Sigma 120-300 2.8, really that good?

andyjayh

andyjayh

Messages
487
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
After reading another thread on here tonight regarding the Sigma 120-300 vs Canon 300 f4, it got me thinking. Didn’t want to hijack that tread with my own questions so started another. I already have a Canon 35-350L with 1.4x which does in theory cover this range, however it is slow 3.5-5.6 (6.3 with tc) and it is very hard getting a sharp image with it at times in low light conditions (winter days!)

It might just be the general light levels around at this time of year but I do find myself wanting a faster lens a lot of the time so I have been wishing for a 300L 2.8 :D but concerned how I will get on with a prime.

My subjects are sport (mx, bike and car track action, air shows) and now wildlife. So I need a versatile lens for this and preferably not lots of lenses that I need to keep changing and buying :bang:

After reading this thread I did a little research on the 120-300 and it does come with some favourable end user reviews :) Some negative comments on the AF speed and accuracy in lower light though.

I have been put off Sigma's in the past buy owning a 135-400 and a 10-20 both of which went back for being soft :crying: So do I try again?

The versatility of this lens appeals, fast 300 zoom for sport, quick 420 zoom with 1.4tc and good 600 with 2x for wildlife (y) Is this too good to be true?? It really does sound like the lens I have been looking for to cover the majority of my subject interests :help:
 
I've just bought a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 to replace a Canon 100-400L IS.

I did extensive research and it's in a completely different league to the Canon lens.
Pro motorsport photographers on POTN highly rate it - They all rave about focus speed and image quality.

If you can live the weight (2.7kg) then go for it!


Here is a sample shot.

50% crop at 300mm F2.8

Sigma-120-300-f2.8.jpg
 
Hi, I was in a similar situation to you a while back...........(sorry - bit of a long post coming.....)

I had a 20D and similar requirements to yourself. I have a Siggy 70-200 f2.8 which is a great lens, but is just not long enough. Add a 1.4X and it still gives great results, but still not quite long enough. Add a 2X and it works fine in good light, but struggles in poor light.

Next up I bought a 35 - 350L. An excellent lens: Great range, fantastic wide open, easily handholdable. But f5.6. I have never tried this lens with a convertor.

Out comes the credit card again, for a Siggy 100-300 f4. Now we are getting somewhere. Another excellent lens: Fantastic wide open, hand holdable, works well with a 1.4X (image quality and focus speed), just ok with the 2X. I'm a happy bunny.....................unless it is dark/dull/wet and I need f2.8.......

So guess what - next up is the 120-300 f2.8 Siggy. This lens does nearly everything I want, BUT I do not know if I can use it to its full potential. It is heavy, and combined with the shallow f2.8 DOF you need good long lens technique to get accurate focus. The lens is fine, it's me who struggles :bonk: But for those times when only f2.8 will do, this lens can and will produce the goods, plus it works well and will autofocus with either convertor.

I now have a 40D as well (like you), and I can up the iso compared to the 20D. I am now wondering if I will get consistantly better results by using the 100-300 f4 at a higher iso, than by using the 120-300 f2.8. (Obviously there are times when you need f2.8 and high iso to get any chance of a shot, but as I am an amature and don't have get the shot, I go home then.) But if it had an image stabiliser (y) ........I am now thinking about hiring a Canon 300 f2.8 Lis and/or a 500 f4 Lis to compare them as well. :shrug:

To sum up, yes the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a fantastic lens.

If I get a chance I will nip down to Snetterton this coming weekend for the Superbike practice, and compare the two Siggy lenses side by side.
 
Thanks for your replies, very helpful (y)

So it seems that the lens IS that good just requires good technique to get the best out of. The situations I think I would get the best from this type of lens is on overcast days, tripod mounted out shooting wildlife. Here the lens will be held steadily and the extra speed will really help.

However I am concerned with the weight and how many times will I really strap a lens of this size on to just go take some pictures? Some could be said for any of the fast primes though :thinking:

I am tempted by the additional flexibility over the primes whilst still maintaining image quality, seems like a good deal to me. Shame I can't hire one to have a go with.
 
Never seen that beast before... I suggest to use that you might want to try the belt mounted monopod technique - my friend uses this successfully with the "big white dalek" Canon 300 2.8 (non IS!) with great success.

