Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM

[Boddie]

Any thoughts on this lens?

Does anyone own one and what are your impressions.

I should point out its a mate with a Nikon that is after one.

Cheers

Andrew

[eeyore]

I quite liked the one i hired on my 20D, tho it spent most of its time with a 2xtc on it - but by contrast graham had a flipping nightmare with the one he nearly bought - it appears that quality control is somewhat variable

[Boddie]

A mate has been offered a second hand one which is supposedly razor sharp. He wants it for wedding candids.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Boddie

A mate has been offered a second hand one which is supposedly razor sharp. He wants it for wedding candids.

so presumably he wont be using it with a converter - personally i'd have thought that a lense like that would be a bit heavy for wedding candids , particularly hand held, not to mention being somewhat obtrusive thus defeating the point of a long range candid

IMO he'd be better off with an optically stabilised f5.6 lense - on the canon system i'd suggest the 70-300 IS (with the 28-135 IS on a second body) but i'm not sure what the nikon equivalent is

[Boddie]

Is it a big old unit then?

Any bigger than my 70-200 f2.8 IS?

[DrNickBurton]

I agree with Eeyore - this lens is too obtrusive for a wedding.

You wouldn't want to be lugging that around a wedding all day either (it weighs in at 2.6kg). I saw a guy using one at Donna Nook in November. He had it mounted on a monopod, which says it all really.

For Nikon shooters, the 70-200mm VR is the lens to go for (1.45kg, and physically much smaller too). On ebay at least, 2nd hand copies (of the older version) are typically cheaper than second hand versions of the 120-300mm.

[glsammy]

The 120-300 is a very large lens, larger than the Bigma.
I was put off it by the bad example I had, not only the poor image quality but the very slow AF, although I suspected that was a side issue with the obviously misaligned lenses.
I've seen many fine images taken with one though so provided the example is sharp it could be OK, although I agree it's hardly an ideal wedding lens.

[Boddie]

Cool, I will feed back this info. Seems that the 70-200 may be a better choice

[Jonsfotos]

I have photographed weddings and have used the Nikon 70/200AFS VR.It`s perfect for the job. I have also seen the Sigma 120/300, a guy had one out at Skomer earlier on in the year also fixed on a monopod.I certainly would not use one for weddings, it`s a real lump of a lens to lug around.

Jon

[Boddie]

I just saw an image of one against a 70-200. I see what you mean - its a brute