120/300 2.8 sigma

Icee said:
Getting back to sigma 120/300 f2.8, I have looked at this lens a few times because of the zoom but can anyone tell me if it's sharp at 2.8?
Click to expand...

My non OS was and reports are this new version is sharper.
 
Thanks Richard, I may consider adding one to the arsenal.
 
the use of a filter is obviously a personal choice and I'm not forcing anyone to use one but to say they degrade the image is not true.



scottthehat said:
i have used a cp, not grads, and when you use a filter for a specific job thats part and parcel of knowing that its for a specific job, but saying a uv filter is essential for all lenses is crud.
but if people are happy to believe that, let them, but there is no doubt it will deteriorate quality same as any other filter does.
Click to expand...
 
I never use a filter on my lenses .. the hood protects them fine.

Or so I thought.


Noticed a lovely scratch on my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 front element yesterday. Thing is it came back from Sigma a few weeks ago from having a large repair and after testing everything I put it away until needed, didn't even bother to check the front.

Too late for me to say anything now :bang:
 
Icee said:
Getting back to sigma 120/300 f2.8, I have looked at this lens a few times because of the zoom but can anyone tell me if it's sharp at 2.8?
Click to expand...

Check this out, not the best as I don't have many f2.8 shots on my laptop as none of the sports (what the lens is nearly always used for) folders are with me. These are using a Canon 7D so starting to stretch f2.8 I would say but still perfectly usable IMHO. This is the non OS version so if you are going OS expect it to shine a little more... also on your D2X you won't be stretching the resolution of the lens either.

http://marksmithphotography.co.uk/forum/FullSizeSamples/IMG_8263.JPG
 
POAH said:
neither do high quality glass filters but that's a different argument lol
Click to expand...

Of course they do.

No Filter, Hoya HD, Cheapo

Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg
 
POAH said:
it is however just plain glass.

I take it you never use a CP or grad/ND filters etc then either
Click to expand...

Of course but they serve a purpose.

What's your point?
 
Do the same people not using filters because they never had a problem also not backup there pictures because in all these years they never had a problem ? Its about the most stupid reason for not protecting your lens I have ever heard... "I don't protect my lens because nothing has ever happened".. Oh dear :)


I damaged ever so slightly the filter on a short lens shooting cage fighting... lens would have still been usable had i no filter.. it was only a nick..... but my lens resale value would have dropped like a stone..
 
Hoya Pro 1 clear protector is in front of me now. It says here "It will not affect the color (sic) balance or performance of your lenses in the slightest."
I have little doubt that the quality of the multicoating on the Hoya Pro 1 clear filters is very high but after gettting a vague feeling that the ones I had on some very sharp glass might be affecting IQ I did some before and after comparisons. The difference wasn't anywhere near as marked as Frank's example, and I had to pixel peep to see it but it was there on all the lenses that I tested. Enough to matter? Debatable, but it'll probably matter more if sensor pixel density continues to rise. The camera I tested it on was 12 MP. The one I have now is double that.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Do the same people not using filters because they never had a problem also not backup there pictures because in all these years they never had a problem ? Its about the most stupid reason for not protecting your lens I have ever heard... "I don't protect my lens because nothing has ever happened".. Oh dear :)

I damaged ever so slightly the filter on a short lens shooting cage fighting... lens would have still been usable had i no filter.. it was only a nick..... but my lens resale value would have dropped like a stone..
Click to expand...

There is a need to back up images, but there is no need to pad salesmans pockets buying useless UV filters.
 
Okay everyone has differing opinions on uv filters, can we move on now?

Icee said:
Getting back to sigma 120/300 f2.8, I have looked at this lens a few times because of the zoom but can anyone tell me if it's sharp at 2.8?
Click to expand...

My non DG is sharp at 2.8 at both ends of the zoom.
 
mortimerhill said:
No oversight. The front element is a piece of flat glass and effectively a protective filter
Click to expand...

Partial credit.

The front element on Canon's 300 f2.8 is designed to be relatively easy and cheap to replace. Which is, I suppose, a fair definition of a protective filter. However, there are two vital differences between that front element and the overpriced 'protective' filter so beloved of camera salesmen all over the world.

Firstly, the front element is substantially thicker than those flimsy 1mm thick sheets of glass that are supposed to protect a lens. Secondly, and most importantly, that front element is not flat. It is curved.

