ever owned, including my Canon L's. Fast and sharp. Suits my needs perfectly for sports. Ability to go out to 300mm as well as go wider. Would love a Sigma 200 f/1.8 prime.
|
|
Cons:
|
I hand-hold for 90% of the sports I shoot. It does get heavy after several hours. Certainly not a knock on the lens though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2005
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Able to cover a nice range that Canon has no comparison to it in a zoom.
Doesn't attract as much attention being black.
|
|
Cons:
|
Back focus at times when using the wrong focus practice.
Not as sharp as say Canon's 300L f/4 are.
Bayonet mount had a little play in it that Canon lenses don't have when fit up to the Canon bodies.
|
|
|
I like the range the 120-300 has and that AF is very fast and quite.
If you need this range of a Tele its still the only thing out there and can produce nice work.
The color renditions are very rich and being a 2.8 makes it fast and useable in low light situation.
I sold it for two main reasons being the back focus issue if you're not using good focus practices that Canon has a little more mercy for.
And most impotently how for instance Canon's 300L f4 non IS blew it out of the water when it came to sharpness and AF.
I hope I learned my lesson and stay away from 3rd party lenses from now on.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2005
|
|
David356
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,999.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is as good as my 70-200 2.8is, zoom range, speed, focus speed
|
|
Cons:
|
105mm filters, tripod coller you need to get the TS-41 adding another $150, no big thing but it would be nice the have OS in this lens
|
|
|
This lens is great for auto racing and other sports. I got mine just before Thanksgiving and first time using it was Irwindale for Thanksgiving night. It was alot better then the 70-200IS with the extra 100mm. It did not work as well with the Canon 2x, it was alittle slow on focus. This could be as it's the frist time using it. Try again during the 2005 race seasom.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2004
|
|
Kirk77
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp as a tac even at 2.8...and fast focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
tripod collar slightly loose.
|
|
|
I find this lens one of the most valuable lenses for sports photography...especially with the 1.3x conversion on a 1DmkII...its reach and zoom range are perfect..soccer,baseball,tennis,motorsports etc.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2004
|
|
Kirk77
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $4,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp as a tac even at 2.8...and fast focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
tripod collar slightly loose.
|
|
|
I find this lens one of the most valuable lenses for sports photography...especially with the 1.3x conversion on a 1DmkII...its reach and zoom range are perfect..soccer,baseball,tennis,motorsports etc.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2004
|
|
andrewma
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus (HSM), metal lens hood, carrying case, very sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy (as it should be), don't really need the case much, bokeh seems a bit...off?
|
|
|
I love this lens. I have the Canon 70-200L f/4 and HAD the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and have used the larger canon L lenses and I would safely say that I prefer this lens for the price. It not only has 100mm more on the canon 70-200 zooms, but most lenses of this size should be on a monopod/tripod anyhow. It's possible to hand hold and if it's bright you'll be able to take very sharp pictures throughout the range of zooms. some folks complain about sharpness at 120mm but mine seems very sharp even in the corners.
You'll have a hard time trying to put this in the horizontal position on a monopod with a digitla camera that has a vertical grip. somehow the grip sticks out just enough to hit the quick release lever of monopods. on both my canon and bogen monopods. quite an annoyance as you have to loosen the tripod collar, rotate the camera, then rotate it back to shoot in horizontal. I mostly shoot in vertical so it avoids this problem but you'll find yourself STUCK if you switch to vertical and then try to take it off the monopod. you can't release it without turning it to vertical! GRRR!!
lens is heavy to hand hold. i work out a lot and used to doing finger tip push ups for kung fu and i find my arm getting tired trying to hand hold. those on here that can hand hold...you guys must be bears.
focusing is very sharp. just expect to pay a TON for filters. i picked up a uv and circular polarizer for a whopping $240-280 or so. with a 105mm thread, don't even bother looking at any of the cokin series! anyone know if the lee filters will even fit this??
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2004
|
|
Ken T.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Oct 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Range, Build
|
|
Cons:
|
Mount seems just a little looser than Canon lenses
|
|
I did a lot of research before purchasing this lens, and read a lot of positive, and some negative things about it. I was concerned about quality control from Sigma, so I bought this at a reputable dealer with a good exchange policy. It seems like a lot of the negative comments from some of the other boards started with..."Well I have never actually used the 120-300, but my past experience with Sigma..." I have never used anything other than Canon glass for my cameras, so this was a decision I did not take lightly.
I use this lens for football, baseball, soccer, an dance, using the Sigma 1.4 APO converter during the day when needed for the extra reach. I am amazed at the quality right out of the 1D. I add just a little touch of sharpening, and the results are fantastic. I almost always shoot wide open, and am very pleased with the results.
No problems with focus. Speed is very good, and accuracy is great. Possibly a little slower in AI Servo than my 70-200 2.8, but I don't know if that is proveable or just an impression. I have not tried this lens on the 10D for sports, so I can't comment on the focusing speed with that combo. I have also taken some close-up portraits at 300mm, and the detail is stunning. Thank God for gaussian blur in photoshop to soften the facial detail.
The build quality is top rate. Of course it's heavy, but I do handhold it on occasion. On days where I am shooting football games from 09:00 am to 11:00 pm, a monopod is an absolute necessity. I always use a filter because I am so paranoid of scratching the front element. The filter is huge and not cheap, but a lot less expensive to replace than the lens if I ever screwed up royally.
If you want to see some examples ot the lens, you can look at http://www.tse.photoreflect.com Of course these are very low resolution thumbnails, but can give you an idea of the reach and focusing accuracy of the lens. I would say that 90-95% of the shots are good enough to post, with most of the bad ones being my fault.
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
88
|
305605
|
Apr 22, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
83% of reviewers
|
$2,073.03
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.36
|
9.58
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
