Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 Initial Thoughts

[Raskill]

Well it finally arrived so I thought I'd offer my initial thoughts

Details:

Angle of view: 20.4 - 8.2
Aperture: 2.8 - 32
Min. focusing distance: 1.5 - 2.5 metres
Magnification: 1:8.6
Filter size: 105mm
Weight: 2.6 kg
Cost: $3200

The lens is built like a tank, it is heavy and it is solid and an all metal build. It has the 'crinkle' finish on it that all the Sigma EX range have. The lens hood adds about 80mm to the length of the lens, and is metal constructin also, again with the crinkle finish. Supplied with the lens is a heavy duty tripod foot, that doubles as a carrying handle.

As I said, the lens is built like a tank, it is heavy, feeling more than it's whopping 2.6kg. There is no way you could hold the camera body and not the lens without, I fear, ripping the mount clean out of the body. Because of it's weight, very good long lens technique is needed at the 300mm focal length.

This is a heavy lens, I can't stress that enough. If you lack upper body or wrist strength, this isn't a good choice for you.

Performance wise the Sigma performs like it should. Sorry I haven't got any images yet (not much time between hangover, work, wife and baby).

The few test shots I've taken show the lens to be sharp at 300mm and F/2.8, which is what you would wish for. The lens is sharper though around the F/3.2 - F/3.5 mark. The F/2.8 images are sharp even at 100% crop. I don't think the lens is quite as sharp as the 70-200 VR, but it's pretty close.

The bokeh is nice and creamy, and the DOF is thin at F/2.8. It would be a good lens for candid portraits, but possibly a bit to bulky.

The zoom ring is firm, but not stiff and the focus ring is smotth and easily operated with 1 finger. The zoom ring rotates the opposite way to the Nikkor lens, but doesn't take much getting used to.

The reason I got this lens was for sports, and I haven't had a chance to give it a test drive at any sports yet. I know it's going to be a steep learning curve to get used to it. I will have to completely re-learn my panning technique, given the difference between the 70-200VR and this monster. I think that it will be monopod mounted for most shots.

The Sigma 120 - 300 F/ 2.8 offers a good option for sports, with a good focal length and aperture.

All in all, I'm extremely happy with my purchase. If your thinking of a second hand Nikkor or Canon 300mm prime, then give this lens consideration. Other reviews I've read say this lens compares favourably to these primes, but I can't comment, having never had a prime to play with.

Hope someone finds this useful.

[BBJ]

Enjoy the lens Raskill, i was once going to get this lens before my Nikon prime came up. Yes you will need the monopod to use this lens as they get heavy after awhile which i have tried. I think mine weighs something like 2.8 kilo. When i use it i tend to sit my hand on the top of the lens hood and even hold it with finger tips on the end of the hood to hold it steady and pan.

Well done matey have fun with it, we know you will put it too good use.
Cheers

[Jeff]

Hi Alan

Good to hear you got your new lens,will be very useful at Oran Park.
I sent you a PM

Jeff

[elffinarts]

this sounds ideal for the sports (jousting) that I cover. The 300mmf2.8 Nikkor didn't quite give me the range I needed, and I definitely like the price compared to the Nikkor.

[sirhc55]

Excellent review raskill - now post some pics

[MATT]

Sounds very impressive, cant wait for some pics..

105 filter size


MATT

[marcotrov]

Thanks Raskill. I came oh so close to getting this lens but eventually settled for the 80-400VR as more versatile. I'd love to see some pics with it. I wonder if you are going to get a go at using it with sigma's teleconverter? Have fun you lucky dog
cheers
marco

[moz]

I'm curious to see how you go with sports, mostly how focus speed is and whether 2.8 is really fast enough.

I tried this at PIW because I'd love 300/2.8 in a zoom. But the lack of IS/VR put me off - I found it hard to get decent shots even at 1/200 and 300mm, which makes it a lot less useful to me. Maybe I'm just too used to the Canon 70-200IS, but I definitely felt it was a tripod-only lens.

Still hoping that either Sigma add OS to it, or Nikon/Canon release a competitor with their stabilisation (and I suspect that the other would have to match it).

[BBJ]

Moz why would you wanna shoot at 1/200 at 300m for? I use my 300m F2.8 all the time at 1/400 shooting motorbikes with no problems.

[moz]

I depends a lot on how fast your target is moving - usually I want a little motion blur on something people powered.

[elffinarts]

I'm curious to see how you go with sports, mostly how focus speed is and whether 2.8 is really fast enough.

this was shot using the Nikkor 300mmF/2.8 - and 2.8 is most certainly fast enough.
http://elffinarts.com/pic/albums/2006ab ... %20sml.jpg

I've yet to try shooting night sports with it though - I might head down to the soccer one night to test it while I still have it on loan.

I would be perfect for Nikon to bring out an equiv zoom ranged lens at 2.8 but I realy fear how much a monster like that would weigh and of course cost.

[Razor]

Got myself a used one a week ago and gotta say I am very happy with this purchase. Only took some snaps so far but the results are sharp and the lens focuses fast. The build quality is very good, as you'd expect with this sort of gear...

It came with a bonus 2x TC as well

[Kyle]

Nice choice frank

[Andyt]

2.6Kg

.......I can recommend the Gitzo G1588 monopod + RRS

[BBJ]

My manfroto 681B with the manfrotto 3232 tilt head handles my Nikon 300m prime with no problems and around $100 is good.

[Schniff]

I have had the Sigma 120-300 for over a year now and love it. I use it for wildlife and have found it to be very good at f2.8 and brilliant at f4.0 onwards. The only disadvantage is its size. Sometimes I wish that I had opted for the Sigma 100-300 F4.0 which is a stop slower but half the weight, and less than half the price! The IQ for the f4.0 is supposed to be even better that the 2.8 according to photozone. It would be a superb choice for someone who can't handle the bulk of the 120-300 f2.8.

[Oscar]

Has anyone posted any shots from this lens yet??

Cheers, Mick

[Raskill]

Has anyone posted any shots from this lens yet??

Cheers, Mick

I've posted a few....

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=22665&highlight=

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=21707&highlight=

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=20356&highlight=

If your thinking of a second hand 300mm prime, I would give this sucker serious consideration. Even if you are considering a new 300mm prime, this lens will give it a run for it's money at half the price.

It really is a top notch lens.

[Oscar]

Thanks Alan.

I had viewed all those posts - just didn't realise which lens was used.

You sure are getting some really great shots. I'll have to keep that lens in mind (in case I come into some money).

Cheers, Mick

[marc]

the lack of IS/VR put me off - I found it hard to get decent shots even at 1/200 and 300mm, which makes it a lot less useful to me.

Still hoping that either Sigma add OS to it, or Nikon/Canon release a competitor with their stabilisation (and I suspect that the other would have to match it).

Hi Moz
This was the reason why I went for the Nikkor 300 VR, couldn't wait any longer for Sigma to come out with an OS version. I need to practice all I can for my 15 nights in Zambia in Sept. Here she is:



Also Raskill
Have you confirmed it's true focal length? There is some discussion on this
here at FM Review Forum

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =37&page=1
What is your experience in regards to this?
Cheers
Marc

[marc]

My manfroto 681B with the manfrotto 3232 tilt head handles my Nikon 300m prime with no problems and around $100 is good.

I'm using the same as well BBJ on the 300 VR

Cheers
Marc