Sigma DG and Sigma NON-DG - Please Help!

Ladybugie

Hello,

Im new here, this is my first post and I already have a doubt for you guys...

I have 3 L lenses and 2 Sigma EX DG lenses, now I have the opportunity of getting a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM NON-DG, for a reasonable price, but I dont know if this is worth it, cos its not the DG version. Its not a "used" lens, its a demo from a store, so it's not really used. The price is good, but I dont know if I should go for it.

Please, share your thoughts with me. :thumb

Thanks!

Ladybugie

May I add, Canon lenses are totally out of budget right now... even used ones. And I need the f/2.8, cos I use it for sports.

Do you guys have a preference when it comes to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 prime? I will also use it with a 1.4x extender, so I thought the prime would be a better option, but I wanna know your opinion.

Thanks!

ziggy53

Ladybugie wrote:

Hello,

Im new here, this is my first post and I already have a doubt for you guys...

I have 3 L lenses and 2 Sigma EX DG lenses, now I have the opportunity of getting a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM NON-DG, for a reasonable price, but I dont know if this is worth it, cos its not the DG version. Its not a "used" lens, its a demo from a store, so it's not really used. The price is good, but I dont know if I should go for it.

Please, share your thoughts with me.

Thanks!

Hi Ladybugie, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The DG coating is designed to reduce reflections from the rear element of the lens against the imager. The actual level of improvement people observe ranges from nothing visible to barely detectable. I have not heard anyone say, "Oh wow, that DG coating really makes a difference."

If that's a lens you need and if the price is right I suggest it's going to work great as long as it's the EX APO HSM version.

Ladybugie

Hey ziggy53, thanks much for your answer.

And do you happen to know which one would be the best option between the Sigma 120-300mm and the Sigma 300mm?

I already have a 70-200 2.8 IS, but another zoom is always useful. Now, if the image quality is way better on the prime Id go with the prime and let go of the zoom option of the 120-300. What is making me really think about getting the prime is the addition of the 1.4x that I will have to use (many times) with the 300mm. I dont know, Im very undecided yet... what you think?

Thanks again!

ziggy53

Ladybugie wrote:

...

And do you happen to know which one would be the best option between the Sigma 120-300mm and the Sigma 300mm?

... What is making me really think about getting the prime is the addition of the 1.4x that I will have to use (many times) with the 300mm. ...

When you mention that you will "many times" use the 1.4x teleconverter, I think you would ultimately like the prime 300mm better. If you need the best quality "and" reach, I don't think a zoom plus converter is "ever" the way to go (but I use both the EF 70-200mm f4L and f2.8L with a 1.4x converter for the "convenience", understanding that I give up some visible quality.)

Ladybugie

Yes, I agree with you. Thanks again

If any one else wants to give their two cents regarding the DG x NON-DG and the 120-300 f/2.8 x the 300mm f/2.8 it will be much appreciated.

Art Scott

aS A DYED IN THE wOOLY SIGGY uSER

ziggy53 wrote:

Hi Ladybugie, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The DG coating is designed to reduce reflections from the rear element of the lens against the imager. The actual level of improvement people observe ranges from nothing visible to barely detectable. I have not heard anyone say, "Oh wow, that DG coating really makes a difference."

If that's a lens you need and if the price is right I suggest it's going to work great as long as it's the EX APO HSM version.

i have to agree here...as I shoot both a EX DG and a APO non-dg version of Siggy glass and aside from one being a 24-70 and the other being a 70-210 I cannot tell the difference in quality of photos....
BOTH ARE FANTASTICALLY EXCELLENT!!!!!

I personally do not think YOU could go wrong here.

Ladybugie

Art Scott wrote:

i have to agree here...as I shoot both a EX DG and a APO non-dg version of Siggy glass and aside from one being a 24-70 and the other being a 70-210 I cannot tell the difference in quality of photos....
BOTH ARE FANTASTICALLY EXCELLENT!!!!!

I personally do not think YOU could go wrong here.

Great then, Art Scott. Good to know that. Thanks!

jonh68

I have the 120-300 2.8 and I absolutely love it. I shoot sports and wildlife. I use a 2X extender with my lens and I am not disappointed with the sharpness. When it's set to around 7.1 to 9.0, the sharpness is great considering it's with an extender. On a bright sunny day, if I put in P mode, the camera usually puts itself in the sweet zone. After using this lens for a month, I don't think I would get a 300 2.8 over this lens.

