Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO HSM

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO HSM

    Anyone own this Lens? Any comment on it?

    NO Banal Talk Pls!

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    Anyone own this Lens? Any comment on it?

    NO Banal Talk Pls!
    i have this lens, what do u want to know about this lens?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mylau
    i have this lens, what do u want to know about this lens?
    thinking to upgrade to this lens for more range and faster lens. As I using 70-200f4, do u think is it worth switching to Sigma 120-300f2.8?

    Quality wise and AF issit the same when compare to my f4?
    At full wide and 300mm, does it produce soft picture?

    How much did you pay for it?

    Thanks

  4. #4

    Default

    No banal talk? So good advice which is contrary to what you want to hear will be considered banal?

    As expected, you're unteachable. Good-bye.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YSLee
    No banal talk? So good advice which is contrary to what you want to hear will be considered banal?

    As expected, you're unteachable. Good-bye.
    What the problem with u ah?

    I only want to hear advice on the pros and cons of this lens comparing with my f4.

    If you go no constructive advices then dun post.

    You are damn rude IMVVVVVVVO on all ur post.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    What the problem with u ah?

    I only want to hear advice on the pros and cons of this lens comparing with my f4.

    If you go no constructive advices then dun post.

    You are damn rude IMVVVVVVVO on all ur post.
    To be frank, that's already banal, A big No NO if you expect others to keep to your rules. And, using caps and that exclamation mark in that "NO Banal Talk Pls!" statement sounds kinda rude too. You are asking for some advice, but it really sounds demanding. Perhaps you should try something like "Appreciate if I can get some nice advice", "Kindly appreciate if you lot can stick to the topic", "Appreciate if there are no off topic posts" etc etc

    Anyway, you demand for an answer, so let's try some serious discussion. Back to the topic, it's not playing fair to compare that 2 lens. The focal length, build, glasses, aperture are of 2 different class. If you really want a comparison, it only sounds logical to compare it with perhaps the "70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM" or the "100-300mm f/4 EX APO IF HSM".

    However, if you are thinking of upgrading, cos you need that extra length, then you should think of asking if there are some sites with test pictures, so that you can see the result yourself. Drop the idea of asking if you should upgrade, no one except yourself knows if you need that additional 100mm.

    Personally, I'll prefer to try out the lenses, hold it, feel, it, test it in some camera shops, instead of visualising it.

    Just my 0.02 cent non-banal talk.
    Last edited by togu; 15th October 2003 at 06:31 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    it's a huge and heavy lens. look at the specs and compare it with your needs.

    and also imo, all Lenses talk is BANAL.




  8. #8

    Default

    here it is


  9. #9

    Default

    this is gonna be OT, but what do you need the range for ?

    do you do bird photography, or do you cover events frequently ? i think if you consider upgrading or not you should think of what you want before you buy.

    what do you need the 2.8 for ? do you shoot lots of night photography handheld ?

    my advice is if you really want an opinion, read online reviews.

    but i'm darn sure that sigma lenses are big+heavy/much heavier than canon lenses.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by togu
    To be frank, that's already banal, A big No NO if you expect others to keep to your rules. And, using caps and that exclamation mark in that "NO Banal Talk Pls!" statement sounds kinda rude too.
    Who the one who talk banal first? is YSlee not me.

    Will you say thank you to YSlee after he slap you? Think about it.

    Actually, I want to post it fast so I never look into the account that you guy will feel intruded after reading my post. I guess I would need to phase properly in future. Sorry if those who felt that my post is rude.

    YSlee is 100% banal vs Lens talk.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    After seeing the pic of Sigma 120-300 posted Buzz, I think I had to consider. Hi buzz thank for posting the pic.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sequitur
    this is gonna be OT, but what do you need the range for ?

    do you do bird photography, or do you cover events frequently ? i think if you consider upgrading or not you should think of what you want before you buy.

    what do you need the 2.8 for ? do you shoot lots of night photography handheld ?

    my advice is if you really want an opinion, read online reviews.

    but i'm darn sure that sigma lenses are big+heavy/much heavier than canon lenses.
    Yes I like to do bird photography therefore I wanted more range. Any good alternative to my 70-200f4 but much be cheap and value for money cos I spent too much and dun wish to spent more? Thanks

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    Yes I like to do bird photography therefore I wanted more range. Any good alternative to my 70-200f4 but much be cheap and value for money cos I spent too much and dun wish to spent more? Thanks
    if you really wan to do bird photography, then save up for the 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 range,... AND THIS IS NOT BANAL!

    Judging from the little experience that I have, I find that using a 300 + 2xTC is still unmatch to using a 500/4+1.4TC.....

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluestrike
    if you really wan to do bird photography, then save up for the 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 range,... AND THIS IS NOT BANAL!

    Judging from the little experience that I have, I find that using a 300 + 2xTC is still unmatch to using a 500/4+1.4TC.....
    Wow those lens cost bomb. It is ways out of my budget. Base on ur experience, 300 + 2xTC is used on Digital or film?

    300f4IS x 1.4 x 1.6 = 672mm, issit enough?


    Thanks

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix

    300f4IS x 1.4 x 1.6 = 672mm, issit enough?

    Thanks
    No, it's not enough for wild birds, not even close.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kei
    No, it's not enough for wild birds, not even close.
    Dunno whether he shoot wild birds or not, but you can copy our resident bird king. Buy 500/4L IS USM, then stack 1.4x converter with 2x converter. And yes, after that there's still a focal length multiplier to tack on.

  17. #17

    Default

    yar! and u need a heavy tripod for big lens & bird photography. NOT BANAL.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz
    here it is

    Hi Buzz can I know how much you paid for this lens?

  19. #19

    Default

    be prepared to spend a bomb if u are really interested in shooting birds

    Hope this is not banal

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    Wow those lens cost bomb. It is ways out of my budget. Base on ur experience, 300 + 2xTC is used on Digital or film?

    300f4IS x 1.4 x 1.6 = 672mm, issit enough?


    Thanks
    It depends on what kind of bird you are shooting. Big bird... ok la.... small bird... umm.. abit hard coz all u will see is probably a speck in your viewfinder.

    Also depends on whether the bird is stationary. Flying big bird... harder to shoot but if you are lucky you can. Flying small bird, well...

    Hope this is not banal

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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