Sigma 300mm f2.8 APO EX DG HSM For Canon Digital & Flim SLR Cameras

Product Information

It seems that Sony is more interested in breaking a weight record and in sleek bump free designs rather than in producing a lens that meets photographers’s needs. Here are some sample images where I have used the Sigma 300 f2.8 and a non reporting 2X Kenko converter which is not as good as the Canon 2X MkIII converter.

300mm F2.8 G Master OSS lens, set for an Sony is developing a 300mm F2.8 G Master OSS lens, set for an

As expected with a 2x teleconverter, sharpness drops quite a bit across the frame, by about 25-30%. The lens is rather weak at the maximum aperture and pretty much requires stopping down to f/8 to get acceptably sharp images. Also not all fancy a a lens of the the seize and price of a 400/2.8 and weight of a 600/4 or said in another word a€12.000 and 3kg lens. Once you update the frmware to the latest version, it becomes incompatible with this. For further information, please refer to here.i have an laea4, it's not relevant because as you mentioned it's a different focusing system entirely, but i don't recall any shutter delay with it either... the af is so bad tho that maybe i was distracted with that issue :-0 Switch to APS-C/DX format and the story is broadly similar. As mentioned above, the Canon-mount sample tested is sharper than the Nikon one at F2.8, but it's debatable whether this would matter in real-world images. The nearest thing to a flaw is lateral chromatic aberration at 120mm,but thisis easily removed in post-processing if necessary. As usual both distortion and vignetting are distinctly lower on the smaller format. The series is here: http://public.fotki.com/m8o/outdoor_adventures/tanzania-2007/070812---avian-.../imgp4766.html Only about two others come close to that one. Maybe I should go manual focus @ those times. To me, the benefit of the Canon is pretty much as described by postcardcv in that it will focus faster, helped by the focus limiter, and it is very well made. The improved AF speed is particularly important when using TCs, of course. Either the Canon 300mm F2.8 L IS Mk1 or Mk2 are significantly better lenses than the Sigma 300- but they are more expensive so they should be! I am not trying to put down the Sigma - it is a very good lens for the money. However, from what I read, the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS seems to be very good at 300mm, has OS and can be bought for around 1600 pounds (grey import but from UK sources). I have not tried the lens myself but reports indicate that is VERY close to the Canons at the center of the image, the AF is one of Sigmas best and it takes the (Canon) extenders well.

Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO - Digital Cameras, Digital

With 1.4x APO Tele Converter, AF can operate between infnity and 0.45m. If the subject is closer than 0.45m, only MF is available. With 1.4x APO Tele Converter, AF can operate between infnity and 0.52m. If the subject is closer than 0.52m, only MF is available.

Manuals / Brochures

I am not criticizing that Sony dislikers do not like Sony. That is their job. Please continue to do so. I therefore wonder if the AE feature is adequate on non-dedicated lenses, as this is my priority as I consider a TC for the first time. Some CA/color fringing at and near wide open but only at very high contrast edges. No focus limiter is trying at times. Sometimes just wouldn't autofocus with the subject right in-front of you ( yes, subject further then minimum focus) Now your just contradicting yourself, first mirrorless ain’t necessary smaller as it has much to do with generation, then someone show that the 120-400 is latest generation Nikon and suddenly Nikon made an old generation in 2020 and those can make it much smaller. Contrary to any sort of evidence of the matter. sony for instance is the only ff platform with five motorized zooms, which are essential to sports/eng/efp/event/corporate video shooting.

Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM: Digital Photography Review

Minolta also had the 600 mm f:4 lens. At 5.5 kilos I found this lens too heavy. Got the 300 mm f:2.8 instead and added 1.4 and 2x TC's when I needed more reach. A nice compromise, and with TC's I almost always worked wide open. No complaints from clients. It has got to be worth a look? Especially as it is cheaper new than a USED Canon 300mm F2.8 IS Mk1 as well as being cheaper than the Sigma 300mm F2.8. The 300mm telephoto lens is widely used in sports and wildlife; situations with poor lighting (such as dusk and dawn for wildlife, and poorly-illuminate gyms for sports) make a fast ƒ/2.8 aperture almost mandatory. These lenses are typically big, heavy and... expensive. When mounted on the full-frame 5D however, light falloff is a bit more noticeable. When used at ƒ/2.8, the corners are 3/4 of a stop darker than the center. Stopped down to ƒ/4, this shading is slightly alleviated at just under a half-stop differential, and at ƒ/5.6 corner shading is reduced further to just a quarter-stop. At any other aperture, light falloff isn't significant. You are the one looking at this as a brand thing. I am looking at it as a photographer hoping for more relevant lens options.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM S Sample Photos

Let’s talk about the weight issue now. At 3.39 kilos, this is not a light lens. And it is expected, given its fast aperture of f/2.8. The Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR is also a monster of a lens for that very reason. However, this is no 400mm and the lens barrel is nowhere as long in comparison. So the central issue with the weight is the fact that the lens is too heavy for its compact size. I have shot with the 500mm f/4G VR quite a bit (which in my opinion is the best hand-holdable Nikkor super-telephoto) and while it is a slightly heavier lens (by about 500 grams), it is much easier to hand-hold. With the lens mounted on the full-frame 5D, we see similar results, with an increase in the level of corner softness. Wide open at ƒ/2.8, we again see an average of around 2 blur units, just slightly better in the center and significantly softer in the corners - in this case, between 3-5 blur units. Stopping down doesn't do much to improve the corner softening, it just seems to move it around (our sample may be slightly de-centered). Central sharpness improves slightly, but by ƒ/5.6 you've reached the apex of what this lens can offer for sharpness (it's quite similar at ƒ/8) - a small region of sharpness in the center, 1-1.5 blur units, and escalating corner softness - between 2 and 4 blur units. Diffraction limiting sets in at ƒ/11, and again, it's still quite usable at ƒ/22. Fully stopped-down at ƒ/32, results are just as soft on full-frame as they are on sub-frame.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM S Lens Review - ePHOTOzine Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM S Lens Review - ePHOTOzine

What has changed is the standards for image quality. They are lower than they were 10 years ago because… ” I agreed to the comments of m8o, his review is a very good one. Focus is fast but sometimes just wouldn't autofocus with the subject right in-front of you. Furthermore, do not expect you can get good image quality with a 2x tele-converter with this lens, thus becoming a 600mm lens. I have tried the orginal Sigma 2x or Kenko AF 7 elements 2x, the image quality just not up to my expectation. I have tried the Pentax FA*300mm f2.8 with a 2x, the IQ is far much much more better. But of course, to be fair, this Sigma is much more cheaper than the Pentax. If using the Sigma as a 300mm f2.8 lens without any tele converter, then it is great and really worth for its price. The last mount Sony abandoned was the A mount which lived more than 30 years from 1985 to 2016-2021 depending on how you want to figure the end date. Another issue is that the mass of the lens shifts when zooming. Every time I mount a lens on my Gimbal head I balance it by adjusting the fore/aft position of the lens foot in the clamp. This means that when my hands are off the lens and camera, it is self-centering (if the tilt adjustment knob is loose). What I noticed with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, is that if I centered the lens when zoomed to 300 and then zoomed out to 120, the balance shifted to the front of the lens causing it to pitch downward.Solid construction and pretty good optics, too. IQ and sharpnes pretty good wide open, and very good from f3,5 onwards. Pixel peepers may be able to find some minor purple fringing in areas of extreme contrast. But this is really insignificant, and can easily be corrected in post processing, should it be noticeable. AF works well thanks to the speed of the lens. Also with Sigmas 1,4 x and 2 x teleconverters. As usual, there is some loss of image quality, especially with the 2 x TC. Sigma history mentions the 300mm f2.8 was first introduced in 1988 but the links/details are misplaced. With the full-time manual focus override, I found I was inadvertently shifting focus with my palm and fighting against my attempts to autofocus. This happened mostly when operating the zoom ring, because my hand would rotate in relation to the lens barrel which resulted in rotation of the focus ring. This is a case of the weight of the lens working against you indirectly. Because there is a lot of mass to support (more on this below), it feels like you really need to use your whole hand for support rather than just half your hand or perhaps just your fingers. On a positive note, the focus ring is very smooth to rotate and the zoom ring felt a little stiff at first, but got better overtime. Just like on Nikkor lenses, once you reach close or far limits, the focus ring will continue to rotate. The zoom ring, on the other hand, has a hard stop at both 120mm and 300mm, which is consistent with what you see on the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR. You can bet that any new Sigma super tele would be way more expensive than the old Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 also. Inflation has been very high overall, in particular the price of raw materials. My bet is at least double the price. Those are coming from people who have not photographed the kind of situations in which these lenses are used.