DannWunderlich wrote:
hey wait - you ahve the 400 - right
what are you complaining about
i think that this lens and a 400 and a 1.4x would be the perfect field sport setup
Dann first off...nice captures with the Siggy and second the set up you mention above is my main arsenal during football season and I have a 24-70 on my hip.
Let's KICK it OFF already! Aug 30th can't come soon enough. Some tune up pre season games will have to quench my thirst for football for a few more weeks.
Budget be damned! The 120-300 is just an exceptional lens... no one else makes anything like it. I had a 70-200 2.8L, 300 2.8L, and a 35-350 4-5.6L, all good and usefull bits of glass. Then about 5 years ago Sigma produced the 120-300 2.8... I bought one, played around with it, and pretty smartly sold my 70-200 and 300, and a little while later the 35-350. I know some of the 120-300's are evidently not as good as others but mine is excellent, has been all over the world for the last 4 & 1/2 years +, used in rain, snow, sea spray and lots of sunshine, had converters clipped on when need be, has been dropped and knocked, and just 4 days ago I slipped on a muddy downhill and the lens hood took a good impact on a rock which resulted in a good sized dent, and it's even been badly handled by baggage handlers (now there's a surprise!) and it is the most versatile lens I've ever owned. Sure it produces out of whack images now and again but so does any lens and people should just get over the expectation that EVERYTHING is going to be pin. I would never go to anything else unless Canon produce something comparable.
DannWunderlich wrote:
haha paul could use a point and shoot with amazing results
We need to have a competition! Paul with a P&S versus the rest of the sports forum with no restrictions... best images win.
(To make it fair, Paul's P&S can't have more than a 2X zoom and 1.4MP image file, and he's not allowed to do any post. Also, he needs to shoot from a trampoline and one-handed with his wrong eye.)
(pps... Mike Mac isn't allowed to compete... he's like Paul's twin...)
Ben Stewart wrote:
I bought a Siggy, but returned it after the wonderful defective HSM wouldn't work properly in the cold.
I live in Minnesota. Not a good combination.
Ben,
Sorry to hear that.
I used mine in +5F weather here in a Chicago snow storm shooting football, +40 in pouring rain (another football game - in fact, I covered three playoff games that fine November day, all in the rain), and +120F and humidity on the turf at the Orange Bowl in Miami, all without any trouble.
Miss Siggy will have a powerful hold on you. She will be your best friend or your worst enemy. As soon as you get comfortable with her she will kick your ass on the most important assignment of the week, or the telling play of the game. I had days where I bragged about her so much then the next day I'd wonder who was shooting with my camera and lens.
I moved to a 300F2.8 Non IS canon. I miss my zoom, and my siggy. We had a good run and made alot of money. But alas she had to go. Great starter lens, or even a good backup to a 300. Maybe you catch her on a good day and the 300 can rest. But I cant see many professionals shooting with her day in and day out and expecting the best of results every day.
Hey Matt, she wont let go of me! I did the opposite of you and ditched my 300 2.8, also Non IS Canon, for the 120-300, so I'm one of the not many that shoot with it day in and out. In the 4-5 years I've been using it I have noticed I am in the minority so you are right there.
It was interesting initially and still is because when I'd arrive at a job other snappers would wonder if I had switched to Nikon, and then would be totally surprised that a lens like the 120-300 exists. I still get this and it tends to be mostly from agency or newspaper guys that get given a kit of gear and don't have to worry much about what else is on the market.
I do know the quality control/assembly is a bit fickle however. Just having a quick count in my head, I know 5 colleagues who were fascinated, had a play with mine and then went and bought their own. Of these 2 loved them and still use them, 1 found his a bit soft initially but killed it shooting in a flood (accidently... no really) when he'd only had it 2 months and the replacement is perfect so he's happy, 1 loved his until the 1D Mklll came along and he found it did not work anywhere as well so he sold it to another shooter who is more than happy, and 1 found his to be miserable and ditched it fairly quickly.
If Sigma made this lens to a more consistantly exacting quality it could be devastating to Canon lens sales in that segment, but I like to think that those few of us that persist with our good copies have an advantage over the guys with the 300 2.8, or a 70-200 2.8 in most given situations. Conversely if Canon made something similar I'm sure it would be a belter and I'd probably size one up. I was very hopeful 18 months ago when a Japanese shooter told me he'd heard of and 80-300 2.8 in Canon R&D...
If Sigma made this lens to a more consistantly exacting quality it could be devastating to Canon lens sales in that segment,
Yes, but if Sigma invested in stricter quality controls and higher grade materials that would yield better consistency, maybe the lens would no longer be a bargain. No, Mr. Crosby, quality is NOT always free.
In the almost three years I had "Dann's" lens, the biggest issue I had is remembering to refocus after zooming - this was far and away the most useful "secret" I learned while living with Miss Siggy. I absolutely LOVED the convenience of the zoom, though,.
Paul has written much more extensively on the topic, but I couldn't find any of the posts in our "improved" search function, or maybe it was user error on my part.
Yes - Plan, Do, Check, Act. Drive out fear...Don't do anything without profound knowledge. "There is no substitute for knowledge." "The problem is at the top; management is the problem." Once an Engineer, always and Engineer (that one is mine).
dmwierz wrote:
Yes, but if Sigma invested in stricter quality controls and higher grade materials that would yield better consistency, maybe the lens would no longer be a bargain. No, Mr. Crosby, quality is NOT always free.
i think that the real test will be shooting D1 football at Mizzou - then i can tell you for sure (that is unless i get my hands on the D3's they have there
DISCLAIMER!!!!
one thing that needs to be repeated is that this lens does not focus while zooming - so you have to zoom quick and them just refocus (which isnt an issue with me because i use the * focus and press it repeatedly\
