Sigma 120-300 OS for wildlife

menthel

menthel

Messages
6,732
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Just looking through some of my photos at present and picking out the problems due to my 150-500. It is definitely soft at 500mm and the bokeh is not nice in some pics. I have been looking at 120-500 pics, especially with a x2 TC on and the photos look superb. What experience have people got of this lens, especially with a TC attached? Also, could some of my 150-500 problems be sorted by a service with sigma?
 
Have you got a filter on the 150-500?
They can cause nasty bokeh on long lenses
 
If you mean 120-300 OS as per title, search for posts by Micloi - he has one and TC.
 
scottthehat said:
was that at 50omm, also what f stop, and have you thought about maybe the 50-50mm os.
Click to expand...

500mm f6.3. I don't plan on side stepping to another ??-500 and will either stick with this or upgrade.
 
I have no experience of the 120-300, I'm afraid. But 99% of the sharp shots I have seen taken with the 150-500 are taken @ f8, or smaller, Jim.

My copy certainly isn't at it's best wide open, it's better at f7.1 but best from f8.

I have read that some lenses improve just below 500mm too.
 
It's the bokeh that is the problem and that occurs at f8 as well. I accept the in focus issues with this lens, it's a 500mm lens for not very much money! :)
 
Mine has occasionally produced a strange "wavy" bokeh, but I put it down to anomalies regarding OS. It's only happened once or twice.

Perhaps it's worth giving Sigma a call, just in case they have come across the issue before?
 
Comfortably Numb said:
Mine has occasionally produced a strange "wavy" bokeh, but I put it down to anomalies regarding OS. It's only happened once or twice.

Perhaps it's worth giving Sigma a call, just in case they have come across the issue before?
Click to expand...

I have time tomorrow and may well give them a ring to see what they have to say.
 
menthel said:
500mm f6.3. I don't plan on side stepping to another ??-500 and will either stick with this or upgrade.
Click to expand...
the 50-500mm os is not a side step, the 150-500mm os is about £849 and the 50-500mm os is £1250. it not really a side step.
does this look ok to you.
SJB_7552.jpg
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
the 50-500mm os is not a side step, the 150-500mm os is about £849 and the 50-500mm os is £1250. it not really a side step.
does this look ok to you.
SJB_7552.jpg
Click to expand...

Relatively its a sidestep. 120-300 is around £1900, add a x2 for another £200 and you have a lens longer and faster at the long end. It also seems to give much better images than either the 150-500 or 50-500. That kind of difference is probably worth paying for. And yes, I can see a little of the wavy bokeh on the left hand side.
 
well it sounds like you have made your mind up here the 120-300mm f2.8 your a paying £1900 for the f2.8, and your right it is a very nice lens and will give you 600mm f5.6 and at the end of the day it should be better as its alot less range, and its defo something i will be looking at but the 50-500mm os is for sure better and sharper than the 150-500mm os.
500mm wide open.
SB1_0140.jpg


and just some shoots.
SJB_8422.jpg


SJB_5934.jpg


SJB_8912.jpg

SJB_7590.jpg


SJB_2468.jpg
 
Last edited:
I can post shots from the 150-500 wide open sharp too. I admit the 50-500 may be a little sharper but its the bokeh that is really doing my nut, it is distracting from the rest of the picture. Its there again in your 3rd shot down. I have not made up my mind and if there is something wrong with my 150-500 I would rather get it fixed!
 
Something worth thinking about; the weight difference between the 150-500 and the 120-300 /f2.8

The 150-500 is no lightweight, but I know I could manage walking around for a day with it hanging by a shoulder strap (like I do with my 100-400), but the 120-300 would seriously strain me if I tried to use it that way.

Just worth mentioning, no idea if it would affect you.
 
Last edited:
squishy said:
Something worth thinking about; the weight difference between the 150-500 and the 120-300 /f2.8

The 150-500 is no lightweight, but I know I could manage walking around for a day with it hanging by a shoulder strap (like I do with my 100-400), but the 120-300 would seriously strain me if I tried to use it that way.

Just worth mentioning, no idea if it would affect you.
Click to expand...

I have just bought a new tripod and gimbal and am perfectly happy carting round a bit of weight, I am not an 8st weakling! However, it would be nice to keep the weight down.
 
menthel said:
500mm f6.3. I don't plan on side stepping to another ??-500 and will either stick with this or upgrade.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. The 150-500 can be sharp at 500mm, but not wide open. Head toward F9 and it will sharpen up nicely.
 
This is a hand held grab shot, but it should give you an idea of the 120-300 OS with an x2:

240-600_test_1.jpg
 
I do have sharp shots at f6.3, the example above certainly is.

Demilion, that looks very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top