| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
sigma 120 300 2.8 new model
David Seelig, Photographer
 |
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 11:04 AM on 02.16.13 |
->> Has anyone used the sigma 120 300 2.8 new model with there version of the version for stabilizing the lens? I want to hear from cnaon users not nikon . Is the focus faster then the old model on par wtih a canon 300 2.8 ? Sharpness better then the od sigma 2.8?
thanks David |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 02.18.13 |
->> The latest version with AF limiter is due out in March. With Sigma's new emphasis on QC it will interesting to see how it performs. I really want it to succeed as it is a very versatile zoom for indoor/outdoor use. With a 1.4xTC it's a 170-420 f4.
At $3500US it's a bargain compared to the latest Canon super teles. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Jim Karczewski, Photographer, Assistant
|
Hammond | IN | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 08.25.13 |
| ->> Main difference from what I've read is it's the same optically as the older (cheaper) version. The new version just has a lens cap with a USB that allows you to fine tune your lens and download new firmware to it. Other than that, optics remained the same, just extra features added that allow focus limiting, tuning, etc. |
|
Thomas Oed, Photographer
 |
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 4:33 AM on 08.27.13 |
| ->> Slightly off-topic, but I've been lusting after that lens through several different versions over the years. When I see the current price I still kick myself for not grabbing a used one I saw for about 17 or 18 hundred bucks 8 or 9 years ago... : O |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
London | London | United Kingdom | Posted: 7:05 AM on 08.27.13 |
->> Jim, I've used all three versions of this lens - including the latest release - and I can tell you that the new "S" lens is quite noticeably both optically and mechanically superior to its predecessors.
The most telling difference with the newest lens was autofocus speed, not to mention that out-of-camera images appeared to be sharper and have more contrast than the previous two versions. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 08.27.13 |
->> If you look at some of the links I posted...including a complete teardown of the lens by LensRentals...you'll see that the lens is optically identical to the last OS version, but considerably better constructed and sealed.
The higher QC (all lenses receive MTF testing and adjustment before leaving the factory...yeah, why only now?) Martin has perceived may just be a function of a better adjusted lens. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
London | London | United Kingdom | Posted: 1:13 PM on 08.27.13 |
->> Chuck, I'll concede that the two older versions of the 120-300 that I had used may have been poor copies and/or subject to some abuse (they were from rental outfits, after all).
Either way, it's good to know that Sigma are stepping up their game with respect to quality control, not to mention the ability for a user to fine-tune aspects of the lens via the USB dock.
What it always boils down to is price. You can pick up a brand new 120-300 for near the cost of a (latest generation) second-hand 300mm f/2.8. Unless you can get a good warranty on the used lens, there's likely merit in buying the Sigma for many people whom are looking to make their first foray into long glass. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 3:19 PM on 08.27.13 |
->> That's pretty much what it boiled down to for me. I used my last copy for eight years - and that included two trips back to Sigma to replace the AF motor at $400-$500 a pop. It was a good lens for me, though, and the promise of the new model's better construction and sealing was what sold me on it.
For what it's worth, I've begun chronicling my experiences here:
http://sportsphotoguy.com/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-s/ |
|
Steven Limentani, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | United States | Posted: 8:17 PM on 08.27.13 |
| ->> I had the old 120-300 and was not a fan. In retrospect, it may have been the original 1D Mark III and not just the lens. Having said that and hearing about the new one, it is amazing to me that Canon and Nikon have not expanded their line of zoom lenses. I recently acquired the Canon 200-400, 4.0 and love it. Not the same bokeh as at 2.8 but still great. I assume the optics of a 24-200 would be difficult. But since Canon for example does make a 28-300 L series lens, couldn't they upgrade this, make it 24-200 at 4.0 or less and allow us to shoot sports with two instead of three bodies? I'm sure that I am missing something, but would be interested in others thoughts. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 10:10 PM on 08.27.13 |
| ->> Canon already is struggling with IQ at 24mm on the 24-105/4. Increasing the zoom range further to 24-200 would probably compromise the lens design too much. That 4mm at the wide end seems to be a difficult threshold to cross in a zoom lens. |
|
Steven Limentani, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | United States | Posted: 10:36 PM on 08.27.13 |
| ->> Understand, but that assumes that it is a consumer/prosumer lens, the 24-105 is an $1100 lens. Hard for me to believe that a lens at a higher price point couldn't be built. It would probably be heavier, have more glass, etc. If the 70-200, 2.8 is $2500, would 24-200 be worth it at 4K but one less body? |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 5:26 AM on 08.28.13 |
| ->> Nikon's 24-120//f4 is pretty sweet. I am even using it for hoops now. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 11:13 AM on 08.28.13 |
->> Given Canon's insane pricing lately, I would say a lot of people would be interested in a 24-200/4 at $4K. In all likelihood it would be priced much higher.
I don't know enough about lens design but there is probably a good reason you don't see any superzooms in the FF market starting at 24mm. Perhaps they are butting up against the laws of physics. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 9:03 PM on 08.28.13 |
| ->> I am testing this lens at the Chick-fil-A Kickoff this weekend. I have the original model which I was pleased with. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 3:11 PM on 08.30.13 |
->> I have on loan the new version with the USB Docking station. I spent a couple of hours tweaking the focus with my Nikon D4. One thing is for sure, they have really stepped up the ability to calibrate a zoom lens with a camera.
They give you 16 different focus points that you can calibrate.
I wrote a little about it on my blog to give you some idea of what this is all about.
Hopefully after the Chick-fil-A Kickoff I can give you some more user feedback. It will not be a DXOMark report, but just something about how I thought of the performance.
Here is a link to my blog today on calibrating.
http://blog.stanleyleary.com/2013/08/sports-photographythe-day-before-game.... |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Steven Limentani, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | United States | Posted: 10:31 PM on 09.02.13 |
| ->> Great job Stan and very interesting. Having recently acquired the Canon 200-400 I can't disagree with your comment about bang for the buck, although the ability to turn the teleconverter off and on is huge. Is it worth the money...... |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:50 AM on 09.03.13 |
| ->> Sigmas have always worked better with NIkons therefor again I ask anyone shooting Canon sports action use the new one thanks Davud |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|