Anyone got a Simga 300m 2.8?
Discussion
Take a look at the link below, that will give you some idea of it's capability.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...
MonkeyHanger said:
minky monkey said:
Also head issues regarding softness, the 120-300mm is meant to be the better choice. I'm looking at one but the quality control concerns me a bit!
Quality control? In most cases the "problem" is a loose nut behind the camera.minky monkey said:
Not sure I get what you mean, however I do know of quite a few people that have returned new copies, or sent them back to be calibrated again. I do a lot of football photography so I know a fair few people that use lenses of that length on a very regular basis.
Just to clarify, in your post that I quoted, are you concerned about QC issues with the 120-300 or the prime?If it's the 120-300, I also know several people with that lens, myself included. They're used mostly for Motorsport but I've done a bit of Football & Rugby with mine. None of us has a problem with it and 2 of them sold Canon 300 f2.8 IS primes after buying the zoom due to the versatility. No amount of cash would persuade me to part with mine.
If you're talking about QC issues with the Sigma prime, then carry on as you probably know the only people in the country who bought one
It was aimed at the prime to be fair, I know the 120-300mm is the better lens of the two by far, although I do a couple of people that sent them back to be recalibrated, after that they were more than happy.
Although, Sigma's general QC isn't thought that well of on quite a lot of forums I go on, loads of people have sent various lenses back. I've had a few and never had that much of an issue, but we are talking alot of dosh in this case so I am a little wary.
Although, Sigma's general QC isn't thought that well of on quite a lot of forums I go on, loads of people have sent various lenses back. I've had a few and never had that much of an issue, but we are talking alot of dosh in this case so I am a little wary.
Edited by minky monkey on Wednesday 9th March 18:27
RE- quality control.
Read lensrental.com's my lens is soft and other issues articles.
Tolerances on consumer SLR camera stuff have to exceed scientific optical tolerances, thats not going to happen. So if your camwera and lens tollerances dont play ball then it wont work well, doesnt mean it wont work well on someone elses body.
Read lensrental.com's my lens is soft and other issues articles.
Tolerances on consumer SLR camera stuff have to exceed scientific optical tolerances, thats not going to happen. So if your camwera and lens tollerances dont play ball then it wont work well, doesnt mean it wont work well on someone elses body.
minky monkey said:
It was aimed at the prime to be fair, I know the 120-300mm is the better lens of the two by far, although I do a couple of people that sent them back to be recalibrated, after that they were more than happy.
Although, Sigma's general QC isn't thought that well of on quite a lot of forums I go on, loads of people have sent various lenses back. I've had a few and never had that much of an issue, but we are talking alot of dosh in this case so I am a little wary.
Well at least Sigma stand by their gear with decent warranties, are you listening Canon?Although, Sigma's general QC isn't thought that well of on quite a lot of forums I go on, loads of people have sent various lenses back. I've had a few and never had that much of an issue, but we are talking alot of dosh in this case so I am a little wary.
Edited by minky monkey on Wednesday 9th March 18:27
Since I went Digital, I've had a 300D, 20D, 50D, 1dmk2N & 7D. Canon 85f1.8, 200f2.8, 24-105L, 100-400L (x2), Sigma 15-30, 70-200f2.8, 120-300f2.8 & 500 f4.5 and other than the recent water issues with the 7D (now ok) they've all been faultless, even the ones with "reputations".
Have a word with Matt at MPB Photographic. All his used gear is checked before sale and he backs it up with a 6 month warranty. I've bought quite a few bits & bobs from him and his descriptions & service are always spot on.
dibbly dobbler said:
Nearly double the weight of a 100-400! 
f
k me you'd need to be a Gorilla to use that!
The reason i mentioned the 100-400 is that it's often touted as being a "heavy" lens, when it's nothing of the sort unless you're 3 stone wet through. My Sigma 500 prime is heavier than the 120-300 (3.1Kg v 2.6) , but the 500 is much easier to hand hold as it is better balanced.f
k me you'd need to be a Gorilla to use that!I had a fairly nasty arm injury a couple of years ago and my left arm is nowhere near as strong as it was, but i can happily hand hold the 500 all day whereas the 120-300 gets annoying after about 15 minutes. My 100-400 doesn't even cause a slight ache
MonkeyHanger said:
The reason i mentioned the 100-400 is that it's often touted as being a "heavy" lens, when it's nothing of the sort unless you're 3 stone wet through. My Sigma 500 prime is heavier than the 120-300 (3.1Kg v 2.6) , but the 500 is much easier to hand hold as it is better balanced.
I had a fairly nasty arm injury a couple of years ago and my left arm is nowhere near as strong as it was, but i can happily hand hold the 500 all day whereas the 120-300 gets annoying after about 15 minutes. My 100-400 doesn't even cause a slight ache
Ah. You didn't happen to read my witterings a few weeks back where I chopped in my 100-400 for a 70-300 because it was too heavy I had a fairly nasty arm injury a couple of years ago and my left arm is nowhere near as strong as it was, but i can happily hand hold the 500 all day whereas the 120-300 gets annoying after about 15 minutes. My 100-400 doesn't even cause a slight ache
I agree Sigma Kit is OK, especially when you consider the cost compared to Canon gear. Expect to have to send it back if the lens doesn't work well with your chosen canon body, I had to send my 150-500 back for re-calibration. since then the lens has been awesome. Sigma are excellent in ensuring that your lens is returned completely sorted - the same cannot be said for the Canon 70--200 F2.8 IS 'L' and the 100-400 canon both which were crap when I bought them [NEW] and even worse after re-calibration via Canon UK. Both sold easily on ebay though I lost a fair few bob on each lens. I suspect plenty of other people have similar problemns with the canon zooms hence the numbers for sale on ebay.
As for being heavy I always laugh at people who whinge about the canon 100-400 or 70-200 F2.8 being heavy. I suggest anyone who think's these lenses heavy, give up photography and take up hairdressing always making sure that the can of hairspray you're using is only 1/2 full so you don't 'strain' yourself excessively
My wife regulary uses my Canon 400 F2.8 IS 'L' [the heaviest lens canon makes] without whinging at all, so clearly you are the wimps for thinking a 70-200 or 100-400 are 'HEAVY'
As for being heavy I always laugh at people who whinge about the canon 100-400 or 70-200 F2.8 being heavy. I suggest anyone who think's these lenses heavy, give up photography and take up hairdressing always making sure that the can of hairspray you're using is only 1/2 full so you don't 'strain' yourself excessively
My wife regulary uses my Canon 400 F2.8 IS 'L' [the heaviest lens canon makes] without whinging at all, so clearly you are the wimps for thinking a 70-200 or 100-400 are 'HEAVY'
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff