Sigma 120-300 for Canon

[antonroland]

Hello folks

I know there are quite a few owners of this lens on here and I would like to hear from you how good this lens really is on Canon bodies, preferably Full frame...anyone have the Sigma 1.4x converter...will the Canon 1.4x work etc etc

Thanks very much!

 

[Alzibiff]

It's good! (Although I would like the zoom ring to be a wee bit easier to turn). The CANON 1.4x works a treat although I tend not to like using converters on anything. Saying that I have collected both a SIGMA 1.4x and a CANON one over the years and tried the SIGMA on my 120-300mm last Sunday. Immediate impression was that results were not as good as with the CANON - but I haven't had chance to compare yet (I was using the CANON 1.4x the previous week).

Hope all this makes sense and not too obsessive about 1.4x teleconverters!

Alan

 

[antonroland]

Thanks very much Alan

This is exactly the info I am looking for as I really want to get myself the 300/2.8 but won't be able to afford it for some time...the Siggy 120-300 is cheap by comparison but I have seen some guys on the net flaming it.

I currently own the Canon 2x but not the 1.4 x converter and plan to get the 1.4x soon.

Now I am a firm believer in the (self-invented) fact that converters should never be used with zooms...although I have come across others who seem to agree.

As Canon's 1.4x is better IQ-wise than the 2x, I was just curious as to whether the same is true for Sigma converters and if the lens would be better with the Canon converter than with the Sigma converter.

How fast is it to focus?

 

[seriousrikk]

I am on my second 120-300mm (Canon)

But don't let that put you off, I had one for a couple of years and it was without a doubt my favourite lens - but a shoulder injury stopped me from using it so I foolishly sold it. I have recently purchased a 120-300 and all is well in my world again.

I regularly use the Sigma APO EX 1.4 teleconvertor with it and I don't see any noticable loss of quality - although I do notice a reduction in AF peformance as I can no longer use the cross type AF points. I will also be trying stacked 1.4 and 2x convertors on it in the next month or so - results to follow!

 

[snapzz]

I use the Canon f2.8 but did try the Sigma a few years ago. Firstly the Sigma is larger and the zoom ring is at the end making it more difficult than the Canon to zoom through the range. I also found the zoom ring very tight and after a day of constant use my fingers were quite sore.Biggest bonus was the extra range but drawback you suffered at closer distances. Overall I preferred the Canon as it was easier to use, short end of 70mm suited me and the L glass quality made up at the longer end. Sorry to say I don't know if the Canon extender will fit but value for money I would recommend the Canon especially if the IS is a factor.

 

[seriousrikk]

To add a bit about zooms. The 120-300 is a bit of an enigma here. While zooms don't work too well with TC's (I used a 70-200 F2.8 IS with a 2x once - yuk! ) the 120-300 seems to accept them much in the wway a prime lens does - ie very well.

OK, the 2x is not so special but that is the case on most primes too but the 1.4 really is much better than it was on my 70-200 F2.8

 

[antonroland]

I really love the 300/2.8 prime, but, aside from the financial aspect as said above, I found it slightly useless for school rugby when the action quickly came close to me.

My 70-200/2.8 is great but lacks a bit of reach, even on my 1D IIN...

So on paper at least, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 looks like a cracking lens IF I can get a sharp copy of course...

The 1.4x (possibly Canon) will only really be used in a very real emergency and not as a standard thing.

Anyone who used on on 1D bodies and who can comment on the 120-300's AF performance on a 1D?

Cheers all and thanks for your responses

 

[Alzibiff]

Whilst we're talking about this lens - anyone know whether if it possible to "loosen" the zoom so that it does not take too much effort to twist? When I purchased the lens, I was given to understand that it would get easier to turn once it had been used a few times - it didn't!

Alan

 

[snapzz]

I really love the 300/2.8 prime, but, aside from the financial aspect as said above, I found it slightly useless for school rugby when the action quickly came close to me.

When shooting sports try using a two body setup. One with 300 and one with (say) 70-200. I have used this setup for football and works well once you get use to switch over. I have the larger on a monon pod and just drop it on my shoulder which I use the shorter one. Also handy if your sat down!

My 70-200/2.8 is great but lacks a bit of reach, even on my 1D IIN...

See my prevous reply regarding this

So on paper at least, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 looks like a cracking lens IF I can get a sharp copy of course...

mmmmm...........

Anyone who used on on 1D bodies and who can comment on the 120-300's AF performance on a 1D?

Yep tried it on 1Dmk2 and as far as I can remember it was slower and noisier than the Canon 70-200.

 

[antonroland]

Yep tried it on 1Dmk2 and as far as I can remember it was slower and noisier than the Canon 70-200.

Tried as in played for a few seconds or 5 hours of continuous school rugby to se if it really works to get the shot?

 

[snapzz]

Tried as in played for a few seconds or 5 hours of continuous school rugby to se if it really works to get the shot?

Tried as in continually shooting inside an ice rink 250th @f2.8 ISO 3200 for 6 hours before giving up with sore fingers!

However I did know of a few footie shooters who use to use it but as far as I know all have given up for primes.

 

[snoop69]

Not sure if this is any help to you but i looked at a 120-300 on Sunday.

This pic was taken using a 450d with a Canon 2x convertor.

The pic has had no work other than resizing for the forum.

 

[Les McLean]

I use the sigma 120-300 F2.8 on a 1D MkII (and 1DS MKII) and am a huge fan of this lens (apart from the weight of course), found the a/f tracking slow on a 40D, not sure if it was down to the lens or camera ? but on a pro body, it's good, probably not quite up there with canon's 300 F2.8 though.

I use a sigma 1.4 TC and like Richardthesane, same kind of results. The 2.0 TC (sigma), not so good, odd times I can get a nice sharp image, but often not?

 

[antonroland]

Tried as in continually shooting inside an ice rink 250th @f2.8 ISO 3200 for 6 hours before giving up with sore fingers!

However I did know of a few footie shooters who use to use it but as far as I know all have given up for primes.

Yes, I know that feeling well!

Thing is, as much as I would love owning the primes...and even if cost was not an issue...I can't see primes suiting my style of shooting as I like to move with the game.

Shooting cricket would be a totally different game altogether as the shooting distances are more static than rugby.

Oh well, back to the drawing board then...maybe I should rent one and see how it works for me...

Thanks again to all who responded here...much appreciated!!