I'm looking at longer lens options for sports and birds. I'm currently using a 70-200 f2.8 ISii on a 7D, often with 1.4 or 2x tc. The Sigma 120-300 looks intriguing, at about half the cost of a Canon 300 f2.8 is.
Online reviews i have read are largely favorable, but no universally so.
I am wondering if anyone here has experience shooting this lens, particularly with the canon 2x tc.
I'll start by confessing that I have never used this lens.
But I did own the original Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which was an excellent lens for the money. I owned it for six years before replacing it a year ago with the Canon IS II version.
Because I had a good experience with my first Sigma product, I paid some attention to some of the Sigma-bashing that reflexively goes on around here.
Trying to sift through the ignorant and/or prejudiced ravings, it seems clear that Sigma makes some lenses that are excellent values; my sense is that I have seen folks say good things about this lens.
But the flip side is that Sigma seems to have a very real issue with sample variation, so that you may get an excellent lens, and you may get a poor one.
At best, it won't be as good as the Canon 300 f/2.8, but it should be very good (and have the added flexibility of being a zoom).
If you're willing to send it back if it doesn't meet your expectations (more than once, perhaps), I see no harm in trying.
I'm wondering too actually..was just reading reviews in a number of forums and articles.
I'll add a question: does any specific 2X teleconverter work better than another? I know the 1.4s work very very well with this lens for image quality and autofocusing, from reading, not from personal experience
OP - you may want to post in Alt Lenses forum as well.
I have the Sigma 120-300 OS and a Kenko 2x TC. I've been very happy with the lens, considering it's 1/3 of the price compared to 300 f/2.8 L IS locally.
First batch of this lens has had some HSM issues (would not focus when pointed straight up) and I've also read of some issues where the focus is off in some focal lengths (one user had a lens, where focus would be fine at 120mm and 300mm, but off at 200mm. My lens has been fine, but these are the possible issues I'm aware of.
Here are some images with taken with a 60D. Some with the 2x TC and some without - some cropping. Please consider the fact that I'm a hobbyist, so these images do not necessarily reflect the potential of this lens.
My 120-300 (7 or so years old) is not OS, aside from the weight it is a great lens (although it is closer to 290 than 300mm).. I have used the Sigma 1.4X and 2.0X without any problems (although seldom used)..
The non OS 120-300 is a lens that I really regret selling, the new OS version is a lens that is on my future roadmap. Works well with a 2.0TC (not my shot so I'll link to their Flickr):
I've been using this lens since September last year. I use it on my 7D often with the 1.4x or 2x Sigma TC's. I mainly shoot wildlife and got the lens as I was looking for something that offered me more options than my 100-400mm L. The Canon 300mm F2.8 was not an option for me due to the cost and to my preference for zooms when on safari. Overall I am very happy with my decision. My comments here are based on pixel peeping images at 100%.
I think the IQ of the bare lens is very good. At F2.8 a little sharpening is needed, but at F4.0 up it delivers a very sharp image. I crop a lot of my images so this is an area that is quite important to me. In some images I think the contrast is a little low but in general this is not an issue. The bokah is very smooth.
The OS works well, I have been able to shoot at 1/250sec with the 2x TC on @ 600mm on my 7D and still get motion blur free images. I think that is pretty good. I never really found the IS on the 100-400mm L to be that great so this is an area where I think the Sigma is ahead of that lens.
The AF is very accurate (even with the TCs), though I do wish they had put a focus limiter on the lens. Sometimes I've had the experience of the lens not being able to focus and I've had to use the manual focus ring to get the lens into roughly the right focus range before it would lock on. These cases are the exception and not the rule however (and this has always only been with a TC fitted, never with the bare lens and generally in poor light).
I've not done much BIF work with this lens yet so I can't really comment too much on that. Also my opinion in this area might not be worth that much as I have always found BIF tough including with my 100-400mm L.
With the 1.4x TC F4.0 is very usable but I prefer to stop down to F5.6, the IQ is generally very good with nice sharp images.
With the 2x TC I find I need to stop down to F7.1 or, even better, F8.0. The images are usable but it is definitely possible to see a decrease in IQ when viewed at 100%.
The lens is quite heavy but a monopod deals with that issue.
I will post a few shots to give you some idea, none of these are 100% crops (though they are all cropped to one degree or another) and all have been PP'd but perhaps they give you some idea of what the lens can do.
Thanks, ukkisavosta and waldr_p, if I can get images as nice as yours I will be pleased indeed. I've rented a Canon 300 f2.8 non-IS for the weekend just to get a sense of how a large lens like this handles and how easy/hard it is to manage handheld. The Canon and the Sigma are similar enough in size/weight for it to be a useful data point.
Just returned this lens even though the image quality is good with 1.4x but not as good as 80-200 2.8ii with 2x.
My major concern for safari use was the review on one of the lens rental places that carry this lens but only in Nikon mount. 5 of 17 copies were in for electrical repair.
might consider the 400 f4 do- lighter and smaller that 300 2.8
i had three copies of this lens the OS version in canon mount. the first one was just off focusing, the second one came apart and the third one was ok but not quick af on the 1dv. i really wanted this lens to work and tried real hard but no luck
mehrdad sadat wrote:
i had three copies of this lens the OS version in canon mount. the first one was just off focusing, the second one came apart and the third one was ok but not quick af on the 1dv. i really wanted this lens to work and tried real hard but no luck
Similar experience. Rented two different copies (really wanted this to be the lens) but both had issues. First had intermittent AF failures, sent it back. (Rental company agreed it was faulty and sent it to Sigma for repair). Second, did kinda ok, but the only area where it was sharp was around 230mm. BTW: shooting soccer. Sent it back. Rental company also agreed it was not providing consistent results throughout its range. At least my approach of trying out the lens before buying paid off. Still want the lens but can't pull the trigger after being 2 for 2.
