Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS the sport one.

Gary Kinghorn · 7 Sep 2014

Or whatever the hell it's called......

Anyone got one, love to hear their thoughts.

Currently I have a 70-200 f2.8L 2 which I love and come what may won't be moving on. Predominantly it's used for portraits, weddings etc and it's amazing.

Next I have a 300mm f4 which I bought new fairly recently and it does a great job.

Then a sigma 300mm f2.8 came up that I couldn't resist having a crack with so I have that as well.

Now the dilemma....

I'm getting the urge again to get my hands on one of the 120-300's.

I shoot in wildlife parks where sometimes light is low. I find it a bit of a struggle keeping the shutter speed high enough with the F4, without increasing the ISO to levels I'm not happy with. The Sigma 300 does a great job, but could really do with IS. It's a big lump and hard to hold steady in the car or standing. It does however give really nice results.

Now all of that might be rubbish and actually I just have the urge for the new 120-300, but who knows. Selling both my current lenses will put me close enough to pay the rest myself and get my hands on a new one.

So.......

What are they like?

1. Can they be hand held at all?

2. How is the IS?

3. How fast to focus?

4. Image quality at 300mm

5. Any other thoughts on them?

I'd love a 300mm f2.8 IS but I'd want new and that isn't happening, so please don't suggest it lol.

D-pearce92 · 7 Sep 2014

I'm thinking off changing my Sigma 300 as mine broke literally the first day I used it

.
From what I have read the sport:
is sharper than the prime
can be adjusted at 4 focal lengths I think via the usb dock.
It has a focus limiter switch so it will not hunt trying to find focus.
Is allot better at f2.8
It can be handheld but not for hours on end so most people use some kind of support.

Joeturner11 · 7 Sep 2014

D-pearce92 said:
I'm thinking off changing my Sigma 300 as mine broke literally the first day I used it .
From what I have read the sport:
is sharper than the prime
can be adjusted at 4 focal lengths I think via the usb dock.
It has a focus limiter switch so it will not hunt trying to find focus.
Is allot better at f2.8
It can be handheld but not for hours on end so most people use some kind of support.

+1 the 120-300mm f/2.8 is far better than the outdated sigma 300mm f/2.8, The 300mm is old tech and well overdue for a update

Neil B · 7 Sep 2014

Got one and it takes a 2x converter quite well, check my Flickr, of course the macros are with a 105.

gary996 · 7 Sep 2014

Been looking at this lens myself. The reviews look very positive.
It is a heavy beast so hand holding for any length of time is going to hurt those biceps.
It takes the 1.4 converter very well. Don't know about a 2x (Neil B says is does though).

Vertigo1 · 7 Sep 2014

Bit surprised you got the 300 f/4 when you already have the 70-200 II which takes the 1.4x so well. There can't be much between them?

Neil B · 7 Sep 2014

gary996 said:
Been looking at this lens myself. The reviews look very positive.
It is a heavy beast so hand holding for any length of time is going to hurt those biceps.
It takes the 1.4 converter very well. Don't know about a 2x (Neil B says is does though).

I also say if you can't hand hold this then maybe knitting would be a more suitable hobby :meh: :indifferent:

A couple of links, first is with a 1.4 Sigma converter @f8

https://flic.kr/p/oFenSx

Second one with a 2x Sigma converter @f5.6

https://flic.kr/p/oX2PFp

And a couple of Barn owls for low light focus speed with the 2x again

https://flic.kr/p/opWk9b

https://flic.kr/p/nmQVC4

HoppyUK · 7 Sep 2014

Gary Kinghorn said:
Or whatever the hell it's called......

Anyone got one, love to hear their thoughts.

Currently I have a 70-200 f2.8L 2 which I love and come what may won't be moving on. Predominantly it's used for portraits, weddings etc and it's amazing.

Next I have a 300mm f4 which I bought new fairly recently and it does a great job.

Then a sigma 300mm f2.8 came up that I couldn't resist having a crack with so I have that as well.

Now the dilemma....

I'm getting the urge again to get my hands on one of the 120-300's.

I shoot in wildlife parks where sometimes light is low. I find it a bit of a struggle keeping the shutter speed high enough with the F4, without increasing the ISO to levels I'm not happy with. The Sigma 300 does a great job, but could really do with IS. It's a big lump and hard to hold steady in the car or standing. It does however give really nice results.

