Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 lens..

[glsammy]

I've just been reading up on this lens, it sounds very interesting. I'd virtually decided my next lens was going to be a Sigma 300mm F2.8 Prime, until I saw this one. It retains the F2.8 even at the 300mm, so even with a 2X converter, you've got a 600mm F5.6 lens, or a 420mm F4.0 with a 1.4X. both with auto focus, and at a far more reasonable cost of around £1,200 for the lens plus the converters..I'm seriously tempted.

Any one here had any experience with this lens?

[paulthomas]

If you Google around you'll find plenty of good endorsements for it although I have read comments that it doesn't produce great images with a 2x TC but is fine with a 1.4x. Photozone.de have a test on it although they may have had a bad sample. Ephotozine also have a review of it.

[peterjclarke]

I was looking at buying this lens but went for the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR following advice from Laurie Campbell. I also got at 1.7x teleconverter which gives you a 120-340mm (roughly) F4.8 VR lens. You sometimes get a slight softness with using a teleconverter but the test I did really didn't show much of a difference. I also purchased the Sigma 50-500mm which is actually a cracking lens although not that fast being just about a third of a stop slower than an F5.6 lens. The reviews for the 120-300 F2.8 lens were good though. I just wish that Sigma were producing a VR or IS system of their own. I can easily carry both lenses a wideangle and macro with two camera bodies and a tripod.

The proof I think is in the pudding so to speak and what photographs you can produce. Below is a Snowy Owl shot through a fence at F8 with the 50-500 lens on a tripod.



The image below is of Pink Footed geese at sunset. Nikon 70-200 VR & Tc17 IIe (teleconverter) with VR switched on and handheld at a 30th of a second at F32 for the blurred motion of the birds wings.

[glsammy]

Thanks for some of those links Paul. I'd seen some reviews, but I always prefer to see what "real" users think as well!

I've found some example shots used with the 2X, and they look fine to me. This looks likely to be the best way for me to get a 600mm fast lens, without the weight problem the likes of the 600mm prime would give.
One of the reviews I've read rate the 120-300mm as better than Sigma's 300mm prime, and it's cheaper and lighter!
More and more tempting, just got to get round the other half..

[HowlinWolf]

glsammy,
Check out the Fred Miranda web site (fredmiranda.com). On the reviews page there are 56 user reports of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX DG HSM lens. The lens gets a high rating.

HW

[SteveHL]

glsammy,
As wella s the good optics you will find this lens weights considerably less than the 300mm prime. I have a 300mm prime and also the 100-300mm F4, which one to I use by choice , for hand held I use the 100-300mm every time its about half the weight. If I'm using a tripod them the 300mm prime is the lens of choice.
I guess the question to ask when considering both is can I carry the extra weight and get one extra stop of light using the 300mm prime or will the lighter 120-300mm be easier to use and carry. Iys not rocket sience when you've already got a heavy camera bag
Cheers
SteveHL

[Kev Lewis]

I have one and it produces very sharp images and is well built. I rarely use it with a x1.4 but I didnt have any problems when I did. The focus speed isn't superb but it is more than good enough

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Kev Lewis

I have one and it produces very sharp images and is well built. I rarely use it with a x1.4 but I didnt have any problems when I did. The focus speed isn't superb but it is more than good enough

Thanks Kev, and everyone else for your comments. That pretty well has made my mind up, it's a 120-300mm plus converters for me. As soon as I've persuaded the Mrs of the importance of the purchase..

[Raffman]

I used to own this lens and brought it with the intention of using a 2x tcmost the time. The results as a bare lens were great but with the 2x not so good. Firstly the AF is very slow and hunts alot and secondly the viewfinder becomes very dark. The images it produced with the 2x were fine for web viewing but prints were not acceptable. Just my experience, I was shooting moving subjects and this may be different for static subjects...and that was with a 20d.

I'm sure I've read that its more like 280mm than 300mm too.

Raff

[peterjclarke]

Originally Posted by Raffman

I used to own this lens and brought it with the intention of using a 2x tcmost the time. The results as a bare lens were great but with the 2x not so good. Firstly the AF is very slow and hunts alot and secondly the viewfinder becomes very dark. The images it produced with the 2x were fine for web viewing but prints were not acceptable. Just my experience, I was shooting moving subjects and this may be different for static subjects...and that was with a 20d.

I'm sure I've read that its more like 280mm than 300mm too.

Raff

Raffman, This is true the focal length of internal focusing lenses actually changes as you focus from closest object to infinity. You'll find this with all of them.