-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Keith Reeder
- Start date
This website seems to suggest that it's sharper than the Canon 300 f2.8 (not the new one) both with and without T/Cs.
It also shows the Sigma is not quite 300mm or at least the real focal length is shorter than the Canon prime (and the front element of the Sigma is noticeably smaller than the Canon).
It also shows the Sigma is not quite 300mm or at least the real focal length is shorter than the Canon prime (and the front element of the Sigma is noticeably smaller than the Canon).
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Hi Stu,
this "less than 300mm" phenomenon is a common side-effect of zooms - at very close and infinity focus, the actual FL becomes slightly shorter in some cases. At other FLs, it's less of an issue.
In terms of the front element, I'd wondered about that too, so looked at the specs of the Sigma and Canon lenses, and - surprisingly - found that the max. width of each lens is very similar (114mm vs. 128 mm).
The slight (14 millimeter) difference can, I think, be accounted for by the different lens barrel designs - the Canon has a wide flange at the top directly under the lens mount thread.
Adrian,
I've not yet seen anything definitive about the absence - or otherwise - of a focus limiter in this version. I know that it's something that many folk have complained about in the past, so you'd think Sigma might get the point..!
this "less than 300mm" phenomenon is a common side-effect of zooms - at very close and infinity focus, the actual FL becomes slightly shorter in some cases. At other FLs, it's less of an issue.
In terms of the front element, I'd wondered about that too, so looked at the specs of the Sigma and Canon lenses, and - surprisingly - found that the max. width of each lens is very similar (114mm vs. 128 mm).
The slight (14 millimeter) difference can, I think, be accounted for by the different lens barrel designs - the Canon has a wide flange at the top directly under the lens mount thread.
Adrian,
I've not yet seen anything definitive about the absence - or otherwise - of a focus limiter in this version. I know that it's something that many folk have complained about in the past, so you'd think Sigma might get the point..!
Hi Keith, so if you aren't shooting at close to minimum focus distance it should be nearer to a full 300mm? If that is the case I don't see it being a deal breaker.
I guess we're waiting to see how the AF speed compares against the Canon. The tests I linked show it's sharper (it's only one test I know and nobody can vouch for how methodical it is) and that is most definitely encouraging but the AF speed and IQ with T/Cs are what us birders are waiting to find out.
I guess we're waiting to see how the AF speed compares against the Canon. The tests I linked show it's sharper (it's only one test I know and nobody can vouch for how methodical it is) and that is most definitely encouraging but the AF speed and IQ with T/Cs are what us birders are waiting to find out.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Essentially, Stu - and at infinity focus too (which I can't imagine will be relevant to us).
Mind you, at MFD (or anywhere else, for that matter) I don't see the absence of 20mm or so of FL as an issue anyway - I've never found myself thinking "if only I had another 20mm...", nor has any picture I've taken been spoiled for the lack of it (this happens with the 100-400mm too, by all accounts).
If I need another 20mm or so, I'll just lean forward a bit!
Last edited:
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
Sigma 120-300/2.8 HSM OS
Photozone's review based on FF:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/629-sigma120300f28oseos
While it doesn't look entirely convincing on full format, it may well be a different story on a 1.6x crop body.
Thomas
Photozone's review based on FF:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/629-sigma120300f28oseos
While it doesn't look entirely convincing on full format, it may well be a different story on a 1.6x crop body.
Thomas
GYRob
Well-known member
yes it looks very good but no limit switch to aid AF this is a let down for a lens like this and i would not get one because of this.
Rob.
Jaff
Registered Member
Merged your thread with an existing one Thomas. :t:
Oh and it does always seem that a full frame lens always has impaired performance on a full frame camera. Doesn't give people much incentive to buy FF cameras really.
Yes it does seem that Sigma deliberately like to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't it Rob. Would it really add that much more to the cost to have a limiter switch!?
Oh and it does always seem that a full frame lens always has impaired performance on a full frame camera. Doesn't give people much incentive to buy FF cameras really.
Yes it does seem that Sigma deliberately like to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't it Rob. Would it really add that much more to the cost to have a limiter switch!?
Last edited:
davidmelville
Member
Well, nothing technical from me! I have just taken delivery together with both T/C's and got to confess I am well pleased. Having just got back from a few day of nothing but photographing birds using a Nikon 300mm f2.8 I plugged the new Sigma on and went off to have a go. I think it is brilliant. Very, very sharp and very good with the 2t/c on. I am off tomorrow to spent the day with a Harris Hawke so I am looking for some close up and BIF shots . . . I'll let you know my thoughts.
Hey, got mine yesterday for my Canon and I am from Warwick too!
Some shots:
1. Sigma 120-300mm at 600mm f5.6 (kenko 2x DG)
2. Canon 500mm at 700mm f5.6 (Canon 1.4x II)
3. Canon 800mm at 5.6
An 100% crop at 300mm f2.8
1st one is unedited
2nd one with some contrast added and a little sharpening
1. Sigma 120-300mm at 600mm f8 (kenko 2x DG)
2. Canon 500mm at 700mm f8 (Canon 1.4x II)
3. Canon 800mm at 8
And 600mm edited
First AF servo sequence. Using a 7D, 6 frames taken in the same second.
Exif data should be intact
Back garden too small to use TC's so all shots are at 120mm
When it stops raining and I can go to a park I will try different focal lengths and teleconverters
And crops of all 6 frames.
Some shots:
1. Sigma 120-300mm at 600mm f5.6 (kenko 2x DG)
2. Canon 500mm at 700mm f5.6 (Canon 1.4x II)
3. Canon 800mm at 5.6
An 100% crop at 300mm f2.8
1st one is unedited
2nd one with some contrast added and a little sharpening
1. Sigma 120-300mm at 600mm f8 (kenko 2x DG)
2. Canon 500mm at 700mm f8 (Canon 1.4x II)
3. Canon 800mm at 8
And 600mm edited
First AF servo sequence. Using a 7D, 6 frames taken in the same second.
Exif data should be intact
Back garden too small to use TC's so all shots are at 120mm
When it stops raining and I can go to a park I will try different focal lengths and teleconverters
And crops of all 6 frames.
Last edited:
davidmelville
Member
Fancy that . . . neighbours!
I took this yesterday on the River. 55 metres away, no crop with the t/c 2. I use a Nikon D300s
http://gallery.me.com/david.melville#100189&bgcolor=black&view=grid
I took this yesterday on the River. 55 metres away, no crop with the t/c 2. I use a Nikon D300s
http://gallery.me.com/david.melville#100189&bgcolor=black&view=grid
Not bad at all! Let me know next time you are going for birding along the river and I might join you and compare the Nikon and Canon versions of the 120-300
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
That's some very interesting images indeed! Obviously, the Canon 800mm @f8 is sharper (as one would expect based on the price!). But the call between the Canon 500 @700/f8 and Sigma @ 600/f8 is too close to call IMO.
Well, well, well, certainly something to think about. Thanks for posting.
Thomas
Well, well, well, certainly something to think about. Thanks for posting.
Thomas
davidmelville
Member
Sigma 120 - 300m f2.8 OS
Guys, this is one very awesome lens. Spent the morning with a local Falconer in bad light and patchy background. But out of the pics there are enough to see this is going to be a very good lens. No technical stuff from me, you can blind me with specification and technical information but I go enough places and take enough pics to know the real thing and this is good, vey good.
Check out this . . . . . .
http://gallery.me.com/david.melville#100192&bgcolor=black&view=grid
Guys, this is one very awesome lens. Spent the morning with a local Falconer in bad light and patchy background. But out of the pics there are enough to see this is going to be a very good lens. No technical stuff from me, you can blind me with specification and technical information but I go enough places and take enough pics to know the real thing and this is good, vey good.
Check out this . . . . . .
http://gallery.me.com/david.melville#100192&bgcolor=black&view=grid
Jaff
Registered Member
In light of this http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11052515nikonsigmadispute.asp those wanting one may have to consider getting your name down now rather than waiting for prices to drop once they are in full production because by then who knows what might have happened by then. Nikon will almost certainly order Sigma to withdraw all current OS zoom lenses if they win!
Dunno about that, they may ask to pay royalties or something. And it'll take ages to work its way through the courts.
I don't know enough about the technical side to comment on whether Nikon has a good enough case but I suspect it may be difficult to prove Sigma deliberately copied their VR system, I mean once something new has been invented and produced the concept is out there for everyone to make their own version, no?
If it is a an exact (or very close) replica I guess it is different but like I say I don't really know that side if it.
