whats is everyones opinion on the sigma 120-300f2.8 i think it focus kinda of slow

Originally Posted by greenjk i think it focus kinda of slow

Well .... if you're shooting with it and you think it "focus kinda of slow" .... then that's the only opinion that matters, isn't it?!

I mean, what are you looking for here? A confirmation of your observation on your lens ? Not everyone will have the opportunity to shoot with your lens to either confirm your opinion or dispute it ....

Originally Posted by greenjk whats is everyones opinion on the sigma 120-300f2.8 i think it focus kinda of slow

I use this lens for soccer. I consistently get more keepers than I did using the canon 70-200 f/2.8 with TC. Look it isnt one of those canon long telephoto bad boys at f/2.8 but for the $$ your getting a nice telephoto range especially on a 1.6 cam. The AF on mine seems fast enough but from what I read this lens also has quite a learnig curve.... which seems to be where I still am..
I like the lens' colors / contrast

some recent random piccies.....










troy

Originally Posted by cecilc Well .... if you're shooting with it and you think it "focus kinda of slow" .... then that's the only opinion that matters, isn't it?! I mean, what are you looking for here? A confirmation of your observation on your lens ? Not everyone will have the opportunity to shoot with your lens to either confirm your opinion or dispute it ....

Do you have this lens? If you do...do you have an opinion? If you don't...why would you bother replying?

Looking good, Troy. Nice action shots!

Originally Posted by cecilc Well .... if you're shooting with it and you think it "focus kinda of slow" .... then that's the only opinion that matters, isn't it?! I mean, what are you looking for here? A confirmation of your observation on your lens ? Not everyone will have the opportunity to shoot with your lens to either confirm your opinion or dispute it ....

Well maybe he was looking for some feedback from other people that might have the lens. Maybe he thought, foolishly it might seem, that someone might offer some intelligent feedback to a legitimate question. Maybe he thought that by finding out if others don't have a problem then it might be a specific problem with the specific lens that he owns. Maybe he thought that by visiting a forum by the photographers, for the photographers, he might find some legitimate concern and dialogue for issues that we all face...

Then again... I could be wrong. ;)

Oh wait... I was wrong... someone did offer an intelligent reply after yours. Have a great day.

Originally Posted by Dramatapix® Well maybe he was looking for some feedback from other people that might have the lens. Maybe he thought, foolishly it might seem, that someone might offer some intelligent feedback to a legitimate question. Maybe he thought that by finding out if others don't have a problem then it might be a specific problem with the specific lens that he owns. Maybe he thought that by visiting a forum by the photographers, for the photographers, he might find some legitimate concern and dialogue for issues that we all face... Then again... I could be wrong. ;) Oh wait... I was wrong... someone did offer an intelligent reply after yours. Have a great day.

Whoa - are you calling "me" intelligent ?
that's crazy !!!


troy

I did shoot with this lens (I shot with a copy for close to 3 years) ... but I shot with my copy of this lens, not his ...

I never had a focus issue with mine - and I didn't think it was slow focusing.

That's just my experience with my Sigma 120-300 2.8 .... but if I ever had reason to think a lens of mine was slow to focus or had any other issues with a lens I had, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me how your lens worked. It would be enough to me that mine didn't .....

I wasn't trying to be smart or rude (and my apologies if I came across that way) .... but if the OP thinks his 120-300 "focus kinda of slow" would our opinions make him think differently ?

Originally Posted by windoze Whoa - are you calling "me" intelligent ? that's crazy !!! troy

Indeed!

Cecil~

Great feedback. I'm sure your input will help him make a consensus as to whether there may be a problem with his specific lens.

Brett

Originally Posted by Ric Grupe Do you have this lens? If you do...do you have an opinion? If you don't...why would you bother replying?

after i read his ridiculous reply i thought i was back on dpreview...thx for reminding me i wasn't

Lets comment on the lens and answer the poster's question instead of critiquing each other's response.

I think the question is this:

slow as compared to what? Do you have a similar lens that focuses faster?

I shoot with the lens and do not consider it slow to focus. I've only shot with a Canon 300 2.8 once so I can't really say, but from others I have talked to who have shot both, in their opinion the Canon 300 2.8 focuses faster in low light conditions.

I have a 70-200 2.8, 100-400L and my 120-300 sigma focuses just as fast as either (and obviously faster than the 100-400 in low light).

So, when you say it's slow, slow as compared to what?

Originally Posted by johng So, when you say it's slow, slow as compared to what?

That's a good point. Have you ever noticed that nobody appears to have a way to measure and rate focus speed? I wonder why that is.

I've never owned an off-brand lens. But I can say my Canon 24-70/2.8L focuses very fast. My Canon 70-200/2.8L focuses very fast. It slows down noticeably with the 1.4TC on it. The 300/2.8L I used to own focused extremely fast. It also slowed down noticably with the 1.4TC on it. My Canon 50/1.4 is terribly slow at focusing, and its even USM. And all those lenses focus faster on my 1-series than they do on my 20D.

I doubt the Sigma can focus as fast as the best Canon USM's can. But I would not be surprised if you found the Sigma 120-300/2.8 focuses faster than a Canon 70-200/2.8 with a TC on it. Plus its an extra stop faster in aperture to boot.

The million dollar question is, however, is the Sigma focusing fast enough for your needs? If not, the only zoom from Canon that overlaps this Sigma is the 100-400, but that's an f/5.6 lens. A 2.8 is so much more versatile.

This is a lens I have on my short list to buy. I too wish there was a way to quantify focusing speed. I use a Canon 70-200 2.8L now, and it is just to short for Football, and I can't put on a 1.4 because of the dismal lighting I have to work with. The Sigma is significantly cheaper then the Canon 300 2.8, and it should be more versatile being a zoom, but I am afraid to buy it since it seems to focus slowly.

I have 3 L lenses now, and love them all, so I am afraid the 300 2.8 will eventually find its way to me, but this lens has certainly peaked my interest.

Sorry I can't comment on actual lens usage, but I am certainly tagging along to see more comments.... (hopefully on the lens.)

I own a SIGMA APO 100-300mm F4 EX DG HSM.......shoot lots of sports (primarily soccer, football, baseball and volleyball) with it. I use to think it was a "slow focus" lens, until I used several other lens. I've got it mounted primarily to a Nikon D200 or a D70S and it will hold it's own with the other AF Nikon lens I own. My only complaint is that if anything, it tends to "hunt" a bit more then the Nikons. Not enough to make me keep it in my bag though....it's a great lenght for sports action.

Originally Posted by Poseidon The Sigma is significantly cheaper then the Canon 300 2.8, and it should be more versatile being a zoom, but I am afraid to buy it since it seems to focus slowly.

Again - where did this nonsense of the lens focusing slow come from? It is slower than the 300 2.8 that's true - but it's easily as fast as the 70-200 2.8.

Only you can decide if the extra focus speed of the Canon 300 is worth the extra $2000 but if you think the Sigma will be slower than the 70-200 I think your fears are misplaced.

I shoot a 300 f2.8 Canon L, and I have used my wife's Sigma 120-300 f2.8. There are a several differences I have become aware of.

The Sigma's focusing motor does seem to be slightly slower than the Canon's. The image color may be slightly warmer also. The lack of IS is immediately noticeable if your are going to shoot handheld. The image is just much more stable, less jitter, with IS.

Also, the Sigma's diameter of the objective lens ( the big one on the front) is smaller than the Canon's. At least a cm or so - that means the Sigma is not full 300mm focal length or is not f2.8. Since the ratio of the focal length/diameter of the Canon 300mm lens equals 2.8, the diameter of the front element is 10.7 cm on the Canon or very close when I measure it. The Sigma's is smaller, so I suspect the lens is really more like 280mm or so.

I do not like the lens hood on the Sigma either, it is too small and too hard to get mounted. It is too short to be effective at its maximum zoom.

Having said all that, I rather like the Sigma lens. It is relatively compact, black, and if used with a tripod a very useful lens in one's arsenal.

I suspect that the learning curve mentioned above, refers to the need to learn good telephoto lens skills with it, since it does not have IS or a good lens hood. The glass seems very adequate to me.

Originally Posted by pathfinder Also, the Sigma's diameter of the objective lens ( the big one on the front) is smaller than the Canon's. At least a cm or so - that means the Sigma is not full 300mm focal length or is not f2.8. Since the ratio of the focal length/diameter of the Canon 300mm lens equals 2.8, the diameter of the front element is 10.7 cm on the Canon or very close when I measure it. The Sigma's is smaller, so I suspect the lens is really more like 280mm or so.

Actually I've wondered about this as well - since you have access to both lenses, any chance you can do a quick test to see if the Sigma has a shorter reach or really isn't 2.8? I know you won't be able to tell whether it's 280mm but you should be able to tell if it's shorter than the Canon.