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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 7, 2006, 11:18 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

I have been shooting the 120x300 for about a year now. For me this has been a sharp lense with no issues. I have not taken a large number of photos with it yet but those tha I have were as good as they get with a variable lense. In my opinion, this lense can humble some primes. This is the only low light variable lense in this catabory, you will see many pro's using it fo sports activities. IMO you can't go wront here.
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2006, 10:59 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5
Default

I just returned my Sigma 20-70mm f/2.8 due to its poor performance at wide apertures. The Canon in the pic is my Rebel XT's stock 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. These 100% crops were taken from the center of each image at 50mm--right in the middle of the Sigma's range and near the end of the Canon's. The Sigma was so blurry that I'm inclined to think that my lens may have been an defect, as I can't imagine a company intending to produce a product this bad. For the record, results were very similar at 24mm.
Attached Images
 
oliver_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2006, 11:02 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5
Default

...ahhh, why leave anything to the imagination? Here are my results at 24mm. I'm not sure why the Canon is sharper wide open than stepped down to f/4.5, but the results were repeatable:
Attached Images
 
oliver_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2006, 11:02 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

With all do respect, what does a bad experience with a 20-70 2.8 have to do with whether or not the 120-300 is a good lens?

Not making any comments about whether that lens is good or not but it has no bearing on the 120-300 - completely different type of lens.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2006, 2:00 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5
Default

Because it's another Sigma f/2.8 lens. Seems relevant to me, especially since my f/2.8 was effectively a f/5.6. Just sharing my experience; that's what forums are all about, no?

As I said, I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that my Sigma lens was just a bad apple and readers should take my experience with a grain of salt as a result.


JohnG wrote:
Quote:
With all do respect, what does a bad experience with a 20-70 2.8 have to do with whether or not the 120-300 is a good lens?

Not making any comments about whether that lens is good or not but it has no bearing on the 120-300 - completely different type of lens.
oliver_r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2006, 3:39 PM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Don't know... It seems like a lot of people do not share your experience with the same lens:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2006, 11:14 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I have been weight lifting the EX 120-300 F2.8 for just over a year now pre DG version.

I find it to be a most excellent lens, great results even with a matched 2x TC attached.
PeterP 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 12:01 AM.