The reason I like the 120-300 range is for sports. For baseball, if I am behind home plate, I can get action in the infield at 300 mm. If there is a possible play at the plate, I can pull back and get the shot. With a prime, no chance. I shot a Dixie Youth World Series from center field using the extender so I could get at bats shooting like I was on the field. On plays at second, I could pull it back and get the slides into second.

The only negative so far is it seems to need a breaking in period and heat affects the AF. When I first put the lens on, it would not focus and I had to help it. After a while, it loosened up and it focuses as fast as anything out there. Heat seems to affect it, but it is extreme cases. I shot a jet ski race and the black coating just absorbed the heat. It was 95 degrees on the beach and sunny, the lens got hot. After it cooled, it worked fine.

The lens is also great for portraits as it just melts away the background at 300 and 2.8.

Also, I would recommend against the 1.4 right now and get the 2X. I bought both a 2X and the 1.4, and the 1.4 has a design flaw, at least the one I had. It is in two pieces put together by screws. With the weight of the lens, it seemed to put too much weight on the extender and it would unseat it self. There was just too much play. I tried screwing it in tighter, but that didn't work. I sent it back to get a replacement, but the 1.4 extenders are back ordered. I am anxious to see if it was just a bad individual part or something inherent in the design. The 2X seems MUCH more stable.

Here's a shot with the 2X on:







And nephew and niece without:

Tee Why

Here is a comparison between the sigma 120-300 and the 300.


http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4186/telephoto-shootout-sigma-vs-sigma.html

jonh68

After reading that review and some others, I have to correct the notion there isn't a focus limiter on the 120-300. I found it by accident. The end of the lens unscrews by twisting the lens hood. This affects the focus length. I thought I had a defective lens because it wouldn't focus on far away objects. The limit was about 300ft. After some playing around, I noticed how loose the the end was. After screwing it as tight as it would go, instant long distance focusing. This isn't in the instructional manual. I do think the instructional manual, more like a fold put map, is not that helpful.

Ladybugie

Hey Guys!
Tee Why, I read the comparison, thank you.

John, beautiful pictures. And what a cute baby! The 120-300 is indeed an amazing glass.

I really like the versatility of the 120-300, but since I work shooting mainly soccer, its very important to have fast AF and the best image quality possible. When I add the 1.4x teleconverter, I have to use a higher ISO, cause the light isn't always the best and the games are mostly at night. And we know that zoom + teleconverter + high ISO is not the best combo. Too many glass and too little light.

So, I concluded the best option, would be really the 300mm prime. Plus, I have the 70-200 IS.

Your help was very much appreciated. I already feel welcome here.

jonh68

I really like the versatility of the 120-300, but since I work shooting mainly soccer, its very important to have fast AF and the best image quality possible. When I add the 1.4x teleconverter, I have to use a higher ISO, cause the light isn't always the best and the games are mostly at night. And we know that zoom + teleconverter + high ISO is not the best combo. Too many glass and too little light.

If you are using a 1.4 extender at night, the problems are going to be the same for both the zoom and prime. I am not saying that to dissuade you one way or the other, but your expectations that the prime is going to be that much better at night using a teleconverter is unrealistic. Unless I was using a D700 or D3, I wouldn't use a converter at night. With a 2.8, at ISO1600, getting 1/250-300 shutter speed is hard enough. Using a converter, you are going to have to crank up the ISO to 3200 or 6400. At that ISO, there isn't going to be a difference.

Ladybugie

jonh68 wrote:

If you are using a 1.4 extender at night, the problems are going to be the same for both the zoom and prime. I am not saying that to dissuade you one way or the other, but your expectations that the prime is going to be that much better at night using a teleconverter is unrealistic. Unless I was using a D700 or D3, I wouldn't use a converter at night. With a 2.8, at ISO1600, getting 1/250-300 shutter speed is hard enough. Using a converter, you are going to have to crank up the ISO to 3200 or 6400. At that ISO, there isn't going to be a difference.

Yea, I understand. I get 400 with 2.8 ISO 1000 and thats what I need when its night.
Also, I need the AF to be faster and in this case, I believe the prime is better. I may be wrong tho. I can only use a converter in the end of the day max.

jonh68

Again, I am not giving you info dissuade you, but giving you info based on using the lens and using it for sports purposes. The AF isn't an issue either as it's as fast as any lens I have used, including the canon 70-200 IS 2.8 on a Mark II body.

I have used a 300 prime for soccer and football and I miss the shots up close. For soccer, if you are behind the goal, you are going to miss the scores unless you take another body with you and put on the 70-200. For me, the perceived difference in image quality, which only a few people would notice and who wouldn't be buying the pictures anyway, doesn't negate the range and versatility of this lens.