Anyone using the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 hand-held?

[Wail]

Thinking of buying this lens (see my other thread on this subject here ... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=93348) and was wondering if anyone shoots with this hand-held? If so, would you be kind enough to give some input, and pictures would be very helpful too.

Thanks.

 

[33L]

i have seen some decent hand held shots of this lens plus a 1.4TC, it was in very good light and the quality was still quite sharp.

I dont think anyone recommends holding 2.5 kg of lens plus body and grip etc. Not for a long time anyway.

 

[KIPAX]

cant see pictures helping with the diff between hand held and assisted.. makes no sense..

Its heavy.. thats all the info needed really... know the wieght and see if you can handle lumping it about.. someone else on here twice the size or half as fit as you giving there experience hand held wont help.

I used a monopod for sports with mine.. did the odd hand held but wouldnt like to use it as a walkabout.

 

[puddleduck]

Yeah, a few:

​

Great lens,I bought mine for £980 from OneStop back in 2005, its gone up a bit since then!

The Heron shot had a 1.4x TC on.

 

[Wail]

Thanks both for the feedback.

KIPAX,

Well, I may have a different thought on the idea of hand-held, personally I would like to know if anyone is getting something good with this handheld. My next question to that person would be what were the situations underwhich the lens was handheld.

How does this help me ; if I didn't get any replies to say that this "could" be done, then I would know what to expect. It's that simple. If someone, or some few, are able to do it .. then that's something to aim for, and as such I would also know what to expect out of myself.

Anyhow, as it seems, from the two feedbacks, that it is not so easy to do this; and knowing my handicap I realise it would be less of a good idea for me to think of doing that.

This leads me to think of adding a good monopod to my list of "have to buy"

Again, thank you both for the replies.

 

[Wail]

puddleduck,

Thank you for the picture, and reply. It seems you've just about owened every piece of glass there ever was for Nikon :shrug:.

That's a cracking shot , and with the 1.4 TC .. that's the exact set-up I am thinking of.

The price now, at OneStopDigital is just about £1500, and that's without the TC. A huge price increase, thanks to currency fluctuations and inflation.

That said, how easy did you find it to hand-hold that set-up, and what body did you use?

 

[puddleduck]

puddleduck,

Thank you for the picture, and reply. It seems you've just about owened every piece of glass there ever was for Nikon :shrug:.

That's a cracking shot , and with the 1.4 TC .. that's the exact set-up I am thinking of.

The price now, at OneStopDigital is just about £1500, and that's without the TC. A huge price increase, thanks to currency fluctuations and inflation.

That said, how easy did you find it to hand-hold that set-up, and what body did you use?

Yeah, I've owned a lot of glass

Its hard to handhold, due to the weight more than anything else. I've used the lens at a few airshows, and I had sore muscles for days after.

Too be honest, nowadays I would rather not lug 2.5kg lenses around, and to get the best out of it you need a tripid which adds more weight.

The lens blows the Nikkor 70-200 VR out of the water btw.

 

[KIPAX]

Thanks both for the feedback.

KIPAX,

Well, I may have a different thought on the idea of hand-held, .

Probably should have asked the question you wanted to ask then

Unless your a big butch type i wouldnt bother hand holding... and i would choose your monopod wisely as well.. i have had weak ones that just slide down with that lens on .... i like VELBON RUP-4 that is strong and short when put away... but not thin.

HTH

 

[Wail]

.....

The lens blows the Nikkor 70-200 VR out of the water btw.

, seriously, that statement says a lot to me .. would you mind clarifying and qualifying this. I don't meen to be rude, but I've been shooting for close to 40 years and the 70-200VR was one of the best lenses I've ever used and had.

 

[puddleduck]

Well I'm assuming you want 300mm-ish so plan to maybe put a TC on the 70-200 VR?

At 280mm with a TC vs 300mm the Sigma will absolutely trounce the 70-200 VR.

Actually a Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S will trouce a Nikkor 70-200 VR with a TC.

If you want a genuinely good 300mm you need to consider the Sigma 120-300, the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S or one of the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8s - these 3 lenses are in a class of their own.

but I've been shooting for close to 40 years and the 70-200VR was one of the best lenses I've ever used and had.

You've not been using the right lenses then. Try a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 - it will re-define your expectations.

 

[puddleduck]

BTW if you want a pecking order of optics...

Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 (any flavour)
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Nikkor 500mm f/4 AF-S
Nikkor 600mn f/4 AS-F
Nikkor 200-400 f/4
...
...
...
Nikkor 70-200 VR

 

[whitey]

i have loads here, first time i have used the lens and its heavy but worth it

http://www.imagesbysw.com/gallery/v/RallycrossSuperprix/

the early ones were taken with a Sigma 70-200

 

[Flash In The Pan]

BTW if you want a pecking order of optics...

Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 (any flavour)
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Nikkor 500mm f/4 AF-S
Nikkor 600mn f/4 AS-F
Nikkor 200-400 f/4
...
...
...
Nikkor 70-200 VR

If you put that list in order of price the 70-200 VR would still be right down at the bottom though

 

[stylgeo]

I love this lens. I don't want to get your hopes high though with its handholdability! I did when i first bought it. I just took it, went to the local park, aimed at a female blackbird and took a few pictures. I then went home and did some pixel peeping.
This is a 100% crop, without ANY sharpening, handheld at I think f/3.5 (the ISO should be ther).

[/IMG]

After that i thought that life would be easy for my bird photography. It took me more than a year to get that kind of detail again, and it wasn't due to the lens, it was because of me and my skills. If you ask me how i got that picture in the first place, I would say i honestly don't know!

The lens is capable of producing amazing results, but it needs some getting used to. I very rarely use this hand held, and only for small bursts at BIF.

 

[Wail]

KIPAX,

Yeah, you are right, I should have asked the question better! Still, thank you for your input and thank you for the heads' up on the mono-pod. That would have been next on my list of what I would have asked .

 

[Wail]

BTW if you want a pecking order of optics...

Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 (any flavour)
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Nikkor 500mm f/4 AF-S
Nikkor 600mn f/4 AS-F
Nikkor 200-400 f/4
...
...
...
Nikkor 70-200 VR

Your replied are getting more and more shocking! That low :shrug: (for the 70-200 VR)?! I've never used, or needed such long telephotos .. but things change.

From your list, I guess the Sigma would be the way to go! I am not too keen on prime lenses, especially at these ranges.

 

[Wail]

whitey,

Thank you for the link .. will go over it tonight

 

[Wail]

If you put that list in order of price the 70-200 VR would still be right down at the bottom though

True, but this is the first time in my life I want to be silly and say "spoil yourself, Wail, and buy what you want .. not what you need".

 

[Wail]

stylgeo,

I believe there will be a huge learning curve on this lens, more so as it is too heavy for me and I know I can't hand-hold it now .. but still, I love the challenge, and want something of outstanding image quality and bokeh.

 

[puddleduck]

Your replied are getting more and more shocking! That low :shrug: (for the 70-200 VR)?! I've never used, or needed such long telephotos .. but things change.

From your list, I guess the Sigma would be the way to go! I am not too keen on prime lenses, especially at these ranges.

Well this is what Nikon says:

70-200 VR:

300mm VR:

These are Nikon's own figures - and if you put a TC on the 70-200 VR to get close to 300mm they get FAR worse.

So if you really want a 300mm lens, don't consider the 70-200 VR + TC because it'll get pooped on.

 

[Wail]

No no no!

I would rather not use TC at all, especially with regards to the 70-200VR (I did that with the last copy I had and got the 1.7TC, results were good, really good, but I would rather not mess with TCs anymore).

That said, I would think of using a TC with the Sigma 120-300, for many reasons .. cost, weight, practicality and you will see I am trying to find a lot about IQ too.

 

[puddleduck]

The Sigma 120-300 works very well with Sigma's 1.4x TC, but its only good to very good with a 2X. That being said, its a cheap way to get a 600mm f/5.6....

I never had a huge amount of luck with the 2x but the 1.4x is very good, need to stop down 1 full stop.

 

[Wail]

1.4 TC is where I think I would be aiming for. If not, if I can't get convinced that this combination would be excellent, then I will opt for the Nikon 200-400VR! I know that I would never be able to hand-hold the 120-300 with a 1.4 TC, that's why I didn't ask that here.

I was just curious as to the quality of the 120-300 "as is". If that's good to go, then the next thing would be to consider the TC along with it.

 

[ukaskew]

I use my Sigma 120-300 2.8 for 6-7 hours at a time (almost without stopping) on a weekend (with a 1.4tc sometimes) and never with a monopod, you get used to it pretty quickly. I haven't found it too big, coming from a Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S I thought it would be a step too far size-wise, but I've been pleasantly surprised how easy it is to hold for long periods (there is nothing to me, I'm about 10st!)

The motorsport shots in this gallery are with the D90 + Sigma 120-300...http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/gallery/6422272_mkutz

 

[StewartR]

But back to the hand-held question.... yes it can be done, but unless you're strong your arms and shoulders are going to start hurting after a while. Somebody on this forum (I won't name her, unless she chips in) hired one from us in the summer for a day at Brands Hatch, and forgot to take her monopod. She coped, but suffered.

If you've never used a lens as big and heavy as this, you might be surprised how cumbersome it is.

 

[whitey]

the other halfs dad has the same setup as me now (he uses a D300 though) and uses a 1.4x often, he thinks the results are fantastic, i will try and see if i can find any pics

 

[Joe T]

I sometimes handhold mine, but only for short periods and even then it's very difficult to hold steady.

 

[Steveo_Hants]

BTW if you want a pecking order of optics...

Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 (any flavour)
Nikkor 400mm f/2.8
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Nikkor 500mm f/4 AF-S
Nikkor 600mn f/4 AS-F
Nikkor 200-400 f/4
...
...
...
Nikkor 70-200 VR

Where would the Sigma 300mm f2.8 come in this list?

 

[Yv]

yes, all bloody day at Brands Hatch when I thought I had left my QR plate for the monopod at home! It can be done, and I am only a short ass woman with sod all by way of muscle, however I would recommend at least a monopod for regular use, if not a tripod.

 

[Yv]

1.4 TC is where I think I would be aiming for. If not, if I can't get convinced that this combination would be excellent, then I will opt for the Nikon 200-400VR! I know that I would never be able to hand-hold the 120-300 with a 1.4 TC, that's why I didn't ask that here.

I was just curious as to the quality of the 120-300 "as is". If that's good to go, then the next thing would be to consider the TC along with it.

I have my own now, with the 1.4 - IQ with and without is almost inseperable, however you will notice a small drop in focusing speed, not much, but a bit.

But back to the hand-held question.... yes it can be done, but unless you're strong your arms and shoulders are going to start hurting after a while. Somebody on this forum (I won't name her, unless she chips in) hired one from us in the summer for a day at Brands Hatch, and forgot to take her monopod. She coped, but suffered.

If you've never used a lens as big and heavy as this, you might be surprised how cumbersome it is.

I didnt forget anything....I just thought I had ...and yes, my shoulders were telling the tale the next day, but it was worth it, a fabulous lens and got some good shots even though the fencing.

 

[Wail]

Yvonne,

Thanks for posting these pics, and for the info.

I've just been over your pictures, fantastic shots you've got.

 

[desantnik]

One of the Brands Hatch regulars I chat to has the Sigma 120-300, he does hand hold it and does complain about the weight....

 

[Yv]

Yvonne,

Thanks for posting these pics, and for the info.

I've just been over your pictures, fantastic shots you've got.

Thanks wail, glad you like them

 

[Big Ant]

Go for it, it's a superb lens which I've have spent many hours hand holding. I am quite a big fella so I have never found it a problem

Here are a few bike shots from the British Superbikes at Oulton Park in the summer

Ant

 

[stylgeo]

Amazing photos ant!!

 

[woollyback]

 

[Wail]

Ant,

Thank you for the pictures, and this does seem like an excellent lens going by the shots you, and others' which I have seen recently.

As I am really bogged down with the final studies for my Masters, it will be Jan. '09 before I can rent this to give it a testdrive and from then to decide if it is the lens for me.

 

[wack61]

Most of these were taken hand held, the 1st one was with the 1.4X TC on which gives a 420mm F/4 with almost no loss of PQ.

The only thing that will put you off is the weight, there's no getting away from it the 120-300mm is bloody heavy if you're holding it for any length of time but what would you have to pay for a 420mm f/4 that can deliver this level of quality .

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88390