Now all of that might be rubbish and actually I just have the urge for the new 120-300, but who knows. Selling both my current lenses will put me close enough to pay the rest myself and get my hands on a new one.

So.......

What are they like?

1. Can they be hand held at all?

Yes, but not for long. It's very heavy, and front heavy. Nothing like a 70-200/2.8 but a bit bigger - nothing like that at all! Better on a monopod.

2. How is the IS?

Excellent.

3. How fast to focus?

Very. I found the slower AF option more reliable, and plenty fast enough.

4. Image quality at 300mm

It's stunningly sharp. Sigma says it has the same optics as the previous non-Sports version, but I honestly find that hard to believe. Unfortunately, not been able to compare the two side by side. Anecdotally, others say the Sports version is sharper. Should work well with a telecon, though I didn't try that. (Edit: crossed post with NeilB above - it does!)

5. Any other thoughts on them?

It's heavy, and very sharp. The tripod collar isn't well placed for balance and difficult to rotate. The tripod collar and hood (metal, not carbon-fibre) add an unwelcome 0.6k. But when you see the image quality, all is forgiven

I'd love a 300mm f2.8 IS but I'd want new and that isn't happening, so please don't suggest it lol.

Joeturner11 · 7 Sep 2014

Neil B said:
I also say if you can't hand hold this then maybe knitting would be a more suitable hobby :meh: :indifferent:

A couple of links, first is with a 1.4 Sigma converter @f8

https://flic.kr/p/oFenSx

Second one with a 2x Sigma converter @f5.6

https://flic.kr/p/oX2PFp

And a couple of Barn owls for low light focus speed with the 2x again

https://flic.kr/p/opWk9b

https://flic.kr/p/nmQVC4

Excellent shots Neil, been thinking about getting one for a long time to run along side my 400mm...

+1 If you can't hand hold the lens, then you really need to get some sort of muscles and head to the gym as its not that heavy!

Phal · 7 Sep 2014

I certainly wouldn't wanna be handholding it all day long but it's fine for a few shots here and there.

I've got one for sale in the trade section.

pete.rush · 7 Sep 2014

The 400mm f2.8 (5.6kg) a heavy lens.......

Handheld 300mm f2.8 (2.6kg) and 500mm f4 (4kg) for Airshows and Motorsport without too much issues and the sigma's somewhere in between.

The new sports OS version is certainly the best of the crop of the 120-300 versions, especially for the money, is it as good as the canon 300 primes, no, but it comes a very close second

Joeturner11 · 7 Sep 2014

pete.rush said:
The 400mm f2.8 (5.6kg) a heavy lens.......

Where you get 5.6kg from? The Canon 400mm f2.8 is 3.85kg and the Nikon one is 3.80kg even my previous version 400mm is only 4.5kg

pete.rush · 7 Sep 2014

Joeturner11 said:
Where you get 5.6kg from? The Canon 400mm f2.8 is 3.85kg and the Nikon one is 3.80kg even my previous version 400mm is only 4.5kg

If you did you research the MKI version 5.4 kg

Joeturner11 · 7 Sep 2014

pete.rush said:
If you did you research the MKI version 5.6 kg

Just had a google, if I found the right one the MK1 without IS thats prehistoric being for sale in 1991, thats about 23years old!

Bit old to be recommending to the OP imho. I'am sure if any parts went on it, it would be highly difficult to get hold of any...

D-pearce92 · 7 Sep 2014

Joeturner11 said:
Just had a google, if I found the right one the MK1 without IS thats prehistoric being for sale in 1991, thats about 23years old! Bit old to be recommending to the OP imho. I'am sure if any parts went on it, it would be highly difficult to get hold of any...

Do not think he was reccomending it Joe, just to say about the weight compared to the sigma etc

.

Joeturner11 · 7 Sep 2014

D-pearce92 said:
Do not think he was reccomending it Joe, just to say about the weight compared to the sigma etc .

Well if he was saying about the weight comparison he could have picked a current or more modern lens etc. comparing the weight of a 23year old lens compared to one that is barely been on the shelfs just over a year is daft if you ask me

Thats like comparing a film camera to a digital

pete.rush · 7 Sep 2014

Joeturner11 said:
Just had a google, if I found the right one the MK1 without IS thats prehistoric being for sale in 1991, thats about 23years old! Bit old to be recommending to the OP imho. I'am sure if any parts went on it, it would be highly difficult to get hold of any...

