Sigma 120 - 400 mm lens

Doesn't seem to be a section on just lenses. John have you thought about adding one? I am going to add a 400 mm hand holdable lens soon. I used and then sold my Nikon 80 - 400 lens because of focusing issues, {slow, erratic}. I missed several image opportunities with that lens because of mentioned issues.

I am looking at two directions:
1. Sigma 120 - 400 mm HSM stabilized for my Nikon D300.
2. Sony 70 - 400 SSM {sensor stablized} for my Sony A350.

This lens will be used for nature in general, with a premimum on wildlife. Both would be used some on landscape too, where access is restricted and far off shots must be taken.

The Sony is not scheduled for release for another week or so. Does anyone have and use the Sigma 120 - 400 lens? Lab testing seems to give a very good recommendation. However I put more stock in others hands on experiences. Anyone?

I quickly checked our review section http://www.photographyreview.com/cat...ID=49754-49772 and it seems there aren't any Sony lens reviews at all, and only the Sigma 120-300 not the 120-400.

I used a Sigma 80-400 with my Canon and sent it back for just the same AF issues, and a drift on the IS when the lens was held very still.
So my only Sigma experience isn't good.

I heard that. I have seen many reviews that have pointed out several deficiences in one Sigma lens or another. Several reviews though seem to say that Sigma has improved a lot. Especiall with the 120 - 400 that has been rated almost distortion free throughout its zoom range, On the better side of caution though I want to hear from someone that actually has the lens. If I go with the sigma it will prolly be in a Nikon mount.

What I would prefer though is for the Sony 70 - 400 lens to be a good one. I now have a Zeiss 16 - 85 on my A350. The images it produces at ISO 100 are kickin. Couple weeks back my partner in business {not photography} and I were in Knoxville Tennessee. He owns a cabin in the North Carolina mountains which was only 45 minutes away. We decided we would spend the night in his cabin and take pictures the next day as the leaves were in full fall color. I took two cameras, my D300 and the A350. I showed him how to set the A350 to ISO 100 and aperture to 9. Mister, several of his images out performed the Nikon in producing an image that popped. Color was better, clarity was better, saturation was better. He is not a photographer, his wife takes most of their pictures. He liked the Sony, said it was easier to use than the Nikon.

Thus I really hope the Sony 70 - 400 is a winner. With just two lenses I can cover all my photography needs {at least for landscapes and general nature}. That would be awsome. Huummmnnn, guess I have talked myself into trying the Sony lens?

I have some experience with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on a Canon body. The build quality of the lens is exceptional and it is capable of producing tack sharp images of anything that doesn't move, unfortunately for me I took it to a motorsports event (my bad). The auto focus is so slow I'd say it's not usable for any type of sporting event, it might be great for a stalker or a bird photographer. I'm certain the focus problem is a lens issue because I've never experienced with any of my Canon lenses.

That's precisely why I sold my Nikon 80 - 400 lens. I accused that lens to be drunk several times when the slow focusing caused me to loose an image opportunity.

Hope the Sony proves to be a fast focus unit. The SSM designation gives me hope.

Ron, if you get the Sony lens, please let me know how you get on! I am extremely interested :) Thanks!

Mette

Dragonfly, I'm going on a Tuna fishing expexition next week. I think I will order the lens when I get back. The Sony G lens have a good reputation. I think that will swing my decision.

I will surely post thoughts on its use here after putting it to the test.