I've been looking at the above lens and I'm quite liking what I read about it.
Does anyone here have any personal experience of it, or personally know someone that has experience of it?
It would be nice to get some specific questions answered about it.

Mark

I don't have experience with that lens, but Sigma in general seem very well built, weigh a ton, and have pretty nippy focussing.

I have a pair of Sigma lenses for my Canon, and I'm pretty happy with them.

This is likely to be one of those far in the future purchases, even after my far in the future macro lens purchase, so I'm certainly in no rush for it.
It would mean that I'd have the full range covered from 14mm up to 300mm.

Mark

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =37&page=1

This is a good place for reviews. They seem to like this lens on the whole.

Just read all those reviews and the overriding gripe about the lens is it's weight.
I'm not sure what they were expecting from a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom.
I think I'm now totally smitten by this lens and it's firmly on my wishlist.

Mark

My mate has one and I've used it. Being F2.8 I loved it. It has a nice feel and balance (attached to a 40D + grip) and is not too heavy. It's the weapon of choice for aviation photographers that find F2.8 primes a tad limiting.

Al

Brilliant, Al.
Can I just ask what the images are like at 300mm and f2.8? Some commentators have found them a little soft. What's your experience?
Also, was the one you tried an EX DG HSM, as I believe the finish and the tripod mount were of better quality and design than the earlier models.

Mark

My experience with the 28-300mm is it is soft at the extreme zoom. Bear in mind my lens is ƒ/5.6 at that extreme.

I find I need to do a fair bit of post processing to pull everything back.

Well Mark, if you want me to compare it to the Canon 300mm F2.8 prime that I was using the other day, then I would have to say the images are a little soft Having said that when compared to my 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L glass stopped open and at 400mm then I would say the images are super sharp - and the 100-400 has a good rep amongst the photog community.

I've used it in both good light and bad, well grey, and have even used it at sunset. I was more than happy with the results and shall dig some out when I get home. There's no point posting images saved for the web but have a look HERE at any pics from Scotland in May. All those were taken with the lens by the owner. It's the new version of course which has been improved significantly. Have a look at the second hand market as well - there are a few out there but possibly not in your fit. If I had the money (but not quite enough for the 300 F2.8) then this lens would be my choice (and you know how I feel about the Sigma brand after my 2 lenses got stripped gears by my A100). I've not heard a bad word said about it.

Al

PS - Heather, sorry missus but you can't compare your 28-300 F5.6 with the Sigma, just as I can't really compare my 100-400

I know, but I like to stick my oar in.

The more information you can get the better decisions you can make, I always say.

Well of course. I'd expect nothing less.
All comparisons to Nikon and Canon primes that I've read indicate that the camera manufacturers produce better lenses but then, you're also paying about twice as much for their lenses too. So at this price point I think the Sigma lens will do what I want of it perfectly.
I really don't think there's any need to go routing around for images taken with the Sigma, Al. Like I say, I'm pretty much happy with what I've read on it.

Mark

So, what you going to use the lens for Mark? Anything specific? It's just that big spec zoom lenses are normally the domain of sports, bird or aviation photogs - whilst the rest of the world yearns after primes!

Al

I don't think so. Sometimes I feel a little limited by a max. 120mm (which is the longest lens I have).
Taking shots nearer to the horizon or just getting closer to objects that I can't actually get physically closer to has a huge appeal to me, as I'm sure you can understand.
So no, nothing specific as such, more a general usage for it, which is no bad thing given it's cost. I've got to get my money's worth from it.

Mark

300mm on Full Frame (which Mark uses) isn't all that long really; it's very handy for picking out details in landscape shots, but for wildlife photography it's not much use unless the subject is pretty close or pretty big!

Isn't that what I just said? (8+)
Wildlife stuff doesn't really interest me that much, though I was out last night (with Colin - for the benefit of Nick) and I took some really good shots of a couple of geese and other birds.

Mark