20 replies to this topic

[Russ]

I'm interested and thinking of getting this beast. Has anyone had it long enough to share their experiences with it?

[Warrick]

Yay I'm glad someone else wants one haha I want one but I have found no reviews on it yet even DpReview has not even covered the lens yet

I can't believe a lens like this has not been tested by a respected website or photographer yet

if Sigma wants to donate one to me ill be glad to test it

[Russ]

I've read a few lightweight anecdotal type reviews, which are all positive, which of course whets my apetite for it even more. Surprsingly it's quite well priced here too compared to buying it from the US.

 

Yes happy to review it for Sigma too, and then buy it off them at a used price!

[Warrick]

Exactly im still waiting for a real decent review to confirm my choice on it if it really is improved over the previous 120-300 by sigma, and if its worth this lens or getting a similar offering from nikon for a bit extra.

[Russ]

... a similar offering from nikon...

No such thing from my pov.

[kbtimages]

I'm interested and thinking of getting this beast. Has anyone had it long enough to share their experiences with it?

The canon version was reviewed here: Review: Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM IS (Canon EF Mount) - The Phoblographer

 

More opionions here: http://www.bhphotovi..._2_8_EX_DG.html

 

More here: Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Review - More Image Samples

[Russ]

Cheers kbt, I'll check those out.

[Warrick]

Thanks for the heads up opening all the links now lol i just can't believe a lens of this calibre has not been swooped on by everyone in the camera community it sorta sucks especially after months since its release from sigma

i think im pleased to say im now sold on this lens in referring to the above posted links the Bhpphotovidio link is the older 120-300 as indicated by the gold ring on the lens barrel.

 

Thanks again for the posted links now i really can't wait to get one

[Russ]

 i just can't believe a lens of this calibre has not been swooped on by everyone in the camera community

Maybe the price has something to do with it?

[Warrick]

yea off memory im pretty sure the new version sells around the 3k to 3500 mark depending on who sells it but for the price its more than reasonable

[Russ]

Dunno bout there in Oz, but here it's actually cheaper to buy it here than through B&H! Makes a nice change.

[Long Exposure]

Maybe the price has something to do with it?

 

Comments like the one in the quote above always make me laugh.  The price is expensive when compared to what, exactly?

 

If you need this lens for portrait work or as an indoor sports lens, there is nothing else in it league.

 

I have rented it and found it to be sharp at both ends, eslecially when stopped down to 5.6 or so.

 

Few people will shoot this wide open for indoor sports.

 

I know one guy who swears by this lens and even sold his 70-200 because it just sat.  He was always using the 120-300.

 

However, do not expect this lens to out perform the Nikkor 200mm f/2 or the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8.

[Warrick]

i went to Vanbar imaging in melbourne to see this behemoth in the display case... It is a bazooka of a lens i am definitely getting it after the comments on here and the recommendations of the staff at Vanbar! just hoping for some donations or being successful on a bank loan to get this bad boy lens

 

around 2980 i think including all taxes someone buy one for me ill love you forever hehe

[MJL]

I finally got this lens and test it out inside but prefer to venture out only after the 105mm filter & USB dock arrived.  Sigma should have include these 2 items with the lens to save purchaser time & cost.

 

Compare to my cheapo Tokina MF 300/2.8 and Nikkor AF-S 80-200/2.8, this lens has better IQ for sure.  AF speed on non action shot is good and I need the USB dock to optimize it more.

 

2 drawbacks I have noticed so far:

It is heavy, definitely need a monopod even when the OS works amazingly well.  I can hand held it down to 125/sec for static shots.

Zoom range is too short.

 

Will post some shots after I got to the hockey game.

[TBonz]

Big lens!  If what I'm reading is correct, it is heavier than the Nikon 200-400.  I'll stick with the 70-200 and 200-400 for now...don't really need longer than 200 for most indoor sports anyway...

[Long Exposure]

No it is not heavier than the Nikkor 200-400.  Comparable to a 70-200.

[TBonz]

Long,

 

From Nikon's web site, the 70-200 is 54.3 oz. (1540 g).

From Nikon's web site the 200-400 is 118.5 oz. (3360 g).

From Sigma's web site, the 120-300 is 3,390g / 119.6oz.

 

I would have expected the same as you said - just going by what I read...

 

S2P

[Warrick]

i could be wrong not having the lens yet but for that price and all its offerings the zoom range should be good, if push comes to shove a teleconverter can extend the range and it would still be a cheaper converter than a nikon offering say a 2x converter to get 240 - 600mm zoom at 5.8 constant its still damn fast for day shots

[TBonz]

I just re-read my posts...don't want anyone down the road to think I disliked or was trying to run down the Sigma...If I didn't have the lenses I have now, I might consider picking it up...but I'm quite happy with what I have and don't feel the Sigma would really expand or improve on what I have now.  At least not sufficiently enough to justify the cost. 

[MJL]

Managed to get a "family shot" to compare their size & weight.  The 50-500 Bigma will extends ~ 50% longer at 500mm, the other two stay constant throughout the zoom range.

 

The Sigma USB dock is a ripoff at $60.  They should just put a micro USB port on the side of the lens, alike the Mecablitz 58AF2 digital flashes.

Attached Thumbnails

•