Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS + Convertor?

dougan

dougan

Messages
1,409
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Having looked at the options for upgrading from my present Sigma 150-500 OS, the most financial friendly option seems to be this lens plus either a 1.4 or 2X converter.

My concern over the 1.4X converter is loosing some focal length, as I always seem to be at the 500mm end when taking birds. The 2X would give me even more focal length, but would lose several f stops, and would not be sure of the image quality.

So, would it be worth upgrading? Would I notice a great improvement over my present lens? Or do you really need to spend £5000+ to gain any worth while improvements.
 
when i had a 120-300mm os and a 2x tc for a day i had a good chance to compare it against my 50-500mm os, both at 500mm the 120-300mm stopped down to f6.3 to match the 50-500mm os was a tad behind the 50-500mm os for sharpness but f7.1 and f8 seemed as sharp as each other, but then the 120-300mm has the extra 100mm was nice and again i found stopping it down to f7.1/f8 was sharp as, f5.6 was still usable for ure but for birding and detail a found stopping down even to f6.3 made a difference.
with the 2x i also noticed it gave a blue ish colour cast(could be the converter which was the sigma) but was easy to remove in p&p, the os was very good and the af speed was everybit as good as the 50-500mm os.
 
Hi Scott,
Many thanks for your comments, must have been great to have the 120-300 for the day to get a feel of the lens and the resulting images.

Seems to me that it might not be worth spending the £2000+ on the lens and converter, if it only matches your 50-500, I realise it is meant to be a little sharper than my 150-500, but it is a good comparison lens.
 
I love mine and it completely destroys the 150-500. Its sharper (very usable at f5.6), AF is quicker and the OS is superb. I thought about a 50-500, looked at examples on the web and felt that the IQ for the 120-300 was better than the 50-500. It didn't have anywhere near as much as the ugly OOF areas that the 150-500 and the 50-500 seem to suffer from. It also gives you a useful extra 100mm at the long end.

Oh and as a 120-300 lens is superb and very sharp with great IQ at f2.8. Across that range the xx-500 sigmas cannot touch it. In fact you would have to go to the new canon 300mm f2.8 to beat it at that focal length IMO.
 
Thanks Jim!
I presume you use it with a 2X converter? Do you auto focusing? As I have read that using some converters you can only manual focus.
 
dougan said:
Thanks Jim!
I presume you use it with a 2X converter? Do you auto focusing? As I have read that using some converters you can only manual focus.
Click to expand...

I use the latest sigma x2 converter and the AF is good. At least as fast as my 150-500 was without any converters! ;)
 
dougan said:
Hi Scott,
Many thanks for your comments, must have been great to have the 120-300 for the day to get a feel of the lens and the resulting images.

Seems to me that it might not be worth spending the £2000+ on the lens and converter, if it only matches your 50-500, I realise it is meant to be a little sharper than my 150-500, but it is a good comparison lens.
Click to expand...

it was nice and its a lens i would like to get at some point, also i would like to try it with other converters just to see if i had a dodgy converter but it was still very shapr just not a sharp as my copy of my 50-500mm os.
 
menthel said:
Oh and as a 120-300 lens is superb and very sharp with great IQ at f2.8. Across that range the xx-500 sigmas cannot touch it. In fact you would have to go to the new canon 300mm f2.8 to beat it at that focal length IMO.
Click to expand...
ah but the 120-300mm cant touch the 50-500mm os from 50-119mm :D
and with the 2x on 50-240mm.
 
So, should I go for it?
I could sell the 150-500, plus a rarely used Canon 100m L macro, so would cost me around £1000 to do so.
 
scottthehat said:
jim have you got some sample ith the 2x on.
Click to expand...

In my flickr. I can't access it from work to link them here but the set from barnes dated 6_3_12 have shots both with and without the x2. The pidgoen and robin shots were probably in the best light and are mostly with the x2. Excuse the poor quality of the shots but I am not all that good, despite the efforts of my gear! ;)
 
hers a shot frommy 50-500mm os i know its at f8 on d300
SJB_7537.jpg

heres a crop
SJB_7537crop.jpg

wide open at 500mm
SB1_1637.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've also recently made the change from a 150-500 to the new 120-300 which is used with 1.4 and 2X tc's. Firstly it is heavy! but works fine with 2X and the extra 100mm is good to have. I would say that it is a bit better than my old siggy, now whether these small improvements are worth the expense is a personal decision, as said the only downside is the weight. This was a crop from a shot with a 2X

IMG_7117.jpg
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
nice shots guys and its looks te same as the results i got.
Click to expand...

With the x2 on they are very close. Apart from the ugly bokeh in the background of the x-500 shots. It's a symptom of the x-500 lenses I can't stand. Others don't seem as affected as I am though! ;)
 
i dont mind the bokeh on the 50-500mm its nice than the 150-500mm for sure, and i still need to try the 120-300mm with a 2x again i need to find one with a 2x thats as sharp as my 50-500mm os.
the 120-300mm with no tc was nice and sharp wide open and as sharp as my nikon 2.8 stuff, didnt try with a 1.4x as would never use it,
but the 2x was very good but not as sharp as i was hoping for but that good be a not so good tc, so will have to try a few when i look at it again this year.
 
It's best to try if you can. I was lucky to get a lens and tc that I was happy with. It improved even more with a little micro adjustment on my 7d. What is even better is that the 7d recognises it as 2 different lenses, one with and one without the tc, allowing separate adjustments.
 
scottthehat said:
i did try micro adjustments with it but it made little difference, i also found the sigma tc gave a blue tint through the view finder and the final photo jpeg.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a dodgy tc to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top