at 300 f2.8, i dont think anybody could tell the difference between a shot with the 300vr at f2.8 and the 120-300 at f2.8.Nice captures Randy.
Is the focus zeroing in on the helmet and face guard more than the face?
That zoom must be really handy.
Are you as happy with the image quality as with your Nikon 300VR?
What do you think?
i think your missing something.•
I like very much your shots!…specially the third one… Intensive!
My question is since you have this fantastic D4, how can this lens suffice you?
The pics are good because you did your part of the work… but I just think that
this lens is not supporting your effort!
Or am I missing something?
thanks WilliamThese look great to me...! :wink:
Now all I need to do is save for about a year so I can get one...! :tongue: :biggrin:
I hear you, Randy...thanks William
I have spoiled myself silly the last 5 years buying gear but with my up and down health situation I figured there was no time to waste. I clearly have too many 300mm lenses now but I'll probably keep all 4:smile: of them
Texture and color both improved now.thanks Fred & Kodiak
I'm not sure why those didn't look as good here as they did on my LCD
I suspect it was the file size causing a resize here. I just switched to ZF and I tried posting ZF XXL's...so I've changed the post to just large versions
Anyway in PP the images look very good, as good as 300vr images.
Most of these are larger crops that normal for me. I usually shoot FB with the 400vr. Since these were scrimmages I was able to get in the 'coaches box' which got me much closer to the offense so I shot the 1230-300. I would never shoot the 120-300 or 300vr for normal football game. But I am still not used to the reverse zoom direction on sigma's and on several of the sequences with action coming at me I was actually zooming in vs out. I was watching the FL MM in the LR info and as the runner got closer the mm got smaller, I actually chuckled when I saw it. I wonder why in the world sigma made such an odd decision.
Interesting, Colin.at 300 f2.8, i dont think anybody could tell the difference between a shot with the 300vr at f2.8 and the 120-300 at f2.8.
the 24-120 and 80-400 are 2 other noteworthy zooms that are changing a lot of kitsInteresting, Colin.
That would be one of the few times when a zoom at its telephoto extremities could match a prime.
Thanks for your response.
:smile:I've just sold my pre-OS version. That zooming thing is frustrating, I too would zoom the wrong way when someone started running at me
How stiff is your zoom ring Randy? Mine was quite stiff and even when I remembered to turn it the right way it was tricky keeping up with the runner!
It's a pity Sigma don't change the zoom direction for us Nikon users.
I imagine all of their zooms go backwardsHave just checked mine and yep it's still reversed. The zoom ring is quite stiff. In comparison my 70-200 feels loose