Sigma 120-300mm 2.8

Bigvin

Bigvin

Messages
616
Edit My Images
No
Right, currently using a Sigma 150-500 but looking for something a bit faster.

Most of my shots are handheld and obviously the OS helps out with that.

Been looking at the Sigma 120-300 2.8. I can pick up a 120-300 OS for £2000 or the older 120-300 non-OS for under a grand second hand.

My question is, is the Sigma 120-300 OS worth twice the money, or should I change my technique, begin using a tripod more and buy the non-OS?

Any opinions welcome

Cheers
 
Have you thought of the sigma 500 f4.5 prime?
Nice glass but a bit pricier than the 120 - 300. Gives you the 500mm reach. Downside is the lens doesnt take a converter
Andrew
 
Hadn't really thought about the 500 f4.5. Was going to use converters on the 120-300.

I definitely prefer the flexibility of a zoom to a prime, there's a lot of shots I would've missed if I'd only had a prime.
 
I tend to carry my 150-500 on a sling strap across my body only raising it to actually take a picture. The 120-300 is 3kg, my 150-500 is 2kg so I figured it'll still be ok to handhold.

I do still have a tripod and a monopod if needed.
 
Do you reckon I should start practising with my monopod more often then Neil?

I used to use it all the time when I first started using the 150-500 with D300 but found it a hindrance when shooting BIF.
 
The OS version can be found for about £1,700 (legitimately) if you hunt around.

Is it worth twice the price? For me, without a doubt and that's not taking the OS system into account. The IQ is lightyears ahead of the older lens.

The one annoying thing is the pathetic 50p plastic lens hood. Sigma really cocked up there.
 
The OS is a cracker of a lens. I took mine and a x2 TC to skomer and got some good shots (for me at least!). It was great without the TC for birds in flight and the puffins in particular. The lens is in a niche of its own really. Better than the xx-500 siggys, faster than the 100-400 canon and the smaller primes but not up to the quality of the longer, fast primes. If you can really afford it and want proper reach a 500 f4 or 600 f4 is what you should aim for but for a cost conscious hobby photographer this is a good middle ground.
 
On another note, I could well be in the market for a Sigma 150-500 if you're thinking of selling any time soon:naughty:
 
Last edited:
I made the change from a Sigma 150-500 to the new 120-300 and use it with both 1.4 and 2X. For birds you always want more focal length and of course speed, but like most with budget constraints it is a good compromise over the canon 500 & 600 offerings. It is a fair bit heavier than the 150-500, but serves as a gym workout as well :D IQ is pretty good. This is a 2X shot and about 70% crop as well.

IMG_7117.jpg
 
Thanks for all the replies lads.

I'm definitely set on the 120-300. Financial constraints and the fact this is only a hobby for me leave the higher end Nikon primes way out of my league.

After reading the replies posted I'm thinking I'll wait on for an OS version. Not only is the IQ better, I feel it's better to be able to turn the OS off when not needed rather than being unable to turn it on at all.

Cheers.
 
DemiLion said:
The OS version can be found for about £1,700 (legitimately) if you hunt around.

Is it worth twice the price? For me, without a doubt and that's not taking the OS system into account. The IQ is lightyears ahead of the older lens.

The one annoying thing is the pathetic 50p plastic lens hood. Sigma really cocked up there.
Click to expand...

Looked at Camerapricebuster and it looks like that deal ended yesterday. :shake:

Do you know who had it on for £1700?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top