Sigma 300 f2.8

[cowleystjames]

[Ian]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

Looking forward to seeing some results from this

Which body will you be using it with?

I am lucky in that I have both an Olympus Zuiko Digital 150mm f/2.0 (300mm f/2.0 on full frame terms) and a Zuiko Digital 300mm f/2.8 (600mm f/2. in the cupboard (both part of our www.e-group.uk.net/hire camera and lens rental service - I really should use them more often!

Ian

[cowleystjames]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

I'll mainly be using it on the D800e, absolutely love that camera. But could also use it on the D7100, sad to say but since buying the D800e, I've hardly took the D7100 out of the bag!
I was a bit concerned in not having image stabilisation, but always managed years ago when it didn't exist, and having such a large aperture means I can use a faster speed or a tripod!

[Patrick]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

I'll mainly be using it on the D800e, absolutely love that camera. But could also use it on the D7100, sad to say but since buying the D800e, I've hardly took the D7100 out of the bag!
I was a bit concerned in not having image stabilisation, but always managed years ago when it didn't exist, and having such a large aperture means I can use a faster speed or a tripod!

It may have been worth looking at the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, that does have stabilisation and it gives really crisp results. I used one with my Canon before changing to Lumix. The great problem for me was weight it is very heavy.

Patrick

[cowleystjames]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

Yes I did consider that but I already have the nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrII just wanted a bit of extra reach and a prime telephoto. Also ordered the sigma 2x teleconverter to give me 600 f5.6 which is pretty handy too.

[Patrick]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

Yes I did consider that but I already have the nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrII just wanted a bit of extra reach and a prime telephoto. Also ordered the sigma 2x teleconverter to give me 600 f5.6 which is pretty handy too.

I would like to know how well you get on with the 2x converter, I had one but I did find a quality loss. The 1x4 gave excellent results with no noticeable quality loss.
Patrick

[cowleystjames]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

It was a concern of mine too. Only one way to find out!

[Patrick]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

It was a concern of mine too. Only one way to find out!

It's possible the 2x will give better results on a prime lens, I used mine on the 120-300, its true to say it wasn't bad, but without the results were that bit crisper.

Patrick

[cowleystjames]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

Should be here in a couple of days Patrick, I'll keep you informed.
I did find an interesting report concerning tele converters from the university of Oxford and light transmission. After pages of ramblings, which I couldn't possibly understand! The report concluded along the lines of tele converters perform best with fixed focal length lenses. If I can find the report on the OU intranet I'll post it up.

[Ian]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

Teleconverters are optical compromises and the more powerful they are the more of a compromise they will be optically. I have yet to see a 1.4x converter work worse than a 2x. And yes as a rule of thumb converters do work better with prime lenses because the quality of the image from the prime is usually better so the compromising effect on the image from the converter is not so great. Primes are also usually faster (brighter) lenses so there is less of an issue with not working at the lens' optimal aperture setting.

Ian

[David M]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

If the lens and converters are high enough quality you can stack a 2X behind a 1.4x.

Does anyone know if the Sigma is a true 300mm f/2.8 or did they fake it like the original 120-300 f/2.8?

[Ian]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

If the lens and converters are high enough quality you can stack a 2X behind a 1.4x.

Does anyone know if the Sigma is a true 300mm f/2.8 or did they fake it like the original 120-300 f/2.8?

Haha! You might have got away with that in the days of film!

Ian

[David M]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

You can still get away with it on digital as long as you've got a tripod and head capable of supporting a 1000mm. I just don't need that sort of focal length much these days.

[Ian]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

My point was that you will pixel-peep and be horrified at the rubbish image quality, even though the image might well make a passable small or medium sized print

Ian

[David M]

Re: Sigma 300 f2.8

I don't pixel peep and never had complaints from editors when publishers were prepared to pay for photos.