Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13200"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13200">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Delay of the first “sport” product


</strong>Sigma has delayed the release of the new 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM lens. This lens was to be the first in their “sport” line of lenses. Along with the lens, the USB dock they announced with it has also been delayed.</p>
<p>Sigma suggests that the delay is due to sourcing parts for the new lens. It was originally scheduled for a March release, but now a release date is undetermined.</p>
<p>Sigma has been riding a wave of great publicity because of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">35mm f/1.4</a>, so this is a disappointment.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[lol]

I'm not sure this is much of a disappointment, since as far as I understand the optical design is unchanged from the existing model. And we can be sure the new one will be significantly more expensive. Of course we have to wait and see if this is how it plays out.

I'm more annoyed the street price dropped some 20% since I bought the current version, but have no regrets as it is a good leans already.

 

[kubelik]

yeah this one was disappointing from the moment it was announced, given that it is pretty much a rehash of a previous lens. it's about as exciting as the new 18-55 kit lens from Canon or the t5i, in that it's already an existing product available on the market.

 

[Rat]

Well, if they get AF right for a change, it could be a winner regardless of optical improvements.

 

[brianwallace21]

I'm not sure this is much of a disappointment, since as far as I understand the optical design is unchanged from the existing model. And we can be sure the new one will be significantly more expensive. Of course we have to wait and see if this is how it plays out.

I'm more annoyed the street price dropped some 20% since I bought the current version, but have no regrets as it is a good leans already.

Where did you read that it was the same optical formula? I'm not doubting you - I just hadn't read that and was curious.

 

[kubelik]

I'm not sure this is much of a disappointment, since as far as I understand the optical design is unchanged from the existing model. And we can be sure the new one will be significantly more expensive. Of course we have to wait and see if this is how it plays out.

I'm more annoyed the street price dropped some 20% since I bought the current version, but have no regrets as it is a good leans already.

Where did you read that it was the same optical formula? I'm not doubting you - I just hadn't read that and was curious.

if you compare the lens diagram that sigma posted for the new one, and the lens diagram they posted for the old one, it's the exact same diagram.

 

[Albi86]

I'm not sure this is much of a disappointment, since as far as I understand the optical design is unchanged from the existing model. And we can be sure the new one will be significantly more expensive. Of course we have to wait and see if this is how it plays out.

I'm more annoyed the street price dropped some 20% since I bought the current version, but have no regrets as it is a good leans already.

Where did you read that it was the same optical formula? I'm not doubting you - I just hadn't read that and was curious.

The optical formula is pretty much the same, and this is not a bad thing. Read the opinions of whoever has it, they will tell you it's prime-like.

What they did is using their new composite material for the housing (same as the 35mm), adding support for the USB dock and few customizable quirks via software like focus limiters etc.

 

[ddashti]

Certainly the range on this lens (with the constant aperture) will be the main factor that will attract photographers not really into Sigma products. Sigma is raising the bar with its recent products.

 

[9VIII]

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=135

First of all we are in the middle of reorganization of our line-up of products as all lenses are going to be sold in new casings. Sooner or later the Sigma 120-300 mm would have to be remodelled as well. Its optical construction is so perfect that we currently cannot noticeably improve it. We decided to leave it unchanged and present it in a new, better casing with switches that allow you to use new possibilities of the Sigma Optimalization Pro software as soon as possible.

I would have loved it they could have just sharpened the 300mm end a bit more. It was so close to being the ultimate 300mmf2.8 for crop sensors (blurry on the corners, super sharp in the middle, and at half the price).

 

[wickidwombat]

what about people reporting that its not really 300mm on the long end so not providing much benefit over the 70-200 from canon anyway?

I've been interested in this lens but unsure

 

[brad-man]

It'd be kind of funny if Sigma came out with a 200-400 f/4 OS...

 

[lol]

what about people reporting that its not really 300mm on the long end so not providing much benefit over the 70-200 from canon anyway?

It is an industry standard practice to round the values. Canon do it too.

In theory, the front aperture should be 300/2.8=107mm in size. I just put a tape measure across the unobstructed front element of mine. It's near enough 100mm diameter. Therefore either the focal length is a bit less, and/or the focal ratio is a bit slower. It could be either 300mm f/3, or 280mm f/2.8, or somewhere in between. Regardless, it's still a truck load more than 200mm f/2.8.

 

[AJ]

what about people reporting that its not really 300mm on the long end so not providing much benefit over the 70-200 from canon anyway?

It is an industry standard practice to round the values. Canon do it too.

In theory, the front aperture should be 300/2.8=107mm in size. I just put a tape measure across the unobstructed front element of mine. It's near enough 100mm diameter. Therefore either the focal length is a bit less, and/or the focal ratio is a bit slower. It could be either 300mm f/3, or 280mm f/2.8, or somewhere in between. Regardless, it's still a truck load more than 200mm f/2.8.

