View Full Version : SIGMA's new AF 120-300mm f/2.8 DG EX APO HSM OS

04-21-2011, 11:35 PM
Has anyone popped for the SIGMA's AF 120-300mm f/2.8 DG EX APO HSM OS (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm-sigma1) (5.7-lb.) lens, yet? This would seem to be the one to have for the just about everything telephoto lens ... and the waistline to go with it. At the MSRP of $4700 it is, admittedly, a little rich for most folks, but you never know.

It's new ... and stabilized. How does that shake out? :D

04-23-2011, 08:03 PM
You know i havent gotten this lens but for what its worth its only (i say only like i could afford it lol) 3,199.00 Click Here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/755336-USA/Sigma_136205_120_300mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html) at B&H Photo Video

04-24-2011, 02:23 AM
Sigma's MSRP numbers are generally on a different planet to the one buyers live on.

It's only Aus$3500.00 here and that is at one of the more expensive places to shop.

04-26-2011, 04:43 AM
So expensive at such limited range.. I'd see more value if it's 70-300 or 80-400...

04-26-2011, 04:03 PM
Just doing some quick calculations, Canon's fixed focal length EF 400mm f/2.8 IS II L USM (~$10.5k) weighs 8.4 lbs. The first version ($7.5k) was 11.7 lbs. I feel we can take that 8+ pounds as the absolute minimum that this 80-400 ZOOM lens idea can weigh.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you he-men, but that is for all practicality, about the weight of a bowling ball. Add the weight of the camera ... another two pounds ... and you are toting something that just is not worth the effort, for the most part. That first element has to weigh on the order of ~6.5-lbs. Now, stick it out 400mm in front of the camera. No way! :p

I mean, as an optional pro-football lens, maybe?

SIGMA already has their "Hulk" lens, the Green Goliath => 200-500mm f/2.8 DG APO ($26k)


and that bad boy is 33 lbs. It uses a flippin' Frisbee as a lens cover. You cannot use a conventional tripod to hold it ... so, you have to ask yourself, "Do I need a staff to manage this thing?"

The magic of 120-300mm f/2.8, is that for about the same weight as the standard fixed focal length 300mm f/2.8, you can get a manageable zoom! The standard 300mm f/2.8 also costs 2x as much. The way I see it ... it is the 300mm f/2.8 ... with a widener on it. Since I, personally, cannot sport $6200 for the Sony ... this is the next logical step for brightness.

04-26-2011, 04:11 PM
If i had the money i would absolutely buy it but that isn't the case. Well unless I win the lotto lol

04-26-2011, 04:22 PM
Bring that Sigma to a war zone and tell me what happen when (if?) you manage to get back.

04-26-2011, 05:05 PM
What lens are you talking about, the huge "Hulk" lens or the 120-300mm?

04-26-2011, 05:12 PM
I was referring to the hulk, especially if you can get one with that army green. But again, any zoom lens will attract attentions from snipers in a battle zone for obvious reason.

04-26-2011, 05:24 PM
Why did war come up? I pretty sure that Don isnt going to be going to war lol

04-26-2011, 05:27 PM
A huge lens like that always remind me of the journalists who got shot while on their jobs. That's why the subject of war come up... LoLx
Sorry for getting sidetrack...

04-26-2011, 05:32 PM
Oh ok, i was just wondering if you knew something that i didnt know lol.

And plus the journalists probably got shot from having that lens because the bad guys thought it was a rocket lol

04-26-2011, 06:46 PM
And plus the journalists probably got shot from having that lens because the bad guys thought it was a rocket lol

The few journalists who are shot are usually killed by the American military and their "kill everybody you see" policy.
Most journalists who are killed happen to be in the wrong place when a bomb lands.

04-26-2011, 06:49 PM
Yeah well id rather you not disrespect the best military in the world since we obviously didnt kill everyone we saw because they wouldnt have a country left as it should be.

04-26-2011, 08:13 PM
We only hear about American soldiers shot and killed journalists maybe because they operate under a relatively transparent system comparing to some. Many armies would quickly order a cover up.
All soldiers, regardless of what flag they fight for, operate under extreme pressure and don't have time to scan the enemies at leisure as they themselves can get return fires at any given time. It's really the journalists themselves who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

04-27-2011, 09:13 PM
Well, Afghanistan is miles and miles of debris, rubble and fields of poppies, looking for some drug-addled market to cough up revenues.

I was considering the 200-500mm f/2.8 for an Olympic event or trials. Last time I checked, they were not shooting back ... but, times are changing, I suppose.

05-01-2011, 02:36 PM
So did you ever decide if you are going to get this lens?

05-05-2011, 04:36 PM
It is a best lens available of sigma in market. It has 18 Elements in 16 Groups. it's minimun focusing distance is 150-250 cm. It's filter size is 105mm. It's weight is 2600g. So it is light weight. It has 9 Number of Diaphragm Blades. It's Maximum Magnifications 1:8.6 . So i think this is the best lens of sigma in market.

05-09-2011, 09:26 PM
I have to wait for it to arrive, 'Switch.' SIGMA has not physically delivered it to the marketplace, yet.

It's a chunk of change, to be sure, but you cannot rent SONY-mount gear like this. No one is providing that kind of support, yet. There were a few that tried, but SONY keeps dragging its feet with the release of the new semi-pro and pro models ... so there is not too many hobbyists that will cough up this kind of change with not much new to put it one.

Don't get me wrong. A lens like this is almost the be all, end all, for a telephoto photographer. Aperture, useful focal length, relatively light and stabilized. It's got the package. I wants one.

05-09-2011, 10:15 PM
So expensive at such limited range.. I'd see more value if it's 70-300 or 80-400...

Really? You do realize this is an f/2.8 lens? This is probably the great sports zoom lens, they have now made it even better with OS.

05-09-2011, 10:26 PM
I am starting to consider this lens, haven't decided on the new one with OS or an older version yet. My 100-400 has always bothered me being as slow as it is, I think the small aperture affects the AF performance of the 100-400. I am wondering what the Siggy will do for my AF as well as offering the option of a 1.4x TC and still being faster than a Canon 400 f/5.6L. Right now this lens is in the lead to replace my 80-200 f/2.8L and 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L. Add the 120-300 and I'll have a very fast mid to long put a 1.4x on it and that covers 400 at f/4, add my 500 f/4.5 and I think I am set for Jellystone this fall.

The other options are too expensive I think:
70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 300 f/4 or 300 f/2.8 and either a TC or 400mm of some sort, and I am talking $$$$. Though, I have to say everything I've seen of the new 70-200 is awesome. I kind of want one, but the 70-200 f/4L I have at home will probably do just fine.