All I was saying is 2.5/3 kg lens ain't that heavy and quite handhold-able for a day shooting. I didn't recommend the 400mm f2.8 just using it as an example like 500mm or 600mm f4 lenses which would be considered heavy lenses.

The 400mm f2.8 MKI IS version was 5.4 kg, could be handheld for short periods but I definitely wouldn't want to shoot all day with it unless it was on a monopod or tripod. I think the non IS version was even heavier (6.1 kg). Bad back time

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-500mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

D-pearce92 · 7 Sep 2014

Joeturner11 said:
Well if he was saying about the weight comparison he could have picked a current or more modern lens etc. comparing the weight of a 23year old lens compared to one that is barely been on the shelfs just over a year is daft if you ask me Thats like comparing a film camera to a digital

Sigma 200-500 f2.8 weighs 15.67KG: released 2008

. Dont think I would want to attempt to handhold that, my arms would probably fall off :LOL:

.

pingu666 · 7 Sep 2014

ive briefly used one on a demo day, and it is a beautiful lens, really nice feel and you can do some advanced stuff with the focusing system and the dock, think you can set the focus limit, and where the lens will return to if it loses focus

think the downsides are weight size and price, but thats kinda a given

Joeturner11 · 7 Sep 2014

D-pearce92 said:
Sigma 200-500 f2.8 weighs 15.67KG: released 2008 . Dont think I would want to attempt to handhold that, my arms would probably fall off .

This one?

The 1200mm f/5.6 Canon on Mpb weights 16.5kg how about that then

@pete.rush The old old Nikon 400mm and 600mm weighted a massive 7kg

HoppyUK · 7 Sep 2014

Sigma Sports weighs 3.7k all up, with a lot of the heavy stuff in the front. I found it more of handful than the Canon 400/2.8ii.

mwggriffiths · 8 Sep 2014

Disclaimer: I can't talk about the Sport, I have the DG OS non-Sport that preceded it. The reviews say the Sport is supposedly sharper and has better AF.

Durability: I've owned it for just over a year and its taken some SERIOUS knocks in that time and still works perfectly!

AF: Superb. Mounted to a 5d3 this thing is incredible - focusing pin sharp on an Audi Le Mans car that was RAPIDLY moving away from me in the pitch black at midnight:

LM24_Race_20140614-15_027 by mwggriffiths, on Flickr

Sharpness: Again, I can't complain anywhere from 120mm all the way through to 300mm (even at f2.8) in the slightest, but have a look through my full flickr feed for proof:

Nürburgring_24hrs_20140621-22_062 by mwggriffiths, on Flickr

Weight: I've done 2 24hr races with this thing as well as numerous shorter events, I had no problems hand holding it for hours on end but I appear to be in the minority there! When not using it it goes back into my LowPro Flipside 400AW with the lens hood reversed and thats perfectly comfortable for walking miles around tracks and to and from the car parks and campsites

IS: The non-Sport comes with 2 modes - regular IS and panning mode. I tend to use the panning mode which isn't perfect for very high speed motion but is still an improvement on not having it at all! (The Audi above was shot with IS in panning mode)

Amp34 · 8 Sep 2014

Joeturner11 said:
+1 the 120-300mm f/2.8 is far better than the outdated sigma 300mm f/2.8, The 300mm is old tech and well overdue for a update

Not sure if there is really any need though. The 120-300 OS is so good that the only major benefit of a prime (aside from possible minor sharpness and focus speed improvements) would be a reduction in weight. That's probably going to be relatively minimal considering most of the weight will be the 300 f/2.8 element and system that would have to be in both.

I have the older OS and it's a great lens. FAR better than the 300 f/4 (although I had the non IS version) but it is significantly heavier. Hand holdable for reasonable lengths of time but it does help if you have a support. The older one works brilliantly with the 1.4 TC, there appears to be little to no degradation on the system below, but at 2x there is a reasonable amount of sharpness and focus degradation. If you're interested I can post some wildlife photos I've taken with it up.

RVW · 8 Sep 2014

If the new version is as good as the one it replaces then it will be a cracker! Pleased with mine, the only downside is possibly weight. It is not a light lens but can be used hand held for a reasonable amount of time.
Just an example of one of mine,hand held at 300 on a 7D

Riley by M1RVW, on Flickr

D-pearce92 · 9 Sep 2014

[/QUOTE] IS: The non-Sport comes with 2 modes - regular IS and panning mode. I tend to use the panning mode which isn't perfect for very high speed motion but is still an improvement on not having it at all! (The Audi above was shot with IS in panning mode)[/QUOTE]

Interesting that you have it on, I've always read to switch it off as it slows af etc. Have you tried shooting with it off?