Indeed.

What's more, the maximum focal length is probably a function of focusing distance. For example (I'm just inventing numbers here, don't quote me on this) the lens could be 280 mm at infinity, 240 mm at headshot distance, and less than 200 mm at closest focusing distance.

Edit to add: a quick bit of googling suggests 296 mm maximum (Amateur Photographer mag. review), dropping off pretty quickly to 260 mm when shooting test targets.

 

[lol]

What I nickname as "focal length shrinkage" at close focus isn't exactly unknown either. The 70-300L does that quite strongly too.

 

[Albi86]

What I nickname as "focal length shrinkage" at close focus isn't exactly unknown either. The 70-300L does that quite strongly too.

It's called focus breathing

And it may happen that objects get larger too

 

[CarlTN]

Some sources say the optical formula of the new Sigma includes two new fluorite elements, others claim the old version also had two fluorite elements. I guess I have no idea now. If the optical formula is the same, then I say buy the old lens instead. I'm not sure the old 2011 lens is worth having, for me...but I am not ready to spend that much on a telephoto yet anyway. For me, the choice is between buying something like this Sigma, or else a used 200 f/2 Canon (and use TC's). I would really rather have the Canon, but I also like the convenience of zooms...a lot. I certainly wouldn't buy the new 200-400 f/4 Canon, even if I could afford it. I would feel like a fool for spending that much on a lens...even if I was making money with it. How many of us are making $10,000 every 3 or 4 months, just from shooting through a supertelephoto? If you are, I'm quite envious!

 

[Albi86]

Seems like it will start shipping on May 15.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909811-REG/Sigma_137306_120_300mm_f_2_8_DG_OS.html

 

[The Bad Duck]

I actually bought the old (current) version of this lens. It´s great!
I cant compare it to the Canon 300/2.8 as I have never used that lens but for the price it is absolutely great.

It´s well built, it is SHARP and it focuses well; although I have only tried it on tractors so far and they are not the fastest moving subjects (15 km/h heading straight for the camera). If focus misses it does hunt for a little while. I can see the use of a focus limiter but the extra premium to pay for that feature is not at all worth it to me.

I took some shots of fertilizing crops with artificial fertilizer with my mkIII and the lens @ 300 /2.8. When zoomed into 200% every grain of fertilizer is visible. It´s silly how sharp it is.
Then the "negative" side is that it has some pretty heavy vinjetting so the corners are pretty dark but there is no way I could afford the canon 300 /2.8 L IS anyway.
I´m most pleased. One thing that made the whole thing even sweeter was that I could haggle for the lens + 5d mkIII kombo, lowering the prize with about 15%, agruing that the lens is an old design that they soon could not sell.

If you want i can try to remember to post the photo later this evening.

Oh and one last thing, a lens this expensive is supposed to earn me money over a perriod of say ten years. In other cases a purchase would be hard to justify.

 

[CarlTN]

Mr. Bad Duck, I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh or not. Pics of fertilizer? Hahah, ok. Tractors? That would be more interesting. Post some shots of tractors. Are you making money by selling prints of tractors? Sounds like fun!

I do like all types of machinery, but especially sports cars. My brother owns some tractors and dozers. I admit there is a lot of genuine peace, when you're out on a tractor...I'm usually mowing. I also like the "box scrape" attachment...a lot! But If I have to use one to carry logs or something, that is a bit more hectic and less peaceful. I guess it's not as bad as shooting at your cousin with a crossbow, over the ownership of sunken logs...down in the swampland!

Don't you think the person you haggled with, might read this post of how much you love the lens, and be angry that you're bragging how you got him to come down on the price? You know, because it's an "old lens" and nobody will want it? Hahaha...

 

[CarlTN]

This is good news that the new lens will be released in a month or so. However, it does bother me if it is not a new optical formula. Again, I thought the old lens didn't have fluorite elements, but one chart I saw somewhere (I think in a recent issue of a photo magazine where they were comparing telephoto lenses)...did say the 2011 lens had 2 fluorite elements...

So...does anybody know if the new, 2013 lens, actually is a new optical formula or not? I guess it's possible it could still be a new formula, and yet still have the same number of fluorite elements (and not all fluorite is created equal). Or it's possible that chart I saw, was in error...and the 2011 lens doesn't have any fluorite...I just don't know.

And it's possible that the white lens fanboys will kick dirt on this new lens, no matter how good or bad it is...so I guess if we buy one, we should just paint it white. I admit the reason for the white color (to bring the lens to ambient air temperature) makes a lot of sense. I don't like working in extreme heat at all.