Hi Brian:
Any chance you could review the Sigma<span class="text18"]APO 300-800 F5.6 EX DG HSM, or the <span class="text18"]APO 800mm f5.6 EX DG HSM? I would suspect that they are not as sharp as their Canon counterparts, but would like your view before I spend $10,000 + or so.
Thank you.
While you're waiting for Bryan's review, check others. I did a Google searchon "Sigma 300-800mm review" and found at least 5 good reviews and discussions. It seems to deserve the nickname, "Sigmonster," because of its weight (almost 13 lbs).
George Slusher
Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Eugene, OR
Thank you George!!
After reading the different reviews of the "Sigmonster" I found for myself that this review was the most helpful, by Bill Majoros.
http://www.billmajoros.com/photoalbum/categories/new/Canon600/windows/index.html
A second review I found also very helpful was from Romy Ocon from my wife's native land of the Philippines, where we travel & I photograph every couple of winters.
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/58879465/original
You can see that both test have similarity but there does seem to be some differnce's in equipment used so that has to be taken into account. Ofcorse I could be wrong on that assement and I just got things confused after going through all of the reviews. After reading these two my inpression is that the Canon Prime lens's are a bit sharper with IS and focusing limitor while the Sigmonster does not have either. If you want the flexibility of a zoom of this size the Sigmonster seems to be favored, but I would personaly tend to lean towards the Canon lens.
I would still like to see a review by Brian, as I like his assement methods compared to many others that are not so deliberate in metodology, which he ofcourse is!!
The photo of the woman (your wife?) with the lens on end reminded me of the cute photo of Mikayla with the 500mm f/4L IS lens and your note that there is obviously a "minimum height requirement" to use that lens.
Only one question: considering the price of this lens, how did you keep your hands from shaking when you put it on the tripod? One slip and there goes the house! [:$]
George Slusher
Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Eugene, OR
It was $99 grands a year ago, it's now $120 grands, I should have bought it then []
I have actually known about the existence of this lens for a while. And I was actually wondering why Bryan did not have the review for this lens (because he seems to have reviewed all the Canon EF lenses).
This lens is the ultimate gear for certain tasks as Bryan suggested...
Otherwise, this lens is still an awesome gear to people who don't really need it (you don't need to buy it, only to awe)
Also, you definitely need to have this lens if you are a (wealthy/enthusiastic) lens collector
Wondering when Bryan would post the Canon EF 50 f/1.0 L review (this seems to be the only one missing now)
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
I have one of those, but I don't use it too much because it is just too bulky. I usemy 800L or 600Linstead. The 1200 sits in my garage right between my 2010 Ferrari (which is OK) and my 2008 Porshe (which is old and ugly and I don't drive it that much). Anyway, if you're interested, I can sell it to you, for,say80G, because it is already slightly (twice) used. You can e-mail me at ... what's that noise? Crap, it's my alarm clock... Time to get up and goto work...
The EF1200MM is like some sort of mythical beast. This really truly is a lens for the "agency" that has everything. Can you imagine unpacking this baby at the kids soccer games!!!
Dallas, actually you don't need the 1200 f/5.6 to impress folks at the kids soccer game, anything bigger than the 70-200 f/2.8 will be enough to draw attention. Imagine upacking this baby at the local wildlife reserve when you're alwayssurrounded byfolks with 400 f/2.8,500, 600 and 800. My self esteem isforever hurt by my little 400 f/5.6L [] [:'(] [
I hope lensrental would have it in a couple of days, I want to rent it.
P.S Thanks Bryan for reviewing the lens.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote