View Full Version : Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX DG HSM

13-06-2007, 8:14am
I was just procrastinating instead of studying (as per usual) trying to find something that will give me a definite decision for lenses in the future. Whilst looking I came across this lens. Ive been reading as per usual mixed reviews. The cheapest Ive seen it advertised in Australia is just under $3000.

Now I am not usually interested in 3rd party lenses but this one looks pretty ok. Coming in approx $600 more than the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS and well below the 300mm 2.8 IS. It does give a decent option.

Does anyone have any thoughts to this lens. And before it begins I would prefer not to have a Home vs 3rd party arguements.


Craig Miller
13-06-2007, 9:30am
From what I've read it sounds like a nice lens..


Sample Images:


13-06-2007, 10:48am
if sports is your thing, then i would get the sigma.

Otherwise, if you think the IS would help you, then go for the 70-200.

13-06-2007, 3:10pm
One of member recently got themselves one of these 'beasts'.. just can't remember who?

He does regular sports shooting (maybe it's TroyC :confused: .. but I can't be sure)

It is a great lens apparently? Sample images I've seen in various places indicate it's worth the $. But only if you need the f/2.8 speed.

Otherwise an f/4 version would be better?? Well... the 100-300f/4 kind of version :p

The reason for the lower price on the sigma is most apparent at the 300mm end, and especially if you want/need to shoot at very fast apertures I suppose.

(Of course I only speak Nikon :p)... but if I wanted a fast 300mm with AF etc.. I'd be looking at a secondhand Nikon version as my first priority!
As it stands I'm currently evaluating whether 300mm and f/2.8 is something I think I need or want, with my MF Tamron....... Geeeeeezzzz it's big! :D

Troy C
13-06-2007, 6:09pm
Yes it is I who has recently purchased a Sigma 120-300 F2.8
got it for $3510.00 here in the west, so If you can get for under 3 you are doing well
(just along as it is not a grey import)

Big and heavy, (some of us like it BIG)
Great pics at 300mm as you would expect
I have only had it a month and had some great shots with it,
BUT it is too long for some stuff I do so I have gone back to the 200 alot
It is too big to hand hold for any period of time
It has a very large filter, that is hard to come by and is around $250

I love it and it was an important purchase for me
But I can now see why the 200 f2.8 is the lens to have.

Any questions?

13-06-2007, 6:27pm
the review doesn't seem to sound too great, but some of the pictures on that forum seem to be ok of the bigger objects, others are are bit blurred, mainly the wildlife. Is bit hard to judge. I personally haven't tried one for myself yet. but definitely looks interesting.

we also sell those under $3000 incl. 3 Year International Warranty

13-09-2010, 6:13pm
Hi All,

Could you please update us on what you think of the lens , now you had some time with it and a link to any images ?
Cheers Neil

14-09-2010, 5:17pm
I've hired this lens a couple of times from Brisbane camera hire, and like Troy said, it's pretty big and heavy, but I also don't mind this, having the zoom ring at the front is nice, especially when hand holding, as these shots were, focusing is probably a bit slower than it's little brother (70-200), so I found I was getting a few OOF shots now and then when shooting fast moving subjects.
I think that the IQ is pretty good, and would probably only get better after getting used to it, and getting used to using a monopod would probably also help.
I think if that you need the flexibility of 2.8 and a zoom, and you don't have the budget for the name brand prime versions, than this would be the lens to get, me personally, I'll probably go for the 100-300 f4, I just wish that someone had one to hire.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/4989482178_08e4b5235d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/4989482178/)
seagulls v bilambil u13's 149 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/4989482178/) by dulvariprestige (http://www.flickr.com/people/dulvariprestige/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/4988804229_32d4ce2641_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/4988804229/)
seagulls last game 297 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/4988804229/) by dulvariprestige (http://www.flickr.com/people/dulvariprestige/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/4988804235_b275300c1a_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/4988804235/)
seagulls u9's last game 043 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvariprestige/4988804235/) by dulvariprestige (http://www.flickr.com/people/dulvariprestige/), on Flickr

14-09-2010, 5:37pm
Nice shots

I had the 120-300 for a couple of years, really good lens for the price

The nikon 300 prime is better wide open, and slightly faster af but twice the price and not azoom ( though most of the time you are at 300 anyhow)