I've been pretty dedicated to buying only Canon lenses for my Canon bodies. But I recently took notice of the new 120-300 f/2.8 HSM from Sigma. There was a review in Shutterbug and the writer compared it to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L. He said it's not quite as sharp, but it's a zoom so it's more flexible. The fact that he even referred to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L is a big deal as that's arguably one of the best lenses ever made. And I could give up a little sharpness - I have the Canon 300mm f/4L right now - to have that zoom range in a 2.8 lens. Seems like a great compromise to me. I think I'd use it a lot more than the 300mm f/4L, too.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM: http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Sigma,120-300mm,f-2.8,EX,APO,HSM/PRD_171782_3128crx.aspx

What do you guys think? This would be mostly for mountain bike photography, of course. Might get it out to the track for some motorcycle roadracing this summer, too.

I've been pretty dedicated to buying only Canon lenses for my Canon bodies. But I recently took notice of the new 120-300 f/2.8 HSM from Sigma. There was a review in Shutterbug and the writer compared it to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L. He said it's not quite as sharp, but it's a zoom so it's more flexible. The fact that he even referred to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L is a big deal as that's arguably one of the best lenses ever made. And I could give up a little sharpness - I have the Canon 300mm f/4L right now - to have that zoom range in a 2.8 lens. Seems like a great compromise to me. I think I'd use it a lot more than the 300mm f/4L, too.


I think you're right. You might be losing a bit of sharpnes. A bit so tiny that you won't really even notice. And I think you would really be using it more. Actually quite a lot. I have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM, and I find myself using it actually too much. I'd say the 120-300 would be the ideal telephoto for bike shots. 120mm (or a 135mm, I thought about getting a 135/2.8 some time ago..) is a good medium telephoto for bike shots, at 200mm you get even better background blur and a tight crop. 300mm adds yet more reach for those locations where you don't get near enough or you just want to get in closer.

Of course with digital it's sort of even longer.. Sorry, I'm still thinking analog.

I wouldn't worry about quality. The EX series lenses seem to be rugged and good quality stuff. The HSM is not as fast as USM, as far as I can tell, but it's quite fast and silent.

It won't be as sharp as the 300/4, which I've heard is even sharper than the 2.8 by some accounts...

plain and simply....

i read posts on sport photog sites(were everyone owns a 300f2.8 or 400f2.8 AND a 500/600f4........)


3 guys raved about it's quality OVER ALOT OF GREAT LENSES when factoring in focal length, speed,weight, zoom range .....

1 guy sold his 300f2.8AFS(not AFSII),because he never used it anymore!

but these guys were mag cover size image shooters

if i find the site/sites again i'll email them to you.... but don't hold your breath

yes john it's alleged to ROCK

I am pretty much the same way as you John, but with the far superior Nikon lens...;-)
Anyway..

But I have been thinking about a particular lens from Sigma, their fisheye one to be exact.

I think I will always prefer the branded lens, but I know there are some equally good off brand lens out there.

Sounds like a great lens. I say go for it!

Brian