New Sigma 300 F2.8 with OS (1 Viewer)

[HokkaidoStu]

I see Sigma have announced this interesting new lens.

The 120-300 F2.8 zoom now has stabilization. If it is attractively priced (2/3 or less of the price of a Canon 300 F2.8 IS) and gets decent reviews I may well be interested.............

 

[Fowl Mouth]

Nice. This will surely sell like hotcakes. Probably be many pro sport photog's 2nd piece on large field games.

 

[ammadoux]

i know i am only dreaming, but is there any possibility that will be for Olympus four third cameras.

 

[a.dancy]

I'm sure the OS will be welcomed by many and 4 stops of light is impressive, but for me I would have preferred a distance limiter switch.

 

[Roy C]

I'm sure the OS will be welcomed by many and 4 stops of light is impressive, but for me I would have preferred a distance limiter switch.

If it has not got a focus limiter I would agree with you Adrian - I know with my Canon 300/2.8 the focus limiter is a enormous benefit when using a 2x tc, its speeds up AF no end.

 

[HokkaidoStu]

As it's a zoom is the 120-300 really going to be 300mm at the long end?

It's often said the Canon 100-400L is actually only 380mm and the Sigma 50-500 only 450mm at the long ends..........

The big Sigma primes are very competitively priced in Japan. They tend to be about half the price (or even lower) than the nearest Canon/Nikon equivalents. The 800 F5.6 is around 40% the cost of the canon 800 F5.6. The 300 F2.8 is similarly priced. The 500 F4.5 is around 50% the price of the Canon 500 F4. None of them have OS of course and the 500 doesn't AF with a T/C.

I'm a Canon user and the step up from a 100-400 is just too steep cost wise. I'll await reviews of this lens with some interest.

If they gave OS to either the 300/500 primes I'd be even more intrigued.

 

[macshark]

Yeah, the Sigma 500mm f/4 OS prime is long overdue. When Canon introduces the 500 f/4L II next year, they will probably increase the price by at least 50%. This should create an excellent opportunity for Sigma to break into the market with an upgraded 500mm prime.

As it's a zoom is the 120-300 really going to be 300mm at the long end?

It's often said the Canon 100-400L is actually only 380mm and the Sigma 50-500 only 450mm at the long ends..........

The big Sigma primes are very competitively priced in Japan. They tend to be about half the price (or even lower) than the nearest Canon/Nikon equivalents. The 800 F5.6 is around 40% the cost of the canon 800 F5.6. The 300 F2.8 is similarly priced. The 500 F4.5 is around 50% the price of the Canon 500 F4. None of them have OS of course and the 500 doesn't AF with a T/C.

I'm a Canon user and the step up from a 100-400 is just too steep cost wise. I'll await reviews of this lens with some interest.

If they gave OS to either the 300/500 primes I'd be even more intrigued.

 

[a.dancy]

As it's a zoom is the 120-300 really going to be 300mm at the long end?

It's often said the Canon 100-400L is actually only 380mm and the Sigma 50-500 only 450mm at the long ends..........


The Amateur Photographer magazine has the actual focal length @ 296mm per Geoffrey Crawley 27th March 2004.

 

[tjsimonsen]

Well, my 100-400 is a little shorter @400mm than my old Tokina 400/5.6 when focusing close. But it sure is longer than 300mm. At longer distances the differences in focal length seemed minimal (I haven't got the Tokina anymore, so I can't demonstrate it).

I have seen this behavior reported before, and also heard that is it a common aspect of long telezooms: the max focal length decreases slightly when you get closer to the minimum focus distance, but follows the specs at longer distances.
This review by Michael Furtman seems to agree with the 380-390mm true focal length of the 100-400 that also fits my experience - but perhaps there's individual variation:
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm

Thomas

 

[Aegea]

Yes, I do believe the focal length at least some of the long zooms changes as a function of the focus distance - for close subjects, the lens gets shorter. I actually measured the effective FL of a Sigma 150-500 as 425mm when focused on a target 20 feet away. Not that good for small birds. That's one reason why I sent it back and got a 300mm prime instead.