Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

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

  1. #21

    Default

    its more than twice the weight of the 70-200f4L.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    West side of S'pore
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadus
    yar! and u need a heavy tripod for big lens & bird photography. NOT BANAL.
    Not to mention expensive too. Oh, and a good head too? A Wimberley, for instance? All this costs $$$, and it definitely ain't banal.

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gremlin
    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
    I am not going to shot wild bird and i know those lens are too expensive to justified my usage. The most I would buy is probably the 300f4IS or 400f5.6 but those prime and not very good for other general usage. right?

    I am thinking of upgrading to 70-200f2.8 + 2x extender but I really dunno is it a good combo to show Zoo bird and animals.

    For me, I think I prefer to shoot Animals and birds in the Zoo and birdpark.

    NOT BANAL too give me a break pls

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    I am not going to shot wild bird and i know those lens are too expensive to justified my usage. The most I would buy is probably the 300f4IS or 400f5.6 but those prime and not very good for other general usage. right?

    I am thinking of upgrading to 70-200f2.8 + 2x extender but I really dunno is it a good combo to show Zoo bird and animals.

    For me, I think I prefer to shoot Animals and birds in the Zoo and birdpark.

    NOT BANAL too give me a break pls
    sorry typo erro. is Shoot not show.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mylau
    its more than twice the weight of the 70-200f4L.
    2.6kg not my type. thanks

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    2.6kg not my type. thanks
    Then any tele oso not your type liao...
    sell all gear and forget abt shooting!

    NOW THIS IS BANAL!

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluestrike
    Then any tele oso not your type liao...
    sell all gear and forget abt shooting!

    NOW THIS IS BANAL!

    300mmf4is, 400mmf5.6L and 70-200f2.8 are all less then 1.5kg mah.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    2.6kg not my type. thanks
    I Second BlueStrike. If you find 2.6kg too heavy, basically you can forget about shooting birds. Hrm, how about investing on Photoshop and some good Resizing software? Shoot with a 50mm, enlarge it, and crop only the bird.


    Not sure if this is BANAL.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    West side of S'pore
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    2.6kg not my type. thanks
    Tell u what. Since u dun like the weight, why not just stick to what you have (i.e. your 70-200 f4 L), shoot with it, and be happy. No need to worry about "banal" answers from other people anymore.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    300mmf4is, 400mmf5.6L and 70-200f2.8 are all less then 1.5kg mah.
    err.. you comparing the class of 120-300/2.8
    not the class of the 300/4.......there is a diff.......

    so...if you really wan, just go get a 300/4IS and be done with it!

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Seng Kang Town
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluestrike
    err.. you comparing the class of 120-300/2.8
    not the class of the 300/4.......there is a diff.......

    so...if you really wan, just go get a 300/4IS and be done with it!
    As mentioned earlier post. Let forget abt Sigma 120-300mm.

    Now the choice is whether I should go for 70-200f2.8 + (1.4x or 2.0x) is better OR go for 300mmf4IS. But as mentioned earlier 300mmIS I felt it is limited in general usage.

  12. #32

    Default

    see my shots taken by 70-200mm f2.8 L non-IS. How do you find the shots ?
    See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix
    As mentioned earlier post. Let forget abt Sigma 120-300mm.

    Now the choice is whether I should go for 70-200f2.8 + (1.4x or 2.0x) is better OR go for 300mmf4IS. But as mentioned earlier 300mmIS I felt it is limited in general usage.
    sigh....
    you still dunno what you wan after so much talking ... do you....

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    West side of S'pore
    Posts
    5,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluestrike
    sigh....
    you still dunno what you wan after so much talking ... do you....
    Yeah...u get the feeling that you've wasted your time and effort spent explaining to this guy don't you? Bang...back to square one with him asking the same question again.

    Lets all move on and leave him be.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garion
    Yeah...u get the feeling that you've wasted your time and effort spent explaining to this guy don't you? Bang...back to square one with him asking the same question again.

    Lets all move on and leave him be.
    Sigh... now I know what YS mean by the sentence he made .....

    Sigh sigh.,.........

  16. #36

    Default

    Actually, all good advice is no banal...
    Even if it's contrary to wat he wants to hear...
    At least now he know that the lens he wanted to buy is not for him yet.
    if everyone tells him wat he wants to hear, he would've made a bad decision if he bought the lens. Which is indirectly, partly our fault...

    So to presuade him not to buy the lens for bird photography as the zoom is not enough helped him alot...

    Unless U have intentions & want him to sell the lens to U at 2nd hand price after he bought it & found it not useful...

    But then again... this post is BANAL.

  17. #37

    Default

    70-200 f/4L not good enough to take photos in Zoo/Birdpark? Need 70-200 f/2.8L IS then can? Maybe its not the lens but the camera body that is at fault. Instead of thinking about changing lens, why not think of changing body, eg: Eos-1D - now drop to US$3k liao.


    ____________
    /me looking for 2nd hand 10D ('good condition only used at Zoo at Bird Park' ) at good price. Any sellers?

  18. #38

    Default

    LOL. tht's cute.
    anyway, hv u taken our advice to go out & shoot wif your eqpt first?
    70-200f/4L shoot in zoo is more than enuff! dun see wht's the advantage of a f2.8 in this case.

  19. #39

    Default

    btw, kind advice,
    photography is not like computers, where u upgrade a graphic card, *bang*, u get instant gratification.

    eqpt plays a much much more smaller role, if any role at all, in producing a winning picture.

  20. #40
    Moderator sebastiansong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,556
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    wan bang for buck... just get the sigma 50-500/f3.5 to 6.3... for its price its probably the best value for money... just look at the shots viewfinder is capable of with it.

    300/f4... I wont get it cos it is neither here nor there... and if you don have a 70-200 you are better off with a 70-200 then a 300 prime. Another alternative would be the 100-400

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •