I shoot sports with a 7D and have been using a Sigma 100-300 F4. I need to move up to a F2.8 lens as a lot of time around here It is so cloudy and dark I end up raising my ISO way up at mid-day to get 1/1000 ( where I see the best shots from the 7D). I can budget around 4k for a lens. I shoot youth field Sports ( U11 or less right now ). I have a 70-200 F2.8 non-IS, but I need a longer piece of glass. So the question is How good is the new Sigma 120-300 os? I am pretty sure the prime is faster to focus, but how much? I like the flexibility of the Sigma, but do not want to switch in a couple of years. I have googled the subject and see a mixed bag. I know in the end I have to decide, just looking for ammunition to sway one way or the other. Steven
I have a 300 2.8l IS and used to have the Sigma 2.8 non-IS. Like all Sigma lenses I've had (and this includes the 120-300 and the 500 f4.5 HSM) they fall far short of Canon L glass. I found the Sigma 120-300 to be of quite low contrast compared to what I get out of the fantastic 300 2.8L IS. I can't speak to the OS version though. Frankly, I'm relieved to be relieved of Sigma lenses!
I know that there are variances in copies, but I borrowed a 300/2.8 IS from CPS in October and it was INCREDIBLY sharp. I currently have a 300/2.8 non-is that is good, but nowhere near as sharp.
I'd also be interested in hearing about this as well. I know A LOT of people who love the older versions of the Sigma 120-300. The newer one has to be better, right?
I had an older Non DG version of the Sigma 120-300 2.8 with my 7D. The only reason I no longer own the Sigma is I ended up changing to Nikon, but that's a whole other story.
I liked the Sigma as long as you have realistic expectations. No, it is not up to Canon L standards in sharpness or focus speed. But its not as bad as some would have you believe. I picked up one used for $1,250 and thought it was very good for what I paid. It is slower to acquire focus but once its locked on it tracks pretty well. As long as the focus is on the sharpness was pretty good as well. The only time it was soft was not due to the lens but the focus being not quit there.
The only aspect I disliked about the lens is I tried with it with a Canon 1.4x II extender and it did not like it one bit. The focus really jumped around and was unreliable.
I'm not sure whats the difference is between the non DG version and the DG version. However when I asked a Sigma rep at Photo Expo about the newer version with OS he said it was the same as the DG with OS added, no other changes.
The Canon is the better lens, but if you're happy with the 100-300, I think you'd be happy with the 120-300.
I had the 120-300, but it just didn't click with me. The same for the 100-300. They're both nice lenses, the 120 is quite a bit heavier from memory.
There's a couple nice used 120-300's on the Buy/Sell - you could buy one and start using it, and then when you feel you have it mastered, rent a 300/2.8 and compare them. You can rent both lenses, but the 120 is uncommon used normally.
If you use the Canon first, you'll be spoiled. It's worth the money.
Ok I'll start by saying that if you can afford the canon and will use 300mm most of the time anyway then the canon L is basically a no brainer. It is the best you will get (other than the new one)
But Ive seen a couple of threads with images from the new 120-300 OS and read some very good reviews on it that show it to be a very capable lens.
The IQ of the looks very good indeed. And it also seems to take both 1.4 and 2x TC's very well
But there is a little but. Its probably not quite properly 2.8 as its not wide enough in diameter. Either that or its not fully 300mm (not a huge surprise for a zoom , and the non OS was known to be quite a bit short) but i did see a review that measured it at about 297/8mm so thats basicly as close to 300 as you will ever get.
The other down side is probably more of an issue when you are using it properly. Unlike the canon lens it has no focus limiter so you may find AF to be a bit more frustrating. I have no idea why they don't put focus limiters on their lenses any more as I have an old 300/4 HSM that has a better limiter system than I seen on a the canon lenses.
But for the price it's incredible. Over here it £2k new while you'd be lucky to find a 300L for less than £3k used . And the price of the new one is likely to drive used mk1 IS prices up further.
p.1 #10 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
If you only have one camera body you are going to have to make a decision about how you will like a prime vs zoom. In the end you can have the best lens in the world but if it doesn't fit your style you won't get good photos and that's the bottom line. If you don't want to rent a 300 for a few days go to a game with the 100-300 and just keep it at 300 all game long and see how you like being locked in to one FL.