Have just picked up mine, can't believe how big the big the box is that Amazon put it in, nearly filled my whole boot

mwggriffiths · 9 Sep 2014

Interesting that you have it on, I've always read to switch it off as it slows af etc. Have you tried shooting with it off?[/QUOTE]

Initially I shot with it off all the time, but I began to experiment with it and was quite surprised by the results: Generally if I'm above ~1/100th I'll turn it off because it doesn't increase my 'keeper' rate at all, but below that it enables me to get shots right down to 1/40th pin sharp - no way I'd manage that without it!

As for AF performance being slowed? Not that I've noticed, but I'm only using IS when I'm panning and the subject isn't travelling towards or away from me particularly quickly, so its not too strenuous on the AF anyway

HoppyUK · 10 Sep 2014

Image stabilisation doesn't slow down AF, in fact it should make it more reliable by stabilising the image. That's with in-lens IS of course, and it's more of more a theory than practical benefit I think.

The only way IS slows you down is that it takes half a second to spool up, so when waiting for a shot you have to keep dabbing the shutter release to keep it fully live at all times. This can drain the battery quicker. Even when IS isn't strictly necessary from a shutter speed point of view, with long lenses I find the stabilised viewfinder image very helpful, especially when servo-tracking moving subjects and keeping that AF point accurately nailed.

Cagey75 · 10 Sep 2014

I would love this lens. I'd replace my 150mm and 300mm f4 for one if I could sell those and save the rest.

Took some shots with my 300 at a wedding last weekend, I know it's no wedding lens, these were outdoor shots in a field basically, and I wanted that compressed backdrop feel. My 85 was too short for what I wanted, and 300 was a tad long. A 120-300 would have been ideal. Also it was getting a bit dark and 2.8 would have also been sweet. Got the shots I wanted, but at a higher ISO than desired, [for the shutter speed required] I was hand-holding.

Main trouble for me is that my 150mm has an issue, the OS is out of place/loose inside, and it rattles like mad - still seems to work fine, but the AF has slowed up a lot, and nobody will buy it as is.

I could probably sell the 300 easily enough, but for nothing close to what I'd need for the 120-300 2.8, not the new one at least.

005269 · 10 Sep 2014

Amp34 said:
Not sure if there is really any need though. The 120-300 OS is so good that the only major benefit of a prime (aside from possible minor sharpness and focus speed improvements) would be a reduction in weight. That's probably going to be relatively minimal considering most of the weight will be the 300 f/2.8 element and system that would have to be in both.

I have the older OS and it's a great lens. FAR better than the 300 f/4 (although I had the non IS version) but it is significantly heavier. Hand holdable for reasonable lengths of time but it does help if you have a support. The older one works brilliantly with the 1.4 TC, there appears to be little to no degradation on the system below, but at 2x there is a reasonable amount of sharpness and focus degradation. If you're interested I can post some wildlife photos I've taken with it up.

I would echo these comments entirely, I have the previous version like Amp and can't add anything else other than it's perfectly hand holdable but I'd rather use a monopod cos I've long since grown out of making life hard for the sake of it!

pingu666 · 11 Sep 2014

Cagey75 said:
I would love this lens. I'd replace my 150mm and 300mm f4 for one if I could sell those and save the rest.

Took some shots with my 300 at a wedding last weekend, I know it's no wedding lens, these were outdoor shots in a field basically, and I wanted that compressed backdrop feel. My 85 was too short for what I wanted, and 300 was a tad long. A 120-300 would have been ideal. Also it was getting a bit dark and 2.8 would have also been sweet. Got the shots I wanted, but at a higher ISO than desired, [for the shutter speed required] I was hand-holding.

Main trouble for me is that my 150mm has an issue, the OS is out of place/loose inside, and it rattles like mad - still seems to work fine, but the AF has slowed up a lot, and nobody will buy it as is.

I could probably sell the 300 easily enough, but for nothing close to what I'd need for the 120-300 2.8, not the new one at least.

guess that's sigma 150? Maybe try contacting them for quote on a repair

Cagey75 · 11 Sep 2014

Yeah, sigma 150. Not sure they have a centre in Ireland? And I'm just imagining it'll be a costly repair, but I should do it at some point.

Gary Kinghorn · 12 Sep 2014

Going to have save my pennies I think .......