[AriL]

Hello!



Many amateur who are looking for their first "semi-pro" tele lens would be interested to see some test results of those potential lenses - unfortunately there are not available any as good and as comprehensive tests as PZ tests have been.



So you would do a huge favor to all of us by making a review of for example of these lenses:

* Sigma 300/2.8

* Sigma 120-300/2.8

* Sigma 500/4.5

* Canon 300/2.8L IS

* Canon 300/4L IS

* Canon 500/4L IS



What do you think, is there going to be any tests of these lenses in near future?



Regards

AriL

[Klaus]

[quote name='AriL' timestamp='1281903659' post='1791']

Hello!



Many amateur who are looking for their first "semi-pro" tele lens would be interested to see some test results of those potential lenses - unfortunately there are not available any as good and as comprehensive tests as PZ tests have been.



So you would do a huge favor to all of us by making a review of for example of these lenses:

* Sigma 300/2.8

* Sigma 120-300/2.8

* Sigma 500/4.5

* Canon 300/2.8L IS

* Canon 300/4L IS

* Canon 500/4L IS



What do you think, is there going to be any tests of these lenses in near future?



Regards

AriL

[/quote]



Well, the 400/5.6L is at the horizon for instance. I can rule out the 300/2.8 and 500/4 though. There's no market for us here I'm afraid.

[wim]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1281906121' post='1793']

Well, the 400/5.6L is at the horizon for instance. I can rule out the 300/2.8 and 500/4 though. There's no market for us here I'm afraid.

[/quote]

Hi Klaus,



I sincerely think there actually is. I do not think it is about there being a large market for it, but a truly independent lens testing site for any lens. I've always thought it to be a pity the longer lens tests were withdrawn from PZ, as they do provide a lot of information for those who actually are looking for one. Yes, prices seem to be prohibitive, and testing isn't easy either, but I am sure many would love to see the information you, Markus and Sebastian can provide on these, from a testing POV.



As you just ested another $2000 lens, and a short while ago a $2300 lens, and probably some I missed, why not go a little more expensive, if that is what people would like to see?



Personally, I don't have any lens budget at the moment, but I do know that at some stage I'd like to extend my arsenal with a 200 F/2L IS, a 300 F/2.8L IS, and a 500 F/4L IS, so yes, it also is self interest <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Oh, and a TS-E 24 Mk II <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Could you maybe at least put the tests of the longer lenses up again that were withdrawn, if you don't see a short term opportunity for testing any of these lenses?



Kind regards, Wim

[mst]

Well, it's probably safe to assume there's nothing really wrong with the 300/2.8 IS or the 500/4 IS. I'm sure any of the "Great Whites" gives excellent results, on any current camera, as you can expect in this price class (only exception maybe being the 400 DO).



On the other hand, some third party lenses in this segment may look attractive price wise, but in the end they aren't too far away form the previous generation non-IS lenses, which often are available used for fair prices. I'd rather buy a used EF 300/2.8 non-IS than a used or new Sigma 300/2.8.



Personally, though, I definitely wouldn't want to be without optical stabilisation, at least with those lenses that are still handholdable (500/4 and 300/2.8 certainly qualify here).



In this range, the only third party lens that really offers additional value over the manufacturer's offerings is Sigma's 120-300/2.8. I just wish they would add OS to this lens. And drop-in filters, please.



However, it's still a Sigma. I owned two copies of the 120-300 and both turned out to be less than stellar. A good copy may be excellent wide open already, but in this price class I'd prefer not to have to search for a good copy ...



-- Markus

[AriL]

Thanks for your reply.



Perhaps a real alternative (from price point of view) for an enthustiast is semi-pro Sigma (like 120-300/2.8 or 300/2.8) vs. mid-class Canon (300/4L IS).



So at least comparison Sigma 300/2.8 vs. 120-300/2.8 would be interesting also for larger user groups. Can the zoom really beat the prime lens as in many web-sites it is claimed and as it seems to be a common opinion? Especially it would be interesting to see the MTF graph for these two Sigmas.



In PZ there is already test available for Canon 300/4L IS (@8MP) which could be used as some kind of reference point when making a comparison between Canon and Sigma.



(Values as such would not be compareable if Sigmas would be tested @15MP but still this test would give quite good picture of Sigma's performance compared to Canon).



Best Regards

Ari L

[allanmb]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1281906121' post='1793']

Well, the 400/5.6L is at the horizon for instance. I can rule out the 300/2.8 and 500/4 though. There's no market for us here I'm afraid.

[/quote]



I think there is! I will be buying one of the super telephotos in the next 24months however I think that it is also useful to have these reviewed for comparison against other lenses. Yes, I know it makes no sense to compare a 300/2.8 IS to a 17/4TSE however if you have experience with one then it can be useful to see how the other compares...



Just my 2c