Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 2, 2007, 11:36 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Actually there are 2 more 300mm f/2.8 options for Canon mount:
http://photo.net/learn/nature/tam300
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=238

-> We don't hear much of them mainly because of their lack of ultrasonic motor (real slower AF here)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 3:13 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

It is a great medium telephoto lens!
Love it since the day NHL forced me to buy it. :G
Only issue is it seems to be making one of my arms longer than the other :blah:

It works well with the 2x or 1.4x matched TC's.

And ya, I used the money saved by buying the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 instead of a Canon 300 f/2.8 to buy a couple of Sigma 500DG supers, just wish they had a built in sync socket on them make work with radio triggers easier. :?


TXPhoto wrote:
Quote:
What makes the Sigma 120-300 mm f 2.8 so good? Any problems with the lens?



Jerry
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 10:25 PM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
Love it since the day NHL forced me to buy it. :G
May be I should be looking at collecting theses finder fees hey?

-> I'm eyeing a 500mm f/4 and need all the $help$ I can get, or even that Sigmonster (if I ever decide to get a decent tripod) ! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 10:58 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

By Sigmonster do you mean the 300-800 f/5.6 zoom or the 800 f/5.6 prime? :-)
Both look to be hefty back breakers and tripod benders at around 200.oz's (12.5 pounds) :?

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 4:50 AM   #15
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

The Sigmonster is the 300-800 and I am going to get to play with one for a weeks shooting later in the year...... sooooo can't wait. I'm also hoping to buy the 120-300mm f2.8in the next couple of months (the 300-800 I have been told I can borrow for free as I know one of the guys who is sponsored by Sigma so gets to play with it whenever he wants..... nice :blah.

I have done so much reading on the 120-300 and 300 Sigma lenses to try to get a fell for what I want to do and the only info I have not been able to find it the resolution chart for the 300mm f2.8 which is a pain. The Sigma guy I know says he changed from the 120-300 to the 300 prime as he believed the focus was faster and that the quality was quite a bit better, however from all the reading I think possibly he had one of the bad copies of the 120-300 that have been seen.

For those of you who are currently fortunate enough to have the 120-300 have you noticed the issue that when focusing closer then the actual focal length is not the 300mm as advertised but say 270mm as I have seen a few reports of this. Also is that really a big problem?

Edit.... why does this forum keep adding style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000" to the front of paragraphs making me have to edit them out?!?!?

Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 7:16 AM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
For those of you who are currently fortunate enough to have the 120-300 have you noticed the issue that when focusing closer then the actual focal length is not the 300mm as advertised but say 270mm as I have seen a few reports of this. Also is that really a big problem?
Mark, I don't remember where I read the post, but the biggest supporting argument for this theory was a measurement of the elemnts - that is, the lens diameter is not enough to make it 300mm 2.8. So, it is either short (the most commonn stated amount I've seen is 280mm) or it isn't really 2.8 at 300mm. From what I understand it's not uncommon for telephoto zooms to be somewhat less than advertised.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 9:05 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Can't say I've noticed any issues with my 120-300 f/2.8, but I haven't been looking for that effect.
I'll have to give it a try and see what the camera reports it is seeing when I get home again.

The only lens I have noticed doing something similar is the cheepie canon EF 50 f/1.8, the widest it seems to be able to open to is f/2.0.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 9:34 AM   #18
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

This is the exact measurements for the 120-300 (123.60-293.86, f/2.88):
http://www.popphoto.com/assets/downl...2003163559.pdf
Can someone find a lens which is actually spot on their specs?

The biggest attraction for the 500mm f/4 is its portability, but I think I'll be always using this lens with a 1.4x on to exceed the current reach with my 120-300. Problem is the SigMonster probably has the better IQ without a TC, but then I'll need a tripod:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 4:35 PM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
I have done so much reading on the 120-300 and 300 Sigma lenses to try to get a fell for what I want to do and the only info I have not been able to find it the resolution chart for the 300mm f2.8 which is a pain. The Sigma guy I know says he changed from the 120-300 to the 300 prime as he believed the focus was faster and that the quality was quite a bit better, however from all the reading I think possibly he had one of the bad copies of the 120-300 that have been seen.
Here's the actual MTF's from Sigma:

300 f/2.8 prime:


120-300 @ 300:



The zoom indeed has the higher MTF resolution than the prime, the fall-offs on the zoom happen toward the edges, but then your 30D will be cropping the image to only ~12.8mm (so the parts of the prime which are superior will just be thrown away on a non full-frame camera)! :?

-> I should be seeing more of this as I shoot with a 1D mrkII (1.3x), but then like most teles the subjects are mostly in the center of the image... and not the edges (see picture above) which are part of the bokeh

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 5:14 PM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Spot the person showing off with his 1D:blah:lol.

Now call me thick (really please do) what actually are the graphs showing, I understand when the data is presented by people like Photozone but have looked at the Sigma site where these are and drew a blank. How do the two relate?

Thanks!!
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:22 AM.