120/300 2.8 sigma

Great lens, fast AF and sharp. Constant 2.8 is a godsend in rubbish light.. A little heavy but handhold able for short periods.

Unfortunately mines on eBay as I need the funds :(
 
Last edited:
I've had a pre DG pre OS version for about 7 years and it's a very nice lens, very sharp. However, it's a big and heavy lens. It takes 105mm filters which are expensive, even for a UV / protection filter. It's heavy enough to need either monopod or tripod shots for virtually all shots as it's too heavy for hand holding. You will also need to make sure it fits your bag, or get a new one!
 
I used to handhold mine for hours at a time, these days a shoulder issue has stopped that.

A sigma 105mm cp filter is about £150. Wouldnt bother with a uv, the hood is the size of a bucket.
 
neil_g said:
I used to handhold mine for hours at a time, these days a shoulder issue has stopped that.

A sigma 105mm cp filter is about £150. Wouldnt bother with a uv, the hood is the size of a bucket.
Click to expand...

A UV filter is essential for all lenses
 
mortimerhill said:
A UV filter is essential for all lenses
Click to expand...

Damn, and here is me shooting for 10+ years without one.

Care to share why it's essential?
 
scottthehat said:
What is it essential for degrading . A lens hood is plenty enough protection and does not degrade quality.
Click to expand...

neither do high quality glass filters but that's a different argument lol
 
mortimerhill said:
Protection for the front element.
Click to expand...

Load of rubbish. It's like using cardboard as a bullet proof vest.

Can't believe people still buy UV filters.
 
Last edited:
mortimerhill said:
Mud, sticky fingers, seal snot
Click to expand...

None of these will cause damage.
 
mortimerhill said:
That's only your very humble opinion
Click to expand...

Or perhaps many people know this from experience?

Never have I experienced a damaged front element in over 20 years, and I've never used a UV filter.
 
Oh so that's why my photos were blurry.. It's all the snot and fingerprints.

Never used a UV. Never will. I've owned at least 30 different lenses and never damaged a front element.
 
Maybe "tomato" lenses are particularly susceptible to damage Jim ;)

Simon - two questions -

1/. How is a piece of glass barely 1mm thick going to save a piece several mm thick?

2/. What colour is the sky in your world?
 
Last edited:
Well I managed to clean seal snot from my most expensive Zeiss lens recently...it came off fine :) I got horse saliva on a Distagon too, but that also wiped off (carefully!) :lol: A cow licked my old Soligor 17/3.5 last year too, but again it was no prob.

Mud I'd be more careful of as it could contain stones and other scratchy stuff, but I still wouldn't use a UV filter just on the off chance.
 
Another vote here for not using a UV. I don't have one on any of my lenses, the hoods do perfectly fine. I think this whole thing with putting a 'protective' filter on was perpetuated by sales people to help add some margin to their figures, in film days then possibly worth doing but certainly not now.

Back to the OPs initial question, I love my 120-300mm f2.8 both with and without a 1.4x TC, a great piece of glass!
 
Can`t be arsed with the filter debate, the lens is superb, takes the 1.4 TC very well if needed. Possibly one of Sigmas best lenses..............IMWFO
 
I loved my 120-300mm F2.8 - a superb lens.

Sadly a shoulder injury stopped me from using it - and now I am more attached to a tripod I decided a canon 300mm F2.8 was the way forward. Found it quite hard getting a UV filter to protect the front element though. What an oversight by Canon.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I loved my 120-300mm F2.8 - a superb lens.

Sadly a shoulder injury stopped me from using it - and now I am more attached to a tripod I decided a canon 300mm F2.8 was the way forward. Found it quite hard getting a UV filter to protect the front element though. What an oversight by Canon.
Click to expand...

No oversight. The front element is a piece of flat glass and effectively a protective filter
 
mortimerhill said:
No oversight. The front element is a piece of flat glass and effectively a protective filter
Click to expand...

No it's not!
 
POAH said:
the 500mm canon has a plain glass insert that fills up the drop in filter part to stop dust getting in ;)
Click to expand...

But were not talking about that, and that's not a front element!
 
mortimerhill said:
That's only your very humble opinion
Click to expand...

After almost 16 years of press and sport photography, carring lens in the boot of the car with No lens cap on, I have never had a mark on a front element and i guess there are many others on here with a similar story.

Thats not an opinion thats fact.
 
Getting back to sigma 120/300 f2.8, I have looked at this lens a few times because of the zoom but can anyone tell me if it's sharp at 2.8?
 
POAH said:
out of interest do you ever use a CP or grads etc?
Click to expand...
i have used a cp, not grads, and when you use a filter for a specific job thats part and parcel of knowing that its for a specific job, but saying a uv filter is essential for all lenses is crud.
but if people are happy to believe that, let them, but there is no doubt it will deteriorate quality same as any other filter does.
 
It will be lens I own one day as would like to get back to wildlife etc. For the moment though I'm concentrating on lenses I need not what I want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top