Originally posted by rfortson Thanks Richard. Yours is about the first negative post I've read on the Sigma 100-300. I know you're not a complainer, so I'll take that comment seriously. Do you have any examples of the problems?
Right now, I'm still thinking of getting the Sigma 100-300, unless I can get an F/FA* 300 a little bit cheaper. When the DA*300 comes out, I'll reassess my options.
Take a look at the link to my short review site (in my initial post), there are some examples of my early findings there.
I shall also up date the site with more results in the next 48 hours. So revisit in a couple of days.
It may be that the latest 100-300 EX DG's are better. I have no evidence either way. Sadly my own personal experience with Sigma lenses has been less than wonderful, i.e. a zero acceptability rate to date. Others have found otherwise, but I know I'm not alone. Therefore I am extremely sceptical when considering a Sigma, especially an expensive one.
It always pays to check the specific lens you get and ensure that you have adequate coverage for returning the lens for a full refund if it proves unsatisfactory.
It is, as someone else has stated, a huge monster, it is actually fatter and longer than the Bigma unzoomed!
Mounted on my istD
Compared to the A*300 and Tokina 80-400 (fully extended)
Sorry for the poor quality, taken with my cellphone camera!