So only a few people will care about this post (Kara, Jesse, Donny, Mark, Chris and Jim most likely). Returning the 120-300 2.8 today (sniff sniff) and Ive had some time to think about it. This is not the typical sigma lens, it is built much better. Smooth construction outside, zoom and focus are fluid, tripod collar is much more substantial. If this is indicative of the future of the new lenses from them (and I believe it is since the 50 1.4 art and 18-35 1.8 are built to the same standard) then the gap between third and first party lenses is much smaller. It was surprisingly light for a zoom, didnt find it bulkier than a Nikon 300 2.8, maybe a tad heavier. Def the same size. Focus was quick (the sigma lens dock would allow for fine tuning). There were a couple things I didnt like about it. The zoom and focus rings were swapped and were backwards (muscle memory issues that will be overcome). The tripod collar didnt rotate as smooth as I would have expected. My 70-200 used a friction reducing ring in the collar and barrel, plus it was designed to attach like a pair if handcuffs. The 120-300 attaches by rotating to a certain point and removing from the back (so you have to disconnect the camera from the lens). Optically I found it to be great (just needed a micro adjustment in the field, but just about every lens does). It really shined when I put my 1.4 tc on it. 180-450 4 is a great range. I plan on buying this before next season, the versatility is too great (120-300 2.8 when at Turpin where the lighting sucks but I can get closer, 180-450 4 when were playing larger schools that enforce sideline rules but have much better lighting.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:16:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015