Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8

[Raskill]

Ahoy folks,

Just wondering if any of you have had a play with the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8.

I noticed Birdy has it for around the $2900 mark.

The focal length seems good, and the constant F/2.8 throughout the focal length is always a good thing.

The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering selling the 70-200 VR in a couple of months (tax time) and purchasing the said lens. I know I moved away from Sigma to the Nikkor 70-200 VR, but on hindsight I don't think my lens was the issue, I think it was other factors, including a cheap filter (causing ghosting in high contrast images).

The reviews say the lens is of excellent build quality and very good - excellent image quality. But I'd like to hear what anyone may think.

I don't suppose you got one stock for a play Birdy???

I've included a few reviews in case anyone out there didn't know it existed.

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=336

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_120300_28/index.htm

http://www.jetzone2000.com/5_art_lenstest_sigma120300_2.htm

[mR_CaESaR]

people on fred miranda swear by this lens, saying its sharp as hell, some have said that its "the sharpest telezoom" they've used (going by the canon version).

I know petal666 has got the canon version and i know he likes using it as well.

Its one big mofo though.

[petal666]

...and i know he likes using it as well.

Its one big mofo though.

Damn straight on both accounts.

[radar]

Hi Raskill,

I guess that explains you looking for boxes

Out of curiosity, why do you wish to switch? From all accounts on the 70-200VR and the bit of play that I have had, it is a wonderful lens. A bit more reach can easily be had with a TC, either 1.4 or 1.7.

just wondering

André

[Raskill]

I find myself needing that extra length....

...in photography of course.

I could get a TC for the 70-200VR, but even with a 1.4, it reduces light and softens the image. Combining the Sigma 120-300 with the Nikkor 24-120 VR, gives me a good range of focal lengths. With both lens mounted on two bodies, it will save me swapping in dusty or crappy conditions.

The Sigma seems to get a good review and our resident owner speaks very highly of it also. The extra focal length will help get a bit closer to the action also, without reducing image quality.

I won't know if I've made the right decision until afterwards. It's all part of growing as a photographer I suppose

[radar]

Looking forward to your reviews then

Cheers,

André

[Nikon boy]

Recently i had the opportunity to borrow a Sigma 120-300 2.8 for a weekend to road test it as i am thinking seriously of buying one, i used it for one day taking pics of local birdlife ( feathered variety ! ) and also for a day at a local airshow, I WAS VERY DISSAPOINTED !! if you want to know why read on,

I own an old 300mm 2.8 af and have been taking pics at Airshows and sporting events with it since i first owned an F5 (around 5 years) and whilst it aint the quickest focussing beast on the block compared to an afs lens it takes stunning sharp images and i have great faith in it,
Now this older lens was built before digital and afs motors but it still performs very, very well

I found the sigma gave me around 35% out of focus shots and continually delivered out of focus shots of moving subjects on the D2X despite the camera giving me the green dot saying it was in focus and despite me trying all manner of things, i.e. continuous focus, single focus etc etc, this did not happen with the Nikon lens, now before you start to ask ''does he know how to use the beast"??
i have recently shot an airshow with the older Nikon lens so i did have a direct comparison,and no problems whatsoever using cont focus etc,

Quite frankly i was very dissapointed so i questioned the owner of the Sigma ( who uses it on a D2X also)wether he gets similar results and he said yes and that he had sent it back to Sigma (Kennedys) to have it checked and they said it was fine,

As a result of this fiasco i will not be buying this lens but will continue saving for a Nikon 200-400 which whilst costing 3 times the price actually worked beautifully when i tested one recently,

My thoughts are that maybe the lens was still faulty despite it being checked or that i don't know it's correct usage , or maybe it just aint up to scratch, it just seemed to struggle when trying to focus on a moving target, i swapped with another Nikon user at the air show who was using a Nikon 300mm 2.8 afs and all was fine,

I spoke to a few of the press guys i was working with and they suggested the Sigma was not up to scratch, now i am very willing to be proven wrong about this lens but it worried the hell out of me getting so many out of focus shots even when the camera was set on focus release which works fine on my complete arsenal of lenses, just not on this one,

Maybe one gets what one pays for ???

[Raskill]

Maybe one gets what one pays for ???

I often agree with that very notion, but not when Maxwells charges an arm and a leg. Thanks for the reply though, I need to hear good and bad to make a sound decision!