Sigma 120-300 OS @ Highclere 1st test and review (Horses)

DemiLion

DemiLion

Messages
12,769
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Without going into a whole raft of details I've recently revamped my kit and Highclere was the first chance to test it properly.

I had an upgrade choice of a Canon 300/2.8 IS, Canon 400/2.8 MkI (both used) or a copy of the brand new Sig 120-300 OS. For what I'm going to be using the lens for, the Sig was the natural option; light (relatively at 3kg), flexible (zoom v prime) and reputedly extendible, although accompanied by all the usual caveats and doubts when it comes to 3rd party lenses. The purchase was therefore a bit of a gamble.

I'm aware that I'll probably take a hit in comparison to the Canons in IQ terms, especially considering that they are primes, but my major concern was the AF response time and accuracy. The focus keeper rate for the day was up at 95% (also partially due to the new 1DIV) and the final results speak for themselves:

Native:

300/3.5
Highclere_27082011-9777.jpg



139/4
Highclere_27082011-9815.jpg


300/2.8
Highclere_27082011-9828.jpg


With 1.4x

420/4
Highclere_27082011-9834.jpg




1:1 Crop 139/4
Highclere_27082011-9819-2.jpg



Original:
Highclere_27082011-9819.jpg


To say that I'm a little bit chuffed (and relieved) is an understatement.

As always comments & crit welcomed!
 
Last edited:
Excellent! Thanks :)

That's what I want to see - AF tracking (y) For action photography, AF is often more important that absolute sharpness, which is obviously no use at all if the shot is out of focus anyway.

Just a question. Some of those images are not very testing in terms of distance changes, but on the third image, head-on Diana lookalike, it looks like sharpest focus is on the leg. But where was the AF point?

Thanks.
 
that does look good. Have you had the original version as well and if so how would you compare them?
 
Last edited:
dod said:
that does look good. Have you had the original version as well and if so how would you compare them?
Click to expand...

There's really no comparison, they are totally different lenses. The old version was frankly not that great at all, but the new one appears to be a complete transformation. And with OS, and cheaper.
 
HoppyUK said:
Excellent! Thanks :)

That's what I want to see - AF tracking (y) For action photography, AF is often more important that absolute sharpness, which is obviously no use at all if the shot is out of focus anyway.

Just a question. Some of those images are not very testing in terms of distance changes, but on the third image, head-on Diana lookalike, it looks like sharpest focus is on the leg. But where was the AF point?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

You are right about the head on shot, but the focus slipped for the following reasons:

Distant to subject 20.7m, 300/2.8 => DoF = 0.63m
The focus point was on the rider's eyes, tracking head on from a point approx 10m out from the fence. Considering that the camera had to cope with the horse's bonce and ears butting its way over the fp before the shot was taken, I'd say that it's done fairly well.

This isn't a shot that you'd normally ever take, because at f/2.8 the horse is drifting OOF to both front and rear with just the jockey left in critical focus. With the speed that the rider was travelling at at the time (approx x2 the total speed of the combination), I'd say that the lens and camera have coped fairly well and the focus has probably slipped by about 30cm to the rear- or more to the point the rider has accelerated through the point of focus.

It was a spur of the moment shot, but one that I think has come off reasonably well - although it needs a bit more practice to perfect it; ie some of the fault is with the operator rather than the kit! :)

As for tracking and lack of distance changes; sure it's not as haphazard as footie (first game with the lens next w/e) in terms of rapid focal length changes, but the ability to stay on target with large amounts of crossing interference was certainly tested; although that is more a function of the camera's AF as opposed to the lens. As a complete SWAG, I'd say that it was faster than the Canon 400/2.8 Mk1 that I tested the week before - although that was known to have slower AF than the MkII version.
 
Thanks Mark, good stuff. Especially your punt vs the 400L 2.8 :eek: Would love to see them shot side by side ;)

As you say, the lens is only as good as the camera, and vice versa, and both only as good as the photographer :D
 
HoppyUK said:
The old version was frankly not that great at all
Click to expand...

have to say what ive seen the new OS version is very impressive, however to write the old version off would be foolish. every sport ive thrown at mine it has excelled at (and im sure others on here would say the same) and as mark said regarding weight and versitility it's still a very viable option considering canon has nothing in that zoom class to match it. that and with the release of the OS the older version should drop in price.
 
I did spot someone with a new 120-300 walking around the course so that must have been you! I was working for the official photography team. The lens looks very sharp from your shots, this matches my recent experience with it too.
 
tgruitt said:
I did spot someone with a new 120-300 walking around the course so that must have been you! I was working for the official photography team. The lens looks very sharp from your shots, this matches my recent experience with it too.
Click to expand...

Fence 18 on the BE100 XC course?

I was probably doing a course walk for new controllers & commentators at the time if that's the case. :)
 
When using it for motorsport the major letdown for me with the old 120-300mm was the speed of the AF, anything coming towards you at speed and it couldn't keep up, 90% of the time it was fine, is the AF on the new version faster to focus.

If it is it may be the perfect motorsport lens
 
DemiLion said:
Fence 18 on the BE100 XC course?

I was probably doing a course walk for new controllers & commentators at the time if that's the case. :)
Click to expand...

I was on fence 14, the one with the castle in the background. Did you have a green T shirt on and were walking round in a big group? My trained eye saw the new Sig glinting on a 1D!
 
tgruitt said:
I was on fence 14, the one with the castle in the background. Did you have a green T shirt on and were walking round in a big group? My trained eye saw the new Sig glinting on a 1D!
Click to expand...

Yarp that was me! Sorry I missed you on 14 as we were talking about horses v clay pigeon shooting both times around if I remember properly! :)
 
Not too bad......;)
 
That looks an impressive lens and a lot cheaper than a Canon, one to keep an eye on :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark, With the 1:1 crop and also from comparing with the original, I think this is definitely one for me ....I'll be looking for your rugby or Soccer shots next week before I make my mind up....85% there already ...Thank you.

Have you adjusted the shooting style on the MKIV for these shots...?
 
Last edited:
Nope, just my usual sports settings (Jpeg L set on Landscape) and processed in LR3 with sharpening added.
 
Does it continue to focus when you change the zoom length? That's the only "complaint" I have about mine (original version), it doesn't and can result in missed shots.
 
Impressive quality shots.

Are you still happy with it or have you noticed some cons?
How fast is the AF? does it struggle with fast action?

I'm looking for a tele to shoot motorsports and this lens could be the one.



Cheers(y).
 
The only complaint that I've got is that the new style lens hood is a bit plastic and flimsy. The old style metal one was rock solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top