Now why would Canon make that front element curved, when "a piece of flat glass" would be so much easier and a lot cheaper to make? The answer is that having a flat piece of glass on the front of your lens is going to cause internal reflections that will exacerbate flare and reduce contrast. But they designed it with a curve that will minimise such unwanted behaviour.

That's why the Canon 300 is the only lens of mine with a protective filter.
 
KIPAX said:
Do the same people not using filters because they never had a problem also not backup there pictures because in all these years they never had a problem ? Its about the most stupid reason for not protecting your lens I have ever heard... "I don't protect my lens because nothing has ever happened".. Oh dear :)


I damaged ever so slightly the filter on a short lens shooting cage fighting... lens would have still been usable had i no filter.. it was only a nick..... but my lens resale value would have dropped like a stone..
Click to expand...

Firstly, I look after my lenses and clean them carefully. I have no idea how others manage to scratch theirs so badly! Secondly, I have insurance ;)

Filters are vastly overpriced in my opinion, but each to their own.
 
KIPAX said:
Do the same people not using filters because they never had a problem also not backup there pictures because in all these years they never had a problem ? Its about the most stupid reason for not protecting your lens I have ever heard... "I don't protect my lens because nothing has ever happened".. Oh dear :)
Click to expand...

I do make backups I don't use filters.

Making backups of your data make slogical sense. It's fairly easy and fairly cheap. If you don't do it then you stand a good chance of losing something irreplaceable (your data) and doing it has zero impact on the stuff you're protecting.

Using a 'protective' filter is easy but it ain't cheap. If I don't do it then the worst that could possibly happen is that I might have to claim for a new lens on my insurance. If I do use one then I can be certain that the quality of every image will be reduced.
 
hollis_f said:
I do make backups I don't use filters.

.
Click to expand...

But they both have the same reasoning.. they are both done ..."just in case"... strange you would agree with one practice but not the other....because it costs?

You do see what I mean..... thats all it is.. an observation :)
 
KIPAX said:
But they both have the same reasoning.. they are both done ..."just in case"... strange you would agree with one practice but not the other....because it costs?

You do see what I mean..... thats all it is.. an observation :)
Click to expand...

One degrades the quality of all your images for no reason.

It's easy to keep lenses in good nick without using uv or "protective" filters, but with the images you never know when they might corrupt.

It's a totally flawed argument.
 
I'm in the same boat as Frank, I do backups but not 'protective' filters. Why? Well mainly, if I lose the photos I simply can't sell them, there is no way to get them back, with a lens problem I have backup lenses so keep shooting and then get it fixed. Why would I do something that can degrade a photo when we spend most of our lives trying to make things as sharp as possible? I always use a lens hood and that helps keep things away from the glass, but as was shown on an earlier link, lenses are pretty tough!

For anyone who is still with this thread and looking for details of the lens rather than an argument about using filters or not as well as backups (not sure how we got here) then I did post a few photos from the lens so you can check it out in action.
 
mark1616 said:
I'm in the same boat as Frank, I do backups but not 'protective' filters. Why? Well mainly, if I lose the photos I simply can't sell them, there is no way to get them back, with a lens problem I have backup lenses so keep shooting and then get it fixed. Why would I do something that can degrade a photo when we spend most of our lives trying to make things as sharp as possible? I always use a lens hood and that helps keep things away from the glass, but as was shown on an earlier link, lenses are pretty tough!

For anyone who is still with this thread and looking for details of the lens rather than an argument about using filters or not as well as backups (not sure how we got here) then I did post a few photos from the lens so you can check it out in action.
Click to expand...
wheres the photos mark.
 
Agree that filters and backups are 2 completely different things.

For the record the 120-300 front element is curved not flat for those talking about that earlier. Just looked at mine as I packed up to be sold.
 
Don't want to hijack the thread, but been looking at one of these myself.

With everyone talking about how heavy this lens is, I'd probably be using it on a tripod or monopod. So would I REALLY need the new OS lens or would the older version be ok?

Cheers
 
Just to reinforce the comments made by Scott above.

Attached is a 100% crop from a GBP20 note which I use as a test target. This was taken with the 120-300os with a Canon x2III TC attached from a distance of about 4m using a 60D with iso 1600, f6.3 and 1/200th second and HANDHELD.

I had the non-is version of this lens whch I did not like at all. The os version is much better in every respect, IMHO.