Don't be scared btw about going to a prime... yes it does take a little more thought about what you are doing but on the flip side the focus speed is very fast.

Oh and lastly, I hang out at Brands a lot and can't say I've ever seen this Sigma in anyones hands, let alone any of the regulars who look like they know what they are doing...
 
im also thinking of getting a 120-300, i tried one at the focus show and it felt not to bad handheld, not to heavy i thought and felt well balanced :)

desantnik.... the belt mounted monopod idear, which ive seen alot of the pro`s using at various circuits do you have to make them youself or are they available from somewhere
 
tappilappi said:
Hi, I was in a similar situation to you a while back...........(sorry - bit of a long post coming.....)

I had a 20D and similar requirements to yourself. I have a Siggy 70-200 f2.8 which is a great lens, but is just not long enough. Add a 1.4X and it still gives great results, but still not quite long enough. Add a 2X and it works fine in good light, but struggles in poor light.

Next up I bought a 35 - 350L. An excellent lens: Great range, fantastic wide open, easily handholdable. But f5.6. I have never tried this lens with a convertor.

Out comes the credit card again, for a Siggy 100-300 f4. Now we are getting somewhere. Another excellent lens: Fantastic wide open, hand holdable, works well with a 1.4X (image quality and focus speed), just ok with the 2X. I'm a happy bunny.....................unless it is dark/dull/wet and I need f2.8.......

So guess what - next up is the 120-300 f2.8 Siggy. This lens does nearly everything I want, BUT I do not know if I can use it to its full potential. It is heavy, and combined with the shallow f2.8 DOF you need good long lens technique to get accurate focus. The lens is fine, it's me who struggles :bonk: But for those times when only f2.8 will do, this lens can and will produce the goods, plus it works well and will autofocus with either convertor.

I now have a 40D as well (like you), and I can up the iso compared to the 20D. I am now wondering if I will get consistantly better results by using the 100-300 f4 at a higher iso, than by using the 120-300 f2.8. (Obviously there are times when you need f2.8 and high iso to get any chance of a shot, but as I am an amature and don't have get the shot, I go home then.) But if it had an image stabiliser (y) ........I am now thinking about hiring a Canon 300 f2.8 Lis and/or a 500 f4 Lis to compare them as well. :shrug:

To sum up, yes the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is a fantastic lens.

If I get a chance I will nip down to Snetterton this coming weekend for the Superbike practice, and compare the two Siggy lenses side by side.
Click to expand...
Do not hire a 300f2.8! you will end up buying one:D
 
99% of the time my 120-300 is on a monopod.. use it couple of tiems a week for football.. fantastic lens

I took all these on sunday with that lens.. some crowd shots where in darkened areas.. some in light http://matchpics.fotopic.net/c1476387.html
 
Dave sp3 said:
desantnik.... the belt mounted monopod idear, which ive seen alot of the pro`s using at various circuits do you have to make them youself or are they available from somewhere
Click to expand...

Yeah you can buy them, but we've used all sorts of things on your belt instead - most things work - try bum bags, drinks bottle holders and grenade pouches (y)

Another thing - make sure your monopod can go down to a nice short length - some can be a bit too long even at their shortest (depending on how much of a lanky git you aren't :LOL:)
 
Has anyone got a link to some pics of these monopod pouches........I think I know what you mean.....:thinking:
 
Yes, the price of the Canon is definitely not for the squeamish.........Not many (good) second hand ones come up for sale, and a new (UK) one is nearly 2k more than a good second hand Siggy 120-300.
 
Going back to the OP's original question, and note our gear is the same (40D/35-350), I would be tempted to keep the 35-350 for its versatility and try to get something like a 500 f4 (finances permitting) to extend his focal range.
 
Thanks for that :LOL:

I do like the versatility of the 35-350 but it does need good light to work well being a bit on the slow side. I often find myself unable to keep the shutter speed above the focal length without bumping the ISO right up :crying: This works but I have a lot of processing to do and not many keepers. I do like the lens though I just want a bit faster :nuts:

It may well be that I have been really thinking about my photography since getting the 40D over xmas and therefore most of my shots have been in poor light - winter. Roll on the summer and I may see it differently :shrug: However I am spending more time trying to get better shots of wildlife and the lighting combined with f/5.6 is not helping.

The Sig 500 f/4.5 is a fair bunch of cash, the Canon, :runaway: think the fd of the house will have something to say about that!
 
Andy, I used to have the 135-400 also but got rid for the 120-300. Absolute beauty of a lens, I've used it for cricket, football, lacrosse and it was very good for tracking aircraft at Fairford.

I've got the Siggy 1.4x teleconverter so you get a 168-420 f/4 lens which is handy for distance.

A worthwhile investment!

Cheers,

Adam.
 
Cadwell (Glenn Summerbell), and Dave Galpin (Dave_G), are all regular Brands attendees who use this. Know of about 6 or 7 other semi-pro motorsport togs who use this lens.


desantnik said:
Never seen that beast before... I suggest to use that you might want to try the belt mounted monopod technique - my friend uses this successfully with the "big white dalek" Canon 300 2.8 (non IS!) with great success.

Don't be scared btw about going to a prime... yes it does take a little more thought about what you are doing but on the flip side the focus speed is very fast.

Oh and lastly, I hang out at Brands a lot and can't say I've ever seen this Sigma in anyones hands, let alone any of the regulars who look like they know what they are doing...
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

Im Desantnik's mate with the 300/2.8 non-is. I started with a 35-350L which i sold to a mate, then to the 300/4L which i sold to Desantnik. Im not a pro and i dont profess to be a being of all knowing and i havent tried the Sigma. What i do know is while i probably cant justify the 300/2.8 for any other reason than i wanted it, it is almost certainly an 'optically superior' lens than the Sigma. However, before im flamed, let me quantify that.

From what ive read the Sigma is a stunningly good lens and probably the best they've ever made and certainly a damn site more versatile than a prime 300 - but in the same way that an F1 car is perfect at a racetrack, if you made it so you can do the weekly shopping at Tesco's somethings got to give (and i doubt youll see many at the Olympics :D )Assuming Sigma have sorted their slightly wobbly QC and you get a good one then i'd say its a much better bang per buck all round.

As for using the prime, i pretty much only do motorsports - and mainly bikes at that. I tend to use the 300 95% of the time, with the 1.4x and occassionally the 2x TC's, as it makes me look harder to compose the shot and on many occasions ive discovered a new angle that i would have missed with the benefit of a zoom. As for AF, i previously had a 30D and now have a 1DMK2N - the 300/2.8 is quicker and more accurate with a 1 series than a 30 without a doubt (especially off centre) and its still pretty damn good with the 1.4x and the 2x TC's.

When it comes down to it youre the one that has to justify spending the money and whether it fits with your shooting style. Forget the snobbery and sniping that can go on from both sides on the 'lens fence' and go for the one that suits you.

Hope that helps a bit!

Cheers

Nat
B->
 
Thanks for the reply and advice Nat :) I really would like the 300 3.8 but just can't justify that price tag :crying: So with that I am looking for something that is more fitting for my uses. I tend to do both nature and motorsport and as I am not a Pro and don't NEED to get that shot then I don't spend so much time thinking about position. I have therefore found that a zoom is so useful. Only yesterday I was sitting in a hide with a chap that had a 300 f4 and a 70-200 f4 and just could not get the right focal length for where the birds were coming down. Me, I just adjusted my lens slightly and caried on shooting (y)

That experiance kind of made up my mind that a zoom fits my style for now and I will have to long for that white glass for a bit more :LOL:

Andy
 
Having a 300mm that can zoom out to 120mm is wonderful.
I too have the 120-300 f/2.8 and it's trully amazing! It's as sharp as they get and really versatile.
Only today I was stalking a fox which came too near and found myself shooting at it at the 120mm end of the lens.
Here's my flickr.

How can I upload a 100% crop here? I can't find an upload button.
 
Nice shots of the fox :clap:

Just use an img tag linking to your own flickr site or use the TP gallary and again an img tag. Need to resize the images though so the longest side is no more then 800 pixels though for the site rules.
 
This is the original, just resized to fit criteria. Nothing done on photoshop, just resizing.
IMG_59731.jpg


This is a 100% crop, 1/500 sec handheld, as it came from the camera (upped vibrance in Camera Raw), at f/3.5, ISO-400, no sharpening, jpeg compression at quality 7/12.
IMG_5973.jpg
 
Now that looks good to me!! (y) Very sharp for straight from the camera :clap:
 
The sun was out Friday morning so I took the oportunity to use my 120-300 for the fist time out.

These were both taken with the 1.4x extender fitted. I'm very happy with the sharpness, contrast and colour from the lens :)

50% crop, 420mm, 1/800, F7.1, ISO 400

Simga-120-300_photo1.jpg




420mm, 1/3200, F7.1, ISO 400

Sigma-120-300_photo2.jpg
 
Great shots, my credit card is running for cover :LOL:
 
I've been trying to convince myself NOT to buy this lens for several weeks now for the sake of marital bliss..... :bat: this thread is not helping ;)
 
Every marriage has it's rocky moments, it's what makes the relationship stronger :D

Did that help? :LOL:
 
I'm also very tempted by this lens as I enjoy motorsport. I'm by no means a pro-photographer though and would question my technical ability.

I've noticed it available to hire, for about £85 for 7 days (+ delivery), so I'm thinking of giving it a try in the new year.

If I do take the plunge, it'll be yet another box that I've got to smuggle past the missus!
 
I bought this lens a while back, and it's a cracker. They don't come up very often secondhand as they're so good.
 
I had a look at this lens along with the Sigma 300mm and the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS. Only thing that put me off was the reported slow autofocus and the lack of thorough QC from Sigma in general. Decided on the Canon in the end for motorsport, although a prime indeed does make you work harder for your shot.
 
Laudrup said:
Only thing that put me off was the reported slow autofocus and the lack of thorough QC from Sigma in general.
Click to expand...

Internet myth. You only ever hear bad tales,never good, and considering how much Sigma lens are in relation to others and how many they sell and have done for a number of years,I think you will find the percentage to be very low.Just my opinion of course.

The 120-300 is a cracking lens........(y)
 
Read the reviews of the 120-300mm or the 70-200mm or the 50-150mm on The Digital Picture.com. That's just the ones I've read (mainly as I was going to buy those lenses and instead bought a Bigma). I wouldn't say it's a myth. I'm certainly a lot more wary if I'm looking at buying a Sigma instead of Canon.
 
Laudrup said:
Read the reviews of the 120-300mm or the 70-200mm or the 50-150mm on The Digital Picture.com. That's just the ones I've read (mainly as I was going to buy those lenses and instead bought a Bigma). I wouldn't say it's a myth. I'm certainly a lot more wary if I'm looking at buying a Sigma instead of Canon.
Click to expand...

How many threads do you read on here that say "Top notch service from Jessops" compared to "Jessops are rubbish"?....for example.

We, as a nation, are quick to condemn and slow to praise.If Sigma lenses were so bad, then surely they would no longer be in business...........:shrug:
 
desantnik said:
Oh and lastly, I hang out at Brands a lot and can't say I've ever seen this Sigma in anyones hands, let alone any of the regulars who look like they know what they are doing...
Click to expand...

Theres about 3 regulars that are using them trackside, its a pretty capable lens (i cant find any of their cards currently, although Oakley is one guy), Its the grown up version of my lens. To be honest so far i've been massively unimpressed with canon lenses. Im in two minds about shelling out big money for a 300 f2.8 is when i think the 120-300 2.8 may be 99% as good.

Have a look at: http://www.racepicsuk.com/

This is the gallery from a moderator from a certain other Canon Forum who uses his 120-300 for most of his rallying shots.

This is Ukaskews Gallery: http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/Motorsport Almost everything motorsport is shot with a 120-300

There is one of the pro's that shoots with one as his main lens matched with a d3, his name escapes me, but i know he shoots formula BMW.

When it comes to service, ive found them to be very helpful when ive enquired (never actually had to send one of my lenses to them for service) but at least they do it themselves instead of palming it off on local repairers.
 
What Canon lenses aren't impressing you? The 300mm is in a different league to most Canon/Sigma lenses, which is why you will see pros using the 300mm/400mm at most major sporting events. As for the 120-300mm being 99% as good as the 300mm, I'd highly doubt it.
 
I've so far owned a 300mm f2.8 (obviously used, but was like new) which was distinctly average. Im not convinced that the xxD bodies have the AF ability to cope with large aperture lenses. I also purchased a new 70-200 2.8, the first copy went back and the 2nd one still isn't as sharp or fast as my Sigma 100-300 f4 at f2.8 or F4.

I will be buying a 300 2.8 IS in the new year, if that doesn't impress me then i don't know whats going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top