Sigma APO 120-300 2.8 EX DG

[billsstills]

If anyone can offer advice about the quality of this lens in terms of bokeh, color saturation and build.

If anyone knows how fast it will focus on Nikon Pro bodies?

I'm looking for a little more reach than 200mm.


Bill.

[ChristianLandry]

To make the story short, let's just say that I have been through 3 copies of that lens before settling down !

The pros : Good glass, good range, good 1.4X
The bads : much more fragile than Nikon or Canon, very low quality control so the quality can vary a lot from one copy to an other, NO pro service, a bit slower AF than high ends N/C but very usable

This is a good alternative for a single shooter on a budget but don't buy it without trying it. NOTHING else than Nikon/Canon is good enough for pools or newspapers ....

[billsstills]

Thanks Christian,
I read an article about this lens which sais it weighs over two kilo's. This weight is probably the the reason I may not buy it.

I've been using the Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 D ED lens with great results even though it's a cheap lens I find it good enough and especially because it's so light and whippy.

Heavy long lenses are difficult even on a momopod when you're trying to catch a high end drag car. Zippy lenses are the go.
I have the 70-200 2.8VR but I need a little more reach sometimes.


Bill.

[Robert_Smith]

I agree with most of what Christian posted but I have been using this lens for over a year now for press and magazine work I have not had my work refused because the images were inferior to those from a canon lens. Although the images from the Canon 300 2.8 IS ARE slightly better the flexibility that the zoom gives me more than compensates for that

Rob

[Roger_Martin]

I tried using one for about a month before letting it go with a "Complete" PhotoTrailer and gear.
I replaced it with the Nikkor 200-400 which is very superior. And I use a Nikkor 80-400 for more range, compactness, and easy hand held shooting.

[ChristopherButler]

I have this lens for Canon mount. I also have the Canon 70-200/2.8 and the Canon 300/2.8

Image quality is excellent. The weight doesn't bother me; I use gimble heads.

AF is a fraction slower than the Canon lenses. When it works. My big problem is the AF infrequently shuts down, requiring me to "kick" the manual focus ring to start it up again. It doesn't happen often, but when I'm shooting hot and heavy at an event, it drives me nuts. I miss shots because of this. In addition, for action shots, the AF sometimes doen't quite get fully to the focus point, resulting in more soft shots than with the Canon lenses. I know I'm not the only person who has experienced this; Some have sent their lenses back to Sigma but saw no improvement upon it's return.

Set shots, protraiture, momentarily still subjects - great choice.

Sports and action shooting requires awareness of the lens' limitations. If you are willing to work around these issues, with some skill and patience I think you can make it work. I know sports shooters who use this lens successfully.

Me: I couldn't handle the soft shots; I felt I was missing too much. I was willing to crop the 70-200 shots or use an extender. I went back to using exclusively Canon glass for my action shooting. This gave me a higher percentage of sellable shots.

This is not a firm yes or no on the lens. I still have it in my inventory. But I hope this helps your decision process.