My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach.
I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one.
If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...
Ideally i'd buy it to complement my 70-200 as the 120-300 remains really cheaper than the Canon 300mm and i often need an extra reach that a 300mm (or 420 with 1.4x) would bring me.
Anyone ? Have you ever heard any kind of complaints like this ?
Does anyone could compare the reach of the 120-300 to the 300L ?
This is addressed in the review:" The also-phenomenal Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II Lens' image quality is seriously challenged by the Sigma 120-300 S. The Sigma costs more in this case, but the 70-200 needs an extender to get out close to 300mm. And it becomes an f/4 lens in that case.
You also may think "280mm is not 300mm". This would be a good time to mention that specified focal lengths are not always exact - especially on zoom lenses. The Canon 300 f/2.8 IS II frames a just-under 4' wide target at 33.19' while the Sigma 120-300 OS S must be moved 2.24' closer (to 30.95') for the same target framing. The Canon 70-200 IS II frames the same target at 29.75' at 280mm (w/ 1.4x) - just 1.2' closer than the Sigma. Basically, the difference between the focal length of these lenses is not very significant. "
So, at 300mm on the Sigma you would need to stand 2 feet closer to a 4 foot wide subject to frame it the same as the Canon 300.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 01:02:58 PM by bchernicoff »
6D, Fuji X-T1, X-E1
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/2.8L II, 100mm L IS Macro, Sigma 85mm, & 35mm f/1.4's, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8,
Fuji 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2, 14mm 2.8, 18-55, 55-200