Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Question SIGMA's new AF 120-300mm f/2.8 DG EX APO HSM OS

    Has anyone popped for the SIGMA's AF 120-300mm f/2.8 DG EX APO HSM OS (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?
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    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 at B&H Photo Video

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,883
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,418
    So expensive at such limited range.. I'd see more value if it's 70-300 or 80-400...
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    True portability

    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!

    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)

    Name:  SIGMA200-500f28.jpg
Views: 963
Size:  44.4 KB

    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.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-26-2011 at 04:18 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    If i had the money i would absolutely buy it but that isn't the case. Well unless I win the lotto lol

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,418
    Bring that Sigma to a war zone and tell me what happen when (if?) you manage to get back.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    What lens are you talking about, the huge "Hulk" lens or the 120-300mm?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,418
    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.
    Last edited by tim11; 04-26-2011 at 05:14 PM.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    447
    Why did war come up? I pretty sure that Don isnt going to be going to war lol

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •