Sigma 120-300 f2.8: Anyone have the new Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens? If so, how do you like it on DX and FX, and have you tried it with the Sigma 1.4X and 2X Teleconverters? Does it...

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

Anyone have the new Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens? If so, how do you like it on DX and FX, and have you tried it with the Sigma 1.4X and 2X Teleconverters? Does it work with the Nikon Teleconverters (I have the Nikon 1.7)?

This lens seems like it may be a better solution than the 150-500 or 120-400 or even the upper end of the 50-500 if it works well with the Teleconverters.

Thanks

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

mawyatt wrote:

Anyone have the new Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens? If so, how do you like it on DX and FX, and have you tried it with the Sigma 1.4X and 2X Teleconverters? Does it work with the Nikon Teleconverters (I have the Nikon 1.7)?

This lens seems like it may be a better solution than the 150-500 or 120-400 or even the upper end of the 50-500 if it works well with the Teleconverters.

Thanks

I use the 50-500mm Sigma, but not with a teleconverter. Sigma, like Nikon, makes dedicated converters for each of their long zooms, alternative units will most likely give inferior results. I have 2 converters and don't use either of them except for sample photos to show people how crappy the results typically are.

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

I have and "tried" the teleconverter and don't like the reults if I was to print it. I guess it would be OK for snooping or documentation but that's it.

With the improvements and technology I will wait for 1,000mm f1.8 lens for $700 that will be here in 5 years. HaHa

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

Cappy,

Did you try the Sigma Teleconverter (1.4X and/or 2X) with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8?

Thanks

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

mawyatt wrote:

Cappy,

Did you try the Sigma Teleconverter (1.4X and/or 2X) with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8?

Thanks

No, with the Canon EF 70-300. Without the extender the pics were great. But I wanted more reach for birding so I purchased the Sigma 150-500. Much better results!!

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

Cappy,

Is the Canon 70-300 f2.8? I am going thru the same thought process, need more reach than my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. I have the Nikon 1.7 Teleconverter that actually works very well with the 70-200 and gets to 340mm. The longer Nikon is just way out of my reach (so is the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 but within reach if I rob the piggy bank!).

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

mawyatt wrote:

Cappy,

Is the Canon 70-300 f2.8? I am going thru the same thought process, need more reach than my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. I have the Nikon 1.7 Teleconverter that actually works very well with the 70-200 and gets to 340mm. The longer Nikon is just way out of my reach (so is the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 but within reach if I rob the piggy bank!).

It's the older one, f4-5.6. Never really use it any more, Thinking of giving it to my grandson or trading it in at B&H. Paid about $1,170 for it.