Looks ok to me !


test1-1.jpg



Regards to all.

Gary

PS. I had a UV(0) fitted for this shot. I never use lenses without filters !
 
Last edited:
Bigvin said:
Don't want to hijack the thread, but been looking at one of these myself.

With everyone talking about how heavy this lens is, I'd probably be using it on a tripod or monopod. So would I REALLY need the new OS lens or would the older version be ok?

Cheers
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, it is heavy but can be handheld. I used to handhold my non-OS easily for sports until a shoulder injury forced the introduction of a monopod.

there's nothing wrong with the non-OS version, it's fast and sharp and handles a 1.4x like its not there.

So basically depends if you need OS or not..
 
I'll have to have a think about it, when I'm sitting in hides I'm usually using a bean bag. When out walking I've usually got it attached to a monopod.

The OS still comes in useful in low light tho.

To be truthful, the problem is I'm not far off having the funds for a S/H 120-300. I'm just trying to refrain from buying what I can afford soon and saving for a few more months for the new OS version. (I'm sure I don't have to explain GAS to anyone here. LOL)
 
Frank

I suspect the "image quality" issues you refer to are the result of using a 60D at iso 1600 and my pp'ing.

Given that this combo already has 30 non-extraneous bits of glass between the target and the sensor I very much doubt that one additional AR coated plate will cause much IQ loss. I have no idea of the losses at the two AR coating-glass and AR coating-air interfaces and through a Sigma 105mmm EX UV(0) filter but I suspect it will be a percent or so maximum.

I'm happy with the sharpness demonstrated in this image, which was the point of posting for the OP's benefit, and you must have particularly high standards if it does not meet your own ?
 
Good point above, if you use hoods. I do not and live with artifacts/do use filters.
 
gary43 said:
Given that this combo already has 30 non-extraneous bits of glass between the target and the sensor I very much doubt that one additional AR coated plate will cause much IQ loss. I have no idea of the losses at the two AR coating-glass and AR coating-air interfaces and through a Sigma 105mmm EX UV(0) filter but I suspect it will be a percent or so maximum.
Click to expand...

The problems caused by UV filters with long lenses are different from those with short lenses. With short lenses coatings will greatly help reduce reflections and, therefore, flare. With long lenses it's more a problem of the filter glass not being optically correct. Here's a great article that explains it all with examples. LINK

Testing 'protective' filters on my 100-400 showed me that even expensive filters can have a terrible effect on IQ.
 
gary43 said:
I'm happy with the sharpness demonstrated in this image, which was the point of posting for the OP's benefit, and you must have particularly high standards if it does not meet your own ?
Click to expand...

I just didn't think it was as sharp as I would have expected from my Canon 300mm. So I had a try at replicating the shot - Canon 300f2.8 + Canon 2x TC MkII. 1/180s @ f5.6 and ISO1600. There was quite a bit of variety in the shots because of handholding and this is the best...

600mm%20test.jpg


If you look at the single hairs right on the edge of the queen's face I think you'll see quite a difference. I'd be really interested in seeing a repeat of your test without the filter, on a tripod and with a flat note (I think some of the fuzziness may be because it's crumpled).
 
Last edited:
Hi Frank

Crumpled note, yes, shot with a x2TC and not a x1.4 and this image was genuinally chosen at random so I do not know whether it was the best of my efforts as I did it in a bit of a rush. I'll repeat the test next time I get half an hour spare and post the results.

Thanks for the comparison with the C300.
 
gary43 said:
Hi Frank

Crumpled note, yes, shot with a x2TC and not a x1.4
Click to expand...

Whoops! Yes, mine was with a 2x as well - it's in the Exif.

Yes there's definitely a wrinkle in the note on the LHS. That'll explain quite a bit of the softness.
 
Hi

Sorry to compare apples with oranges a bit. Have been to Tescos and now only have tenners left.

Anyway, below are two images of a tenner taken with the 60D at iso 1600 and the 120-300os at 600mm f6.3 handheld. Please note, this is a straight RAW to jpeg conversion with no sharpening whatsoever or NR applied.


filter1.jpg



filter2.jpg


Top is with filter attached, bottom is without.

You can make your own mind up about the test used and the result !

Personally, I think this test shows the Siggy is possibly not as sharp as the Canon 300 with TCs attached when shooting targets and loooking at 100% crops but I doubt you would see much differernces in field shots.

Regards.

Gary
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top