Borrowed Sigma 120-300...didn't like

[phecksel]

What a MONSTER lens. Definitely won't work with the way I'm using the camera. Not only that, but there has to be something wrong with it, every single photo is extremely soft. Just glad I put the 85mm on for a very critical photo. About the only thing the lens did well was focused fast, even if it was soft. Guess I'll have to look at the 70-200, but would much prefer 300mm.

How fast does the 70-300VR focus compared to the 70-200VR?

 

[weiran]

It's probably front focusing if it's an older Sigma that's not been upgraded to work with newer DSLRs. Or did you try using it hand held? It's a bit too heavy for that!

The 70-300VR's focusing is pretty good in daylight, but don't expect it to be as good as any f/2.8 lens when the light starts getting low.

 

[Panos Kazanelis]

Maybe you tested a lemon... I wouldn't call this soft...

D200 | Sigma 120-300mm with x2 EX TC @ 600mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

D200 | Sigma 120-300mm @ 300mm
View attachment 96804

...all handheld...:wink:

 

[weiran]

The second photo, you managed to hold a 300mm (450mm DX equivalent) lens at 1/40th shutter?!

 

[Panos Kazanelis]

The second photo, you managed to hold a 300mm (450mm DX equivalent) lens at 1/40th shutter?!

I have big hands Weiran ... :biggrin:

 

[phecksel]

Maybe you tested a lemon... I wouldn't call this soft...

I'm glad I had the opportunity to use it. Even if it was dead sharp as your pictures are, it's not the right lens for what I'm trying to do. Too difficult to spin the zoom, swing the lens...and hold it steady, all at the same time. SWMBO breathed a huge sigh of relief when I said I didn't like it, LOL. I would have hated to spend that much money and not be the right lens.

 

[DrewC]

try the sigma 100-300 f/4? thats an aweful nice lens.

 

[snakeman]

try the sigma 100-300 f/4? thats an aweful nice lens.

It certainly is!..I have been considering the 120-300mm but the 100-300mm f4 is so good wide open not sure if its worth it for me..

 

[DrewC]

oh and how i like employee discounts, i dont even want to tell you how cheap i can aquire the 100-300 f/4... (which i will buy if nobody snatches it out from me)

 

[snakeman]

Got mine(Dg version) for £450 so not bad at all..

 

[vice]

Maybe you tested a lemon... I wouldn't

...all handheld...:wink:

can i ask how heavy this lens is? and how's the AF speed? Thanks

 

[blw777]

can i ask how heavy this lens is? and how's the AF speed? Thanks

According to Sigma, 2.6kg, almost six pounds! Panos must be one buff dude!

Geezo-flip! I just noticed that the first one was with a 2x TC!!! (keels over) That's incredible!

 

[Removed User 2]

Please don't give the lens a bad name just because you had a lemon. That particular lens is top notch and every pro should consider it.

 

[Panos Kazanelis]

can i ask how heavy this lens is? and how's the AF speed? Thanks

Indeed heavy enough for not being an ordinary walk-around lens :wink:

Its AF is remarkable in all lengths (with or without TCs).

 

[Panos Kazanelis]

Please don't give the lens a bad name just because you had a lemon. That particular lens is top notch and every pro should consider it.

Nenad, I know you will agree that he made it perfectly clear that it wasn't a bad lens rather than not the right lens.

I'm glad I had the opportunity to use it. Even if it was dead sharp as your pictures are, it's not the right lens for what I'm trying to do. Too difficult to spin the zoom, swing the lens...and hold it steady, all at the same time. SWMBO breathed a huge sigh of relief when I said I didn't like it, LOL. I would have hated to spend that much money and not be the right lens.

So, I guess he was neither giving a bad name or misleading people. Naturally, we don't all have the same needs and expectations.

Remember that you have the unique ability to produce images with lenses other people hate for one reason or another :wink:

 

[Rich Gibson]

The second photo, you managed to hold a 300mm (450mm DX equivalent) lens at 1/40th shutter?!

This is with the 120-300 hand held as well 1/60th, 600m. I did have my shoulder against a tree trunk.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Thanks again Panos! :wink:

Rich

 

[vice]

Indeed heavy enough for not being an ordinary walk-around lens :wink:

Its AF is remarkable in all lengths (with or without TCs).

thanks for the info. :biggrin:

 

[phecksel]

Please don't give the lens a bad name just because you had a lemon. That particular lens is top notch and every pro should consider it.

I've seen some amazing photos with the lens. The particular one I borrowed has something wrong with it. But, the lens is not what I'm looking for for hand held sports. It focused so unbelievably fast, just wish it hadn't been oof. The 2.8 is amazing. Accidently started with ISO at 1600 {DOH!}, and had some wildly fast shutter speeds. It's a bit on the heavy side, and I quickly learned how to handle the weight. My biggest complaint with the lens, was how difficult it was to dynamically adjust the zoom while holding the rig.

 

[phecksel]

This is with the 120-300 hand held as well 1/60th, 600m. I did have my shoulder against a tree trunk.

Rich

That is one amazing steady hand!

 

[Removed User 2]

I've seen some amazing photos with the lens. The particular one I borrowed has something wrong with it. But, the lens is not what I'm looking for for hand held sports. It focused so unbelievably fast, just wish it hadn't been oof. The 2.8 is amazing. Accidently started with ISO at 1600 {DOH!}, and had some wildly fast shutter speeds. It's a bit on the heavy side, and I quickly learned how to handle the weight. My biggest complaint with the lens, was how difficult it was to dynamically adjust the zoom while holding the rig.

It's one big and very heavy lens, that's for sure!