Sigma 120-300 OS S

[Apop]

Hey, I stumbled across the new crops on thedigital picture

It looks a lot better than the older OS version

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


However, I do wonder if maybe TheDigitaPicture had a bad copy of the older version? or that he possibly had a bad copy ?, Midframe to corner the new S version looks really really good compared to the older one

at 3.2 the difference is even bigger
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

Actually the new Sports version @ f3.2 looks about as good as the canon 300 f2.8 IS @ f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=249&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Which is quite an accomplishment for a zoom .....

With teleconverters(1.4) its also looks good , if you stop down 1 stop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=249&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3


The older version with TC's looks a bit better in the center when shot wide open, but again mid frame and corners the new version looks really really good.
That it almost matches the old 300 f2.8 IS really makes me crave for this lens, and as soon as the price drops a bit I will hopefully add it.

I had been thinking about possibly going for the 200-400 1.4 , but this new information has confirmed that I might be better (and even less expensive) off with the 120-300(with sometimes 1.4converter) from sigma and the 300 2.8(sometimes 1.4/2.0 converter) from canon, on two different bodies.

Which gives a lot of versatility as well, and when used correctly could give equal or better results than the 200-400.

Some of my thinking based on the crops

@300mm f4 (sigma / canon 200-400)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

@300mm 2.8 and f4 ( canon/canon)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

@420 f4 /400mm canon 200-400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

@420 5.6 sigma, 400 f4 200-400
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

@600mm 6.3 (3002.8) , 560mm 6.3(200/400)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


If the budget was lower and only 1 lens possible, the Sigma still looks pretty good, the only thing where it really misses is @ 600mm, The results don't look promising.

Already had such a thing in my mind when I saw the price of the 200-400, but as I like to shoot wildlife, it is such an appealing lens , hopefully I can stay strong and stay away from it

Budget wise, the 200-400 is 11K here, got the 3002.8 IS II for 4800, if the 120-300 price drops to 3k,
That would still be over 3k under the price of a 200-400 and gives 120-300 2.8 , 420 f4 - 600 6.3, which is also quite versatile, the thing to train for is F1 style 'tire changes ', get those converters changed rapidly when needed.

I am curious if there are any people who have purchased the 120-300 S already and could post some samples of it?, do your findings back the digitalpicture crops up ?

 

[CarlTN]

Nice links. So with the 2x TC at 600mm, it gets soft. Maybe Sigma need to make a new series of TC's.

 

[Tiosabas]

To me there seems to be something wrong with the "S" lens results. When comparing it to the "EX OS" version it is as good wide open and bare.. but with extenders its way worse in the centre and better in the corners. Something fishey with that. Here is the comparison @600.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=2&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

I would expect the "S" to give better IQ with a Canon 2x III than the APO Sigma 2x.

There seems to be rave reviews every where about this lens. Another thing to remember is this lens costs much less than a Canon 300 2.8 II or 200-400 so I would never expect to get equal results. But for 3K, if I could get 85% performance of Canon supertele in a similar focal length than that suits me just fine.
Personally if I was thinking of a 300 2.8 to use primarily with extenders I would go with a SH Canon 300 2.8 IS or wait to see if a Sigma 300 2.8 OS comes along in a couple of years which should give better quality with extenders. Thats what I will be doing for now anyway since I dont have the funds right now to upgrade my Sigma 300 2.8.

By the way I think the 120-300 S should be dubbed the "Sexma"