The New Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Reviewed

[Plainsman]

When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up

That must be the old version.
Actually there are 2:
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM (around 1350 euro)
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (around 2000 euro)

The new version - the sports 120-300 - is for sale around 3500 euro

I think you are incorrect the latest is called the DG OS HSM/S (ie drop the EX). Confusing!!

Now looking at tdp crops it would appear that the previous EX DG OS HSM model is sharper on axis than the current expensive one with TCs. Very odd maybe Sigma have a QC problem here!!

 

[Apop]

When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up

That must be the old version.
Actually there are 2:
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM (around 1350 euro)
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (around 2000 euro)

The new version - the sports 120-300 - is for sale around 3500 euro

Jep , but there was discount according to the outside temperature, and it was around 37 degrees Celsius in germany.

This guy practically stole it for 1871 euros :/

 

[GMCPhotographics]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 400mm f/5.6 L is not very good with a 1.4xTC, so saying that the Sigma with a 2xTC is on a par with it is not exactly a selling point.

Ps On checking, I think you need to have the Sigma at f/16 to have it on a par with the Canon at f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=6

I had a good copy of the Canon 400mm f5.6 L for about 7 years. It was nice and light weight, but it's MFD was quite far out and not that useful. I found mine was still very sharp with a 1.4x TC, but the issue was that the tripod collar wasn't that stable (especially with the hood extended) and the AF wasn't as accurate. If I manually focused it and really bolted down the tripod collar, I got very sharp results.

 

[macroman1]

For those concerned about the weight, I was too, so I hired one for a motor racing weekend. I used it hand-held for 3 days, panning/tracking at 1/100 to 1/160th for blur, shooting thousands of frames with my 1-DX on burst. I'm a 70kg middle aged weakling, so I felt it, but persevered without untoward after effects.

Suffice to say that I was impressed enough to purchase it off the hire company, 4 months old, cUS$900 under new price. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this lens hire it and see for yourself.

I now need to get a definitive answer to which 1.4x (Sigma or Canon) will work best with this beast?

 

[mrsfotografie]

For those concerned about the weight, I was too, so I hired one for a motor racing weekend. I used it hand-held for 3 days, panning/tracking at 1/100 to 1/160th for blur, shooting thousands of frames with my 1-DX on burst. I'm a 70kg middle aged weakling, so I felt it, but persevered without untoward after effects.

Suffice to say that I was impressed enough to purchase it off the hire company, 4 months old, cUS$900 under new price. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this lens hire it and see for yourself.

I now need to get a definitive answer to which 1.4x (Sigma or Canon) will work best with this beast?

You imply that a Canon TC would fit and work? I have a Canon 1.4 TC II and would be very interested in people's experiencies (if any) with a combination of this TC and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM. Both full frame and APS-C results.

 

[Sith Zombie]

Sigma.........YOU ROCK!

 

[macroman1]

Yes, the Canon 1.4x fits - at the same time as I hired the Sigma, I also hired Canon 1.4MkII. I wasn't entirely convinced, but then we have been getting equinoxial winds (read gales) and the lens hood ("bucket") collects an awful lot of it! It just wasn't as sharp as some shots I've seen using Sigma 1.4x, but then I don't know how much pp they've done.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Yes, the Canon 1.4x fits - at the same time as I hired the Sigma, I also hired Canon 1.4MkII. I wasn't entirely convinced, but then we have been getting equinoxial winds (read gales) and the lens hood ("bucket") collects an awful lot of it! It just wasn't as sharp as some shots I've seen using Sigma 1.4x, but then I don't know how much pp they've done.

Thanks for sharing your experiences

 

[RGomezPhotos]

Interesting.

I don't think comparing this to Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 L is a good comparison. The 70-200mm is an excellent small venue lens. For up to 300 or so people, it's hard to beat.

With the Sigma, you're just too far at 120mm to get a good shot of someone and not have someone get in the way. And at 300mm, you're almost 75' from someone to get a good full-body portrait of them. So I'd regard this lens as a 'performing arts' or sports lens. Put it on a crop body and it's definitely sports oriented.

 

[candc]

I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.

 

[candc]

Very odd ISO 12233 crops for this new lens on the-digital- picture which Sigma refer to as the DG OS HSM/S lens.

First of all scrolling down two OS lenses are listed but not DG OS HSM/S specifically.

