- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As for the 120-300mm being 99% as good as the 300mm, I'd highly doubt it.
How can you make that comparison when you have not owned one?
My Sigma 120-300 is as sharp as my Nikon 300 AFS was.
As for the 120-300mm being 99% as good as the 300mm, I'd highly doubt it.
I've so far owned a 300mm f2.8 (obviously used, but was like new) which was distinctly average. Im not convinced that the xxD bodies have the AF ability to cope with large aperture lenses. I also purchased a new 70-200 2.8, the first copy went back and the 2nd one still isn't as sharp or fast as my Sigma 100-300 f4 at f2.8 or F4.
I will be buying a 300 2.8 IS in the new year, if that doesn't impress me then i don't know whats going on.
The Sigma is close to the Canon 70-200 L IS in sharpness at overlapping focal lengths, but is not as sharp at 300mm as the very impressive Canon 300mm f/2.8 L IS.
The Canon 300 is about as good as it gets for Canon, the 120-300mm is slower to autofocus, less accurate and the QC at Sigma leaves a lot to be desired. It looks a decent lens for the price, but there's a reason it is half the price of the Canikon 300 primes. Plus with a 1.4x TC or 2x TC you can essentially have 3 different lenses.
ive owned 3 of the canon variants and all were excellent, however it isnt a patch on either a Canon or Nikon 300mm prime and its actually only 287mm not 300mm, you cant track while zooming either which most users arent aware of
it mis quick to focus but only about 80% as fast as a 300mm prime, it also suffers with occasional af problems under low light conditions compared to the 300mm prime
yes ive owned them all and yes ive owned both Nikon and Canon variants and yes i do know what im talking about
Its a good lens but has limitations, do you seriously thinik i would spend over £3.5k on a prime if this were as good for £1.2k, erm NO.
Pull your knickers out of your bottom, it is all about opinions Gary....... I prefer the flexibility of zooms over primes, I have my knickers up my bum about that topic............
The zooms don`t generally match the primes, but I do believe they are catching up and I do think the lens we are discussing is good VFM if you want the flexibility of a zoom.
And yes, some people are that blinded by brand names that they would spend more on lesser goods..........
Anyway, nearly beer time.
Andy, I used to have the 135-400 also but got rid for the 120-300. Absolute beauty of a lens, I've used it for cricket, football, lacrosse and it was very good for tracking aircraft at Fairford.
I've got the Siggy 1.4x teleconverter so you get a 168-420 f/4 lens which is handy for distance.
A worthwhile investment!
Cheers,
Adam.
Internet myth. You only ever hear bad tales,never good, and considering how much Sigma lens are in relation to others and how many they sell and have done for a number of years,I think you will find the percentage to be very low.Just my opinion of course.
The 120-300 is a cracking lens........
The sun was out Friday morning so I took the oportunity to use my 120-300 for the fist time out.
These were both taken with the 1.4x extender fitted. I'm very happy with the sharpness, contrast and colour from the lens
50% crop, 420mm, 1/800, F7.1, ISO 400
420mm, 1/3200, F7.1, ISO 400