Okay.. Sigma 120-300 2.8 or ...

[Charlemagne]

Okay.. I have been offered a nice sounding deal on a Sigma 120-300 2.8 (new "DG" version.. ohhhh ahhhh.. LOL) but to get it I would have to sell off my 400 5.6 (stop drooling Rick.. :biggrin: ) So.. is the Sigma "THAT" much better?? I should be a little more specific and say that I will probably be doing some sports in the near future for pay, so, okay.. I will cut to the chase.. I am just wondering if the Sigma is okay for my birding addiction!!! :brows: :brows:

Thanks All,

Charles

[RikWriter]

I have owned both lenses and the Sigma is an excellent lens. However, if you're going to use it for birding, you're going to want to use a 2X TC and you WILL, no doubt about it, need a tripod and a good head capable of supporting the weight...I reccommend at least a Manfrotto 3421. The Canon is lighter, handier and easier to use hand-held. However, the Sigma is tack sharp and you can turn it into a 600mm f5.6. I would not reccommend selling the 400 though...I can tell you from experience, you'll miss it!

[Kevin]

Charles, I haven't owned the Sigma 120-300/f2.8 but I did shoot with it for a while. I tried it out with both the 1.4 and the 2.0 tc. It is a pretty good lens. It's one of the few zooms that's sharper than the mfgr's primes. Just like with any lens there are people who complain about it on the net. All I can say is I had a few people send me samples of shots they had taken and it's a great, sharp lens. It's a big one so you probably want it on a tripod like Rick suggests. As a matter of fact, I used it on a Bogen(Manfrotto) 3421.

I really considered getting it but I think now I have my heart set on the 300/f2.8 prime. But who knows what the future holds. ;)

[Charlemagne]

I have owned both lenses and the Sigma is an excellent lens. However, if you're going to use it for birding, you're going to want to use a 2X TC and you WILL, no doubt about it, need a tripod and a good head capable of supporting the weight...I reccommend at least a Manfrotto 3421. The Canon is lighter, handier and easier to use hand-held. However, the Sigma is tack sharp and you can turn it into a 600mm f5.6. I would not reccommend selling the 400 though...I can tell you from experience, you'll miss it!

Thanks Rick.. I have a Sigma 1.4 extender (thanks Kevin) and I used to own the Canon 2x.. (of course that would do me no good with a simga) but for me and the birding I have been doing lately.. I feel like 300-400mm's has been plenty.. but then again.. come summer and I am back to wanting something longer! :arghh: I seen the weight on it.. I am basically an Ogre.. so.. unless it weighs as much as the 600L (I have handheld the 500L with not much problem before), I shouldn't have too much of a problem.. even though I would want to start using my tripod (which coincidently IS a bogen 3241!! LOL) I guess I would need a new head though.. not my ball head.. ... (or could I get away with that?). Either way.. thanks for the help.. and you might see my 400 up here soon.

Charles, I haven't owned the Sigma 120-300/f2.8 but I did shoot with it for a while. I tried it out with both the 1.4 and the 2.0 tc. It is a pretty good lens. It's one of the few zooms that's sharper than the mfgr's primes. Just like with any lens there are people who complain about it on the net. All I can say is I had a few people send me samples of shots they had taken and it's a great, sharp lens. It's a big one so you probably want it on a tripod like Rick suggests. As a matter of fact, I used it on a Bogen(Manfrotto) 3421.

I really considered getting it but I think now I have my heart set on the 300/f2.8 prime. But who knows what the future holds. ;)

Thanks Kevin.. that is what I hear about sigma..like how the "sigmonster" is sharper than the 800 prime.. and the 120-300 is sharper than the 300 prime.. wierd huh? And of course I am wanting a 300 2.8L also .. but I can get this lens for about a quarter of that lens cost, so.. to me it seems like a good deal... anyways.. I might use it just for the upcoming sports season, save up a little extra cash from each event (the wife will take the bulk of it!! she is my "personal" accountant! (think mafia!! :couch: ), and then just buy the 300 2.8 IS L or the 400 2.8 IS L next year.., I think those lenses will cover me for birding.. ahhh.. decisions decisions..

Thanks Guys,

Charles

[gluwater]

I have no advice for you but since you mentioned the Sigmonster I thought I would chime in that there will probably be one at the Merritt Island shoot. That thing really is a monster.

[Kevin]

I don't think you'd be sorry with that lens personally. It's a great way to get a 300/f2.8. Granted it's not a 300/f2.8 IS L but it's also not pushing $4000 either.