So we have to assume that the latest lens crops are actually the "DG OS HSM" crops.

What is odd is that the "EX DG OS HSM" (the first OS version?) gives very much sharper 1.4x and 2xTC crops than the new lens!!

Are Sigma going backwards here or does it show wide variability in the Sigma product compared to Can/Nik?

This is puzzling to me also I don't understand why a new lens which appears to be sharper would be worse with tc's? I've decided to try for myself and maybe experiment with different brands of tc's.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.

On a crop body, you will loose a stop in iso performance and an effective stop of DOF against full frame. While your camera will state f2.8, the reality is that it is effectively dropping a stop to become a 192-380mm f4..so it doesn't really gain anything. The AF on this lens slower and less accurate than the big white and the focal length drop as the focus pulls into MFD is really quite apparent and dissapointing. I found that I was better off with a native 300mm f2.8 lens or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS with a 1.4x TC.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I don't think comparing this to Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 L is a good comparison. The 70-200mm is an excellent small venue lens. For up to 300 or so people, it's hard to beat.

Put it on a crop body and it's definitely sports oriented.

Actually, I found I perfered my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II over this lens for a number of reasons and a worthy comparision. Popping this lens onto a crop body doesn't make it sport orientated at all...what a bizarre statement to make. I used my copy on a 5DIII and 1Dx and found that it's AF was slower and less accuate than any of the Canon white lenses (including 70-200 lenses). At the moment there isn't a crop camera with an AF system to rival the 1Dx or 5DIII. The 7D and 70D cameras have a good AF system, but it pales against the full frame cameras. Likewise, this lens can't deliver consistenly with those cameras either. It's a nice lens but it's no match for Canon's whites.

 

[canon1dxman]

I bought the Sigma 120-300 Sport when it first came out, possibly one of the first to be released. I also got the 1.4 and 2x Sigma extenders.

IQ was more than good enough for me on it's own but was slightly disappointing with both converters, although I could live with them. The image below was standalone.

Biggest problems for me though were the weight and sluggish autofocus (although I never did get around to tweaking it on the dock which may have helped)

I am over 6ft and built like the proverbial BSH but it was tiresome on a long shoot when a monopod was impractical. Sometimes I needed to carry the 1DX/ lens combo in a rucksack instead of a proper bag and I found it just too cumbersome so I ended up selling it. Purely personal reasons I know.

Also, I think the lens hood is a poor design, fitting wise. It was so easy to think that it was fixed OK and then it fell off several times whilst walking. Never did get the hang of it.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/90892306@N05/9066549478/# http://www.flickr.com/people/90892306@N05/

 

[endiendo]

Hi,
just a simple note about reliability.
I bought the 120-300 f2.8 is os hsm (first stabilized version), and after 4 months, I had it back to service.. the stabilizer was broken and making noise. They changed it and it is now ok.
This version stay less than 1 year in their products-catalogue... ..

 

[candc]

I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.

On a crop body, you will loose a stop in iso performance and an effective stop of DOF against full frame. While your camera will state f2.8, the reality is that it is effectively dropping a stop to become a 192-380mm f4..so it doesn't really gain anything. The AF on this lens slower and less accurate than the big white and the focal length drop as the focus pulls into MFD is really quite apparent and dissapointing. I found that I was better off with a native 300mm f2.8 lens or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS with a 1.4x TC.

an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens regardless of whether you put it on full frame and crop out a square or on a crop body.

what i am saying is that comparing the 120-300 on a crop to the 200-400 on ff is going to be very similar in practice, standing in the same spot zoomed in they will frame about the same. without doing a shootout you can't say if the iq will be the same but i am thinking it is from what i have seen.

the 120-300 is a 2.8 so its a stop faster and will allow 1 stop lower iso in the same scene framed the same way with the same dof as the f4 lens on the ff camera

it may not be the same its hard to say without a shootout, maybe the 120-300 is better? maybe the 200-400? it would be fun to try i think the results would be closer than you think. and the thing you are gaining is $8400.00

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.

