Photography Review results are very mixed, and as with any piece of equipment it's liked more by owners than reviewers:
http://tinyurl.com/ysl3m Same on Fred Miranda: http://tinyurl.com/3f9qm It seems there are a some with poor build quality and it all depends upon whether you happen to get a good one. Or not. Additionally, it's 3 inches longer and nearly a pound heavier than the Tokina, and unlike most of the primes which use drop in filters, it uses front-mounted filters (in all fairness, so does the Tokina in EOS mount). Add $325 for a couple of 105mm filters, and you're now in the same price range as a good used Canon with IS. Add to that the fact that most people buying a 300 f/2.8 already have a fast 70-200, so the advantage of a bigger, heavier, longer zoom may be lost. Finally, how many poorlens ratings have you ever seen in Shutterbug? ;-) Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Thomas G. Tamura > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: EOS 3rd Party 300 f2.8s > > I am surprised that no one mentioned this thus far (I am in > the digest mode, so maybe someone already did.) I remember > reading in Shutterbug earlier this year that the Sigma > 120-300mm F/2.8 is better optically than Sigma's own 300mm > F/2.8 and cheaper too! While there might be other issue like > focus speed, durability, etc ...., I believe that Sigma is > now offering a 4 year USA warranty and that should cover any > potential problems, except for the obvious user abuse, impact > damage and so on. Anyway back to the article, I also > remember reading that it's only slight less sharp than > Canon's 300mm F/2.8. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
