Sigma 300mm f4

[PWhite214]

I recently bought a Sigma 300MM f4 Prime.


DSC00681 by PWhite214, on Flickr


DSC00684 by PWhite214, on Flickr

It seems very well built, sharp, and fun to use.


08-July-2011 C1 Hall Park10236-1 by PWhite214, on Flickr


08-July-2011 C1 Hall Park10236-1-2 by PWhite214, on Flickr

I will admit that Anbesol prompted me to post this by mentioning that the Minolta 300f4 is a consideration for his next lens. I had just bought this lens a few days earlier.

I will, hopefully, be posting more in the Photography Forums as I use this lens.

Phil

[Anbesol]

Thanks for showing this Phil, I haven't seen you around for a while! That lens is huge! Good to see you again, don't be a stranger here now lol! I went to your flickr, looks like you've been having plenty of fun with that lens.

I think the 200mm f/2.8 is sounding more appealing to me at this point than a 300mm f/4. I could get a 1.4x teleconverter and have a 280mm f/4, pretty much the same range, and the pair would end up still being cheaper, plus I keep the AF speedier, with the f/2.8 crosshair, in a lighter and smaller lens.

The alternative options I'm really considering now are the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and the Minolta 80-200 f/2.8. But, the fixed 200mm is lighter, smaller, and perhaps most important
of all sharper than either of those. So the question is, do I want the (most) perfect, top quality, or really high quality with convenience and practicality. However, lighter and smaller is also a form of 'convenience and practicality'.

Im eliminating the Tokina 80-200mm from the short list, just not up to par on quality.

[Anbesol]

Certainly a good camera manufacturer.

Welcome to the forums, whats up with the link to "web hosting"? That isn't photography related, seems out of place, like maybe you are trying to fill your hotlink onto those, what are they called, the search engine crawlers or whatever. So, what is the purpose of the signature? Would you mind removing it as it bares absolutely no relevance to photography. Thanks!