On a crop body, you will loose a stop in iso performance and an effective stop of DOF against full frame. While your camera will state f2.8, the reality is that it is effectively dropping a stop to become a 192-380mm f4..so it doesn't really gain anything. The AF on this lens slower and less accurate than the big white and the focal length drop as the focus pulls into MFD is really quite apparent and dissapointing. I found that I was better off with a native 300mm f2.8 lens or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS with a 1.4x TC.

an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens regardless of whether you put it on full frame and crop out a square or on a crop body.

what i am saying is that comparing the 120-300 on a crop to the 200-400 on ff is going to be very similar in practice, standing in the same spot zoomed in they will frame about the same. without doing a shootout you can't say if the iq will be the same but i am thinking it is from what i have seen.

the 120-300 is a 2.8 so its a stop faster and will allow 1 stop lower iso in the same scene framed the same way with the same dof as the f4 lens on the ff camera

it may not be the same its hard to say without a shootout, maybe the 120-300 is better? maybe the 200-400? it would be fun to try i think the results would be closer than you think. and the thing you are gaining is $8400.00

The lens may be f2.8 but it's one part in a chain of parts. The change in camera format (full frame vs 1.62x crop) will dictate it's Iso performance, resolved detail, effective DOF and effective angle of view. A 120-300 f2.8 OS on a 7D is not the same as a 200-400 f4 L Is on a 1Dx....not even close. Sure it's cheaper but the image quality, IS sstem, AF speed, Weather sealing, Out of focus rendering, AF tracking and contrast will be worse. Expect a night and day experiance between them. If you are so sure, hire them all and do a comparision. I have a 400mm f2.8 L IS and I compared it against a 120-300 f2.8 OS on a 7D vs a 5DIII on my big 400. The Sigma lens was good but in reality it didn't come close for all the reasons I mentioned.

 

[J.R.]

I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.

On a crop body, you will loose a stop in iso performance and an effective stop of DOF against full frame. While your camera will state f2.8, the reality is that it is effectively dropping a stop to become a 192-380mm f4..so it doesn't really gain anything. The AF on this lens slower and less accurate than the big white and the focal length drop as the focus pulls into MFD is really quite apparent and dissapointing. I found that I was better off with a native 300mm f2.8 lens or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS with a 1.4x TC.

an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens regardless of whether you put it on full frame and crop out a square or on a crop body.

what i am saying is that comparing the 120-300 on a crop to the 200-400 on ff is going to be very similar in practice, standing in the same spot zoomed in they will frame about the same. without doing a shootout you can't say if the iq will be the same but i am thinking it is from what i have seen.

the 120-300 is a 2.8 so its a stop faster and will allow 1 stop lower iso in the same scene framed the same way with the same dof as the f4 lens on the ff camera

it may not be the same its hard to say without a shootout, maybe the 120-300 is better? maybe the 200-400? it would be fun to try i think the results would be closer than you think. and the thing you are gaining is $8400.00

Have you factored in the difference in ISO performance (and consequent noise) while making the above statement? If not, reality check! Unless the light is good (and I mean, very good), the advantage of using APS-C with a smaller FL lens with a 1 stop brighter aperture over a FF with better FL and one stop slower aperture is a fallacy.

Also, comparing the Sigma 120-300 over the 200-400 is a big fail. The 200-400 beats the Siggy hands down! It's quite all right to save those $ 8,000 odd if all you are doing is pushing off your photos on to FB.

 

[candc]

in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one. that would indicate the lens has plenty of resolving power so that shouldn't be a problem. i've seen photos of horse riders and baseball games and the images look great, sharp, contrasty, nice out of focus quality etc.
dpreview made the statement that both jpegs and raws from the 70d were indistinguishable from those taken with the 6d up to about 3200iso.

the one stop advantage on the lens will allow one stop lower iso.

i will find out soon how well the 120-300 performs, everything i have seen so far looks good but i will have to find out for myself.

my whole point is that if you can get similar results as the 200-400 on ff then that is saying a lot and a good alternative for a lot, lot less money

 

[Marsu42]

in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one.

This indicates the center is way better than mid-frame to edges.

dpreview made the statement that both jpegs and raws from the 70d were indistinguishable from those taken with the 6d up to about 3200iso.

... if looking at them at the camera lcd, or you're really drunk and everything gets fuzzy ... no, really, for certain pictures with a lot of background blur where nr doesn't have that much of an impact Canon aps-c shots might be ok @100% crop, but iso3200 is where the small sensor really drops the ball. Face it, a aps-c with this Sigma cannot replace a ff+200-400 :-o