I'm not familiar with the Bogen 3241 if it's a tripod but just to clarify, the Bogen 3421 that I was referring to is a gimbal-style head for you tripod. It runs about $175 and is about the least expensive gimbal head you can get. Romy on dpr and other forums uses it with the Sigmonster. I liked mine but sold it when I bought Keith's Arca Swiss B1 ballhead and Sidekick (which I traded off to Harvey). Now I have a Bushhawk on the way. :brows:

Anyway, just wanted to clarify the 3421 thing and tell you for what it's worth the Sigma is a fine piece of glass.

[Paul S]

Since nobody mentioned it yet...

Rumour has it that the Sigma lens is neither 300 nor 2.8. Mathematically it can't possibly be both (compare its largest diameter to that of the Canon 300/2.8), and in fact it probably skimps on both.

That doesn't have anything to do with the overall quality of the lens, just something to be aware of...

-Paul

[Rudi]

It's been a long time since I shot with that lens, but I don't think it had an AF limiter switch, either. With wildlife shooting, this would be an issue for me - it slows down the AF just enough to miss out on some shots. ;( Optically, the lens was fine, although not up to the standard of the Canon superteles...

[Kevin]

I have no advice for you but since you mentioned the Sigmonster I thought I would chime in that there will probably be one at the Merritt Island shoot. That thing really is a monster.

In a Canon mount? :brows: :brows:

[gluwater]

Sure is! It's not mine though :badmood:. Did you meet Pathfinder(Jim) and Nightengale(Kathy) last year? Jim just got one and has already visited Harry with it once this winter. (http://behret.smugmug.com/date/2006-12-26/2007-01-26/8/125533263/Large)

[Charlemagne]

Sure is! It's not mine though :badmood:. Did you meet Pathfinder(Jim) and Nightengale(Kathy) last year? Jim just got one and has already visited Harry with it once this winter. (http://behret.smugmug.com/date/2006-12-26/2007-01-26/8/125533263/Large)

What?? When Harry met Sigmonster.. I LOVED that movie!!.. now I can't wait to see the sequel.. "When Sigmonster does Green Cay" !! woooo hooo.. LOL (in my dreams... )

Charles

[gluwater]

What?? When Harry met Sigmonster.. I LOVED that movie!!.. now I can't wait to see the sequel.. "When Sigmonster does Green Cay" !! woooo hooo.. LOL (in my dreams... )

Charles
:p I don't know Charles, from your shots at Green Cay it looks like if you pointed that thing at them it might hit them in the forehead.

[Charlemagne]

Since nobody mentioned it yet...

Rumour has it that the Sigma lens is neither 300 nor 2.8. Mathematically it can't possibly be both (compare its largest diameter to that of the Canon 300/2.8), and in fact it probably skimps on both.

That doesn't have anything to do with the overall quality of the lens, just something to be aware of...

-Paul

Paul.. I have heard of this.. but still.. if it produces and produces with a TC on it.. I will be happy.

It's been a long time since I shot with that lens, but I don't think it had an AF limiter switch, either. With wildlife shooting, this would be an issue for me - it slows down the AF just enough to miss out on some shots. ;( Optically, the lens was fine, although not up to the standard of the Canon superteles...

Focus limiter.. I don't need no stinking focus limitier!! :realmad:

Seriously.. I don't think I ever used mine yet...

Thanks,
Charles

[Charlemagne]

:p I don't know Charles, from your shots at Green Cay it looks like if you pointed that thing at them it might hit them in the forehead.

Nick.. Holy Crap.. that is too true.. but I think the REAL danger lies in me trying to follow a bird in flight with it and spinning it around and knocking some poor old jewish lady doing her morning laps into the water to be gator food... that is what I am REALLY worried about.. :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Charles

[Rudi]

BIF is when you will really find that the lack of an AF limiter is affecting your shots. That and when you shoot through foliage, and the focus hunts all through the range before it returns to near infinity - by which time the animal or bird has long gone. :D

[Kevin]

Sure is! It's not mine though :badmood:. Did you meet Pathfinder(Jim) and Nightengale(Kathy) last year? Jim just got one and has already visited Harry with it once this winter. (http://behret.smugmug.com/date/2006-12-26/2007-01-26/8/125533263/Large)

I saw that shot Harry posted on NC and I couldn't figure out what the lens was! Ooooooo.....800mm would be sooooooo useful. I met Jim but not Kathy. hmmmmm.....:brows: :coo3l: