Sigma 120-300 f2.8

Matt_B

Matt_B

Messages
348
Name
Matthew
Edit My Images
Yes
I've heard lots of good things about this lens for motorsport use, which after a dabble last year I think i'll be doing alot more of in 2011.

I've got the short wide end covered, but is this probably the best all rounder for the longer end? I have heard that its not so great (on the AF) when the action is coming straight towards you? Can anyone confirm?

What other longer motorsport options are there? Preference would be for a zoom over a prime I think as I tend to move around a fair bit so like options!

Many thanks in advance guys!
 
I beleive there are good and bad copies out there, I bought one from new 3 years ago, Still use it as my main lens from U7s kids footy to premier league footy for the papers. Dont get me wrong Im hoping for a Nikon 300 prime this year but I for one fully recommend the Sigma 120-300
 
All Sigma lenses are crap according to internet forum users, that is why they have gone out of business.


Oh, hang on, they have not.....................:)

The 120-300 is a superb lens. 99.9% of owners will say so.

99.9% of web readers will differ. Make your own mind up..................(y)
 
This may be slightly going off tack, but does anyone use a 135mm f2 for motorsport?
 
It does seem an excellent lens (the 120-300) and not bad value second hand either...
 
It has lots of reviews but typically with Sigma there are some superb ones and some real dogs too. I had one for a few days, it was a dog. However I believe there are good ones out there.

For what its worth i loved my 100-300 F4.

If you were looking to buy a new one [sigma] i would probably look at a used Canon 300mm F2.8 IS instead.
 
This lens is no issue at all regarding AF. It's not as fast as the Canon options but plenty quick enough to capture the action without a worry.

All taken using this lens over the years (I don't have many to hand so just found them used on other forums that I posted on).

I've shoot quite a bit with a 1.4x TC and still don't struggle with AF speed at any time so you don't need to worry about it.

bike%2011.jpg


wiscombe%20park%20speed%20hillclimb%20mg%20car%20club%208th%20sept%202007%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2030d_img_5760_std.jpg


car2.jpg


This was the fastest part of the track (it's a hill climb event so no really fast parts), these were hitting about 120mph as they went past.
werrington%20speed%20hillclimb%20plymouth%20motor%20club%205th%20may%202007%20%20%20%20%20%20%2010001_std.jpg
 
Thanks Nick, I was hoping to look used really.

Truth be told I was all set on either a 135 f2 or a 70-200 2.8 but tried a mate's 120-300 and was seriously impressed so its thrown a bit of a curve ball into the mix.
 
another happy 120-300 user here. primarily used for equestrian at the moment but it has had a few sucessful motorsport outings.

works great with a 1.4x converter too, which will give you 420mm at F4. ideal lengths and speeds.
 
Neil, got any sample shots? The missus is always dragging me to equestrian events, wouldnt mind taking some pics whilst there.
 
another happy user :) Mine actually has a small scratch on the front element and as a result I got it a bit below market value. You can't see the impact of that mark at all so don't be worried if you look at something that's not 100% mint. There are some bargains to be had.

GM1_3753.jpg
 
Thanks all for your feedback. I can see the 120-300 is a great lens and is probably just what im after for motorsport.

However, I do still have the dilemma of this lens vs the new Canon 70-200 2.8 or the 135 f2 (with tc). I dont only shoot motorsport and wondered if the optical quality of these two (plus the 70-200 having IS for when I might need it) might give them an advantage.

Decisions decisions...
 
personally if it was me i think for motorsport the 300 @2.8 long end and the option of a 1.4x is ideal. even the 200 long end with a 1.4x may come up short at some circuits.

but then it depends what circuits youre going to..

plus you dont need IS for sports.
 
Neil - primarily i'll be shooting Oulton, Brands, Silverstone and possibly Snetterton this year, oh and maybe a day or two at Anglesey too. I agree with what you say but optically is the new 70-200 2.8 a better lens? I accept that 100mm is alot, and its not quite apples with apples!

Interestingly, read an article by Darren Heath the other day, and yes he only shoots F1 and also full frame but he has 200mm and 600mm and nothing in between which I thought odd. Seems to be managing ok with that setup though!
 
silverstone youll definatelly need 300+, brands now theyve got more and more fence up the same (thats to say there not spots for the 70-200). snetterton has limited pickings, the 200 would be okay at the esses but around the back its going to be short in my opinion. not been out oulton or anglesey to be honest.

i dont know about the new 70-200 being better optically, the 120-300 has certainly never left me feeling its optics are below standard. its always been spot on for AF accuracy, IQ and colour for me personally.
 
Thanks for qualifying Neil.

2 further questions if I may; 1. Are Sigma teleconvertors up to the same standard as Canon? and 2. Is this lens suitable for full frame as well as cropped. In that I mean, when shooting it full frame, is there any vignetting etc?

I'm not very familiar with Sigma lenses and equiment, hence the questions...
 
I believe the Canon TCs are better but never had a problem with my Sigma 1.4. The Sigma 2x is not great but still served fine and have an A2 photo taken with the 120-300mm f2.8 and 2x TC on my wall and it's fine. It's of a swan in flight and there is plenty of feather detail with it stopped down.

Yes, this will work fine with full frame. I've used it on my 5DmkII with no issues.
 
In your shoes i would personally go for a 70-200 and 1.4 tc.

Last year i shot almost uniquely on a 70-200 2.8 and 1.4tc on a 1d (so 1.3 crop) and it was fine for me at almost every circuit. Granted it was a bit on the short side for some circuits such as Silverstone, but i worked around that.

The 70-200 is a much for any photographer in my opinion. Would never sell mine.
 
Matt_B said:
Thanks for qualifying Neil.

2 further questions if I may; 1. Are Sigma teleconvertors up to the same standard as Canon? and 2. Is this lens suitable for full frame as well as cropped. In that I mean, when shooting it full frame, is there any vignetting etc?

I'm not very familiar with Sigma lenses and equiment, hence the questions...
Click to expand...

i use a sigma 1.4 and the 120-300 performs to me exactly as it does without.

as long as a sigma lens is DG it will work on crop and full frame. DC is the range that will only work on crop.
 
asterix said:
I beleive there are good and bad copies out there, I bought one from new 3 years ago, Still use it as my main lens from U7s kids footy to premier league footy for the papers. Dont get me wrong Im hoping for a Nikon 300 prime this year but I for one fully recommend the Sigma 120-300
Click to expand...

When you get rid of it, can you let me know, as I'm after one..
 
dunganick said:
In your shoes i would personally go for a 70-200 and 1.4 tc.

Last year i shot almost uniquely on a 70-200 2.8 and 1.4tc on a 1d (so 1.3 crop) and it was fine for me at almost every circuit. Granted it was a bit on the short side for some circuits such as Silverstone, but i worked around that.

The 70-200 is a much for any photographer in my opinion. Would never sell mine.
Click to expand...

Well shooting cropped im going to be nearer 300 at the longer end using a 70-200 anyway. Im only planning on going to Silverstone once this year so could always hire something that weekend I guess.

An executive decision (and a check of finances!) needs to be made!
 
Decision made, i've decided to stick with my original plan and buy the new 70-200 Canon plus TC.

Many thanks for all your input in helping me make a decision (though it was probably against the advice of a few of you!)
 
You ask for advice and opinions, people offer that and then you make your own choice on what to spend your brass on. End of the day the decision is totally yours,the 70-200 and TC gets reviews so i`m sure you`ll be happy with that setup...........(y)
 
If you're buying secondhand, test drive first. I bought a Sigma 120-300 secondhand and it struggled to keep up with cars at speed. Passed it on to a football photographer.

I've been pleased with my Sigma 100-300 f4. If I replace it it would probably be for a prime, and then a shorter zoom.
 
neil_g said:
really? even on the 20D its blisteringly quick to track (even shooting BSB), the 1Dmk3 is another ball game completely..
Click to expand...

I agree about the speed, no issue at all. Going back to my initial photos, one of those was almost straight on at over 100mph.
 
Last edited:
I tried Andrews lens with a view to buying it. It had issues tracking consistently (if this was an AF speed issue im not sure)

I then bought a different lens (EX DG HSM) and the AF was poor on this one too. I returned this and went back to my 100-300 F4.

However i know friends that have great success with the 120-300. Both Nikon and Canon.

I also dont consider cars/bikes difficult to focus on unless they are feet away from you. They are usually shot with long focal lengths at distance and the amount of AF travel needed to track the car/bike is very little so its easy to track.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top