OK - another option. Anyone got a Sigma 100-300 f4?

[Tobers]

What-oh. The hand-wringing continues over my lens of choice for polo coverage.

Not sure I can stretch to a Sigma 120-300 2.8 though there is one at £800 but it's a damaged-repaired one. The 100-300 f4 however gets extremely good reviews and is to be had for £650 in the UK or less from HK.

Sounds v.interesting. Anyone got one that can report back on quality etc?

Cheers

Indecisive of Guildford

[RobDickinson]

I tried one in a shop.

Quite heavy for handholding but doable.

f4 constant was nice.

HSM was IMO a little slower and a bit clunkier than FT USM on the canons.

Opticaly they look good (guess if you get a good one).

I decided I'd rather have the extra reach of the 100-400L and didnt mind the stop slower over the advantage of IS.

If they add OS to the 100-300 it may change things for me.

[denno75uk]

Conidering the reviews this lens gets, I found it quite difficult to find anyone who actually has one. Don't know if you'll find it useful but this is part of a reply I got to an enquiry to an owner on another forum last year when I was trying to decide between the 100-300 and the 70-200:

"This is a SUPERB Lens. I absolutely love it and would probably only get rid of it for a Sig 120-300 2.8! Buying from scratch I'd say it's a VERY tough choice between the Sig 70-200+1.4 and this one. Both are superb (although I haven't tried the 70-200 yet)

It kind of depends what you plan to shoot. For my use so far I have had no problems with either f4 or handholding. Its heavy but well balanced. But it could easily use a mono or tripod.

Yes, it comes (like all EX sigma's) with a superb case and hood and this comes with a removable tripod mount.

I, personally, am no fan of Canon lenses, so consider me biased, but I don't think you can go wrong with the Sigma Tele zooms, and probably, for the money, the 100-300 is the best."

His site can be found here for examples.