Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO HSM


Status
Not open for further replies.

mylau

New Member
Jan 19, 2002
1,019
0
0
33
#2
Matrix said:
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?
 

Matrix

New Member
Jun 1, 2003
666
0
0
35
Seng Kang Town
Visit site
#3
mylau said:
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
 

YSLee

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,326
1
38
Visit site
#4
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.
 

Matrix

New Member
Jun 1, 2003
666
0
0
35
Seng Kang Town
Visit site
#5
YSLee said:
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.
 

togu

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2002
5,290
0
0
44
@ D08
www.tommygui.com
#6
Matrix said:
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 :think:

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.
 

chaotic

New Member
Feb 14, 2002
697
0
0
39
#7
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.



:cool:
 

sequitur

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2003
3,267
0
0
flickr.com
#9
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.
 

Matrix

New Member
Jun 1, 2003
666
0
0
35
Seng Kang Town
Visit site
#10
togu said:
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.
 

Matrix

New Member
Jun 1, 2003
666
0
0
35
Seng Kang Town
Visit site
#12
sequitur said:
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
 

Bluestrike

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
4,784
0
0
41
There lor~
bluestrike.clubsnap.org
#13
Matrix said:
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.....
 

Matrix

New Member
Jun 1, 2003
666
0
0
35
Seng Kang Town
Visit site
#14
Bluestrike said:
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
 

Kei

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
2,080
0
36
#15
Matrix said:
300f4IS x 1.4 x 1.6 = 672mm, issit enough?

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

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,911
0
0
UK
Visit site
#16
Kei said:
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.
 

gremlin

Senior Member
Nov 15, 2002
988
0
16
www.pixelpixie.biz
#20
Matrix said:
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 :p
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom