Sigma 300 2.8, performance

jamesward93

jamesward93

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,146
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone got experience of this lens. I had read a few reviews and they are generally all pretty good, but i cant really find anything that comments on its performance in low-light.

If anyone has one of these lenses or has used one in the past, i would be interested to hear how well it does in low light situations.
 
I have the 120-300,are my thoughts any use or must it be the 300 prime?
 
Ideally, i am looking at the 300 prime, but i would be interested in hearing what you have to say about the 120-300 as it may offer me an alternative.
 
Very sharp at 2.8,supersharp at F4.

Autofocussing seems slower than my 80-200 AFD,but it is not a comparable size,so maybe I`m being picky.All in all,it is quite quick.Certainly fast enough for flighty little birds.

The minimum focussing length is a tad annoying for small birds.Maybe the prime is shorter,not sure really.

It is a solid,well built lens with a proper metal lens hood.

The finish is like all my other Sigmas,not particularly hard wearing,but that is not the end of the world.

If Nikon made a similar lens, no doubt it would be twice the price.

It accepts TC`s,if that is your thing.

All in all I like it and it is currently my most used lens.

If you would like anything more,please ask.
 
The prime is horrible compared to the zoom, avoid it as there are way too many bad copies and you can have the flexibility of the zoom for around the same price.
 
Thats thrown a small spanner into the works Gary, but thanks, again useful to know. I would love the canon 300 2.8, but cant afford it really and dont want to give up the 1ds MK3 now i have the 1D mk3 as well.
 
My only comment on that really is this:

I do a lot of wildlife photography,a lot of it in shaded woodland,I have never found it to be a problem.

Saying that though, it is never *that* dark in there,shady and dappled yes, but not really dark. I am going out this afternoon and into the evening,the badgers may be about, I will test the lens late into the eveing and revert.......:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
Very sharp at 2.8,supersharp at F4.

Autofocussing seems slower than my 80-200 AFD,but it is not a comparable size,so maybe I`m being picky.All in all,it is quite quick.Certainly fast enough for flighty little birds.

The minimum focussing length is a tad annoying for small birds.Maybe the prime is shorter,not sure really.

It is a solid,well built lens with a proper metal lens hood.

The finish is like all my other Sigmas,not particularly hard wearing,but that is not the end of the world.

If Nikon made a similar lens, no doubt it would be twice the price.

It accepts TC`s,if that is your thing.

All in all I like it and it is currently my most used lens.

If you would like anything more,please ask.
Click to expand...

Having owned a 120-300 I agree with this

only ever downside I found was the weight of the thing when using it handheld
 
Have you thought of the Tokina or Tamron 300mm f2.8s?

I bought a Tokina 300 f2.8 last week for £850 and although I have only tried it once it seems very good to me. See here!
 
jamesward93 said:
Has anyone got experience of this lens. I had read a few reviews and they are generally all pretty good, but i cant really find anything that comments on its performance in low-light.

If anyone has one of these lenses or has used one in the past, i would be interested to hear how well it does in low light situations.
Click to expand...

I had one of these and found it to be a cracking lens. I was using it on a D2x at the time and never had any issues with it focussing in low light. However, I did move to a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 - not due to any issues with the prime, but because the flexibility suits my photography more.
 
@ EdBray, no i hadnt really though about the Tamron or Tokina, will definitely have a look at them for a comparison.

@Barneyrubble, was there any noticeable difference between the prime and the zoom?
 
The only time I ever used the Sigma 300mm f2.8 I was extremely impressed with it, I even pushed it used a 2x and a 1.4x at the same time and the shots were still very good.

primes are always better than zooms in my experience and I will stand by that in this case too with the comparison to 120-300, if you need convenience then the zoom is very good, low light image quality the prime is the way to go IMO
 
I would say the Zoom is very slightly sharper - which is in line with pretty much everyone else's opinion of the two lenses who has used them. The Zoom is an absolutely cracking lens and with the added flexibility is uperb.

However, the Prime is much smaller and lighter. Both take a TC extremely well. When I get home tonight i will try and look out some samples with the 300 F2.8
 
Marac said:
The only time I ever used the Sigma 300mm f2.8 I was extremely impressed with it, I even pushed it used a 2x and a 1.4x at the same time and the shots were still very good.

primes are always better than zooms in my experience and I will stand by that in this case too with the comparison to 120-300, if you need convenience then the zoom is very good, low light image quality the prime is the way to go IMO
Click to expand...

Sorry - but this may be the exception. It's Generally accepted that the zoom has better IQ than the prime. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the prime, but the zoom is slightly better.
 
I was in a similar predicament to you a short while back. Although i was looking at used copies. I choose a 120-300 instead as there were too many negative views of the 300 prime.eg soft images and many poor copies out there. These were remarks made by people out in the field who owned one or knew someone who owned one, i'm sure they can't all be bad though. But i wasn't going to take a chance. The zoom had better reviews.
I'm glad that i did as the zoom gives you more flexibility as has been said already. I mainly use the lens for sport, and have not had it let me down. Its great even under poor floodlighting.
Like previous replies it is a lens i only use with a monopod, so beware its heavy.
 
I bought the Sigma 300 2.8, used it on my 40D for about 3 weeks but couldn't get a sharp shot at all. It's been back to Sigma for a period of 9 weeks to be calibrated to the camera and also had a new circuit board fitted. I've had it back about 6 weeks now and due to holidays haven't been able to do much with it until this week end. Here are a couple of shots taken with the 40D + 2x ext and one with it on the 50D + 2x ext. (Still experimenting with it on the 50D using the AF Microadjust). All three have been sharpened etc in Aperture and all taken in RAW.
Below are three shots taken this last few days, I also took a lot more yesterday but most weren't very good, due to the poor light and using the monopod instead of a tripod (which is an essential in my view for this lens), except for the ones I posted in the macro and close-up section of the Migrant Hawkers in flight.

Blue Tit at 3yards (40D+2x)
IMG_9314.jpg


Great Tit at 3 yards (40D+2x)
IMG_9330.jpg


Young Manderin at about 12 yards (50D+2x)
IMG_9612.jpg
 
whitey said:
Having owned a 120-300 I agree with this

only ever downside I found was the weight of the thing when using it handheld
Click to expand...

+1 although i will add that the AF is very fast.

it is a heavy old beast, while possible to hand hold it (without bragging i hand held it for a few hours at the weekend) it does get a bit of a pain for extended periods.
 
neil_g said:
+1 although i will add that the AF is very fast.

it is a heavy old beast, while possible to hand hold it (without bragging i hand held it for a few hours at the weekend) it does get a bit of a pain for extended periods.
Click to expand...


Try lugging its big brother about for a full day........:gag:
 
I use the 120-300 all the time and 90% of my shots are with te 1.4tc on the end. It is heavy but you get used to it and it can easily be handheld.

I was shooting Red Squirrels at the weekend at ISO 1600 with a shutter speed of 1/60 ( at 420mm ) from a beanbag and it would focus fine. Im really impressed with the lens for the money and just about every report i have says that it has better IQ than the prime. I love its flexability and i know i would have lost many shots without being able to go shorter than the 300mm.Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top