Given your profile I would try to get a used Canon 300/2.8 but given the price hike on the new one the used copies have gone up as well so you might have to save up a bit more. If you could ever afford another body you could then use your 70-200 2.8 on one and your 300 on the other.
p.1 #11 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
I wanted the new sigma to be "the lens", the zoom range is what I need even with a TC. Decided to rent one first, result very erratic AF and the in-focus keepers were very low. BTW, I've shot youth soccer for the last 11 years, and have been using the 300L 2.8 since 2004 with a second body + 70-200. So, returned the lens, discussed the issue with the rental co. and tried a differerent copy. Result, best focused shots where in the 220-240mm range and the rest being unacceptable. Big dissapointment as I said, really wanted this to work. With the sampling of just two copies and both not performing, I'm back to the usual two body setup with Canon lenses and still getting consistent sharp results.
p.1 #12 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
I'll cast another vote for the sigma. I own the non-OS DG version and I've been very pleased with it. It's not going to be as sharp as the L prime (not surprising for a zoom) but I found mine to be equal to my 70-200L non-IS which isn't bad at all. I've also found the focus speed to be good too. Also comparable to the 70-200 unless it slips from focus and racks all the from minimum to infinity. The lens contains a lot of heavy glass to allow zooming and a 300mm FL with F2.8 it takes times to move all that mass. Its not a problem or fault with the lens, it just the mechanics of the lens that does what this lens can. The only thing they could do is put a limiting switch on it, hopefully sigma is reading with all the people saying this
If you can deal with only one focal length and need the absolute best in image quality, speed and have more money to spend the the prime is the obvious choice. Where the Sigma wins is versatility, it takes pictures almost as sharp, focuses almost as well, costs much less and can zoom. If I was trying to make a living off shooting or had money to burn it might be a different story but for the occasional paid gig and a lot of fun shooting on the side the sigma has been great to me.
Edit: One thing that reall really helps the sigma is to set your body to not focus search when AF lock is not possible. This cuts down on the racking from close to infinity focus and improves focus speed when trying to track moving objects.
p.1 #14 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
I liked the original 120-300 enough to upgrade to the OS version and it is very good indeed being sharper, faster focusing and even better built, also the OS lives up to its 4 stop billing. It performs usefully with a 2xTC handheld.
While I don't own a 300 f2.8IS for comparison, the Sigma gives my 500L a run for its money wide open. Not bad for a zoom. Of course internet wisdom is that not all Sigmas are created equal so I may have an above average copy.
p.1 #15 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
I photography a lot of youth soccer and use to carry the 70-200 f2.8 and a Canon 300 f/4. I got tired of having both and I wanted the just use the 300. I lost a lot of shots because the 300 was too much at times and I didn't have the room to back up. I got the opportunity to purchase the new 120-300 OS and I'm very please with the results. I haven't experienced any of the AF issue that others have stated. Mine focuses fast and the ability to zoom is a major plus for me. Here are some samples.
p.1 #16 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
If you can find a copy of the Sigma that is focusing correctly and can live with some of the optical limitations, it should be fine for sports and some wildlife, especially on croppers. Don't expect it to look so hot corner to corner on 20MP FF though. I gave up after one copy and have not tried since.
p.1 #17 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
I have both lenses. The 120-300 Sig/Canon new OS version on the 7D and Mark IV delivers great sharpness, decent focus but slower than the Canon 300 2.8 IS. Important to have it properly calibrated. It all gets down to what you need, the zoom offers lots of flexibility, and I always use mine with the Canon 1.4x III TC.
p.1 #18 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
iammikie wrote:
I have both lenses. The 120-300 Sig/Canon new OS version on the 7D and Mark IV delivers great sharpness, decent focus but slower than the Canon 300 2.8 IS. Important to have it properly calibrated. It all gets down to what you need, the zoom offers lots of flexibility, and I always use mine with the Canon 1.4x III TC.
How do calibrate it? Is this a micro focus calibration or send it to Sigma item?
p.1 #19 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
rachelsdad wrote:
How do calibrate it? Is this a micro focus calibration or send it to Sigma item?
I sent mine into Sigma for calibration and told them what my primary Canon body is, and that I would normally use it with a 1.4x tc. With any zoom lens micro adjustment is hit and miss as you are adjusting for only one focal length, so in this scenario I think that you are better off sending it in.
They turned it around quickly and it is spot on upon return. The only cost to me was the delivery charge to them and they paid for return shipping.
p.1 #20 · SIgma 120-300 OS vs Canon 300 F2.8 IS V1
I have used the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 forever and have found it to be an excellent sports lens when more than 200mm is needed... The only draw back is that it is a heavy lens..
