|
|
Scott Sewell
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Dec 8, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 6806
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,650.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range is great for sports, great value, quick and quiet AF; solid, sturdy build; sharp images with good color. Feel the same about this lens as I did back in '04 when I had my first copy.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit on the heavy side if you want to hand-hold; a bit too small and awkward when using a monopod (compared to something like a 400/f2.8).
|
|
Now that I have used this lens again, I think I have figured out how to describe the IQ and some of the focusing issues some might experience with the lens.
First, this lens is a little finicky...if you don't have good technique for following sports action, you might be disappointed and blame the lens. I find I have to ride the AF (using the * button) continually with the lens, where with the 400/f2.8 I can tap and it will catch up a little quicker. I don't believe the AF on the Sigma is slower, but it just seems to perform better when focus remains locked on the subject as one shoots through a sequence.
Where I use to use my 400/f2.8 and a 70-200/f2.8 for field sports such as soccer and football, I am now using the 120-300 instead of the 70-200. The Sigma does get a little heavy carrying over the shoulder all day, but the zoom range is a nice complement to the 400.
|
|
 Oct 1, 2009
|
|
pfjbaldwin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 27, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 31, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $2,100.00
|
|
Pros:
|
super sharp IQ with strong colors wide open, super fast accurate EF, smooth zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, this is not a hand carry, you'll need a monopod
|
|
This is the very sharpest lens I own even comparing it to my Canon L glass and I absolutely love it for sports shooting. Love the zoom cause it gives me so much flexibility on the field. Silky smooth zoom. I've been shooting it for a year now and performance has been flawless. I have the EX DG and I must have one great copy, because I don't recognize some of the postings here compared to my experience.
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2009
|
|
pfjbaldwin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 27, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
super sharp, super fast AF, brilliant IQ, smooth zoom,
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy lens, monopod a must
|
|
Absolutely brilliant images with focus as fast as I can point. This is the EX DG version and I got one great copy. My favorite sports lens with lots of flexibility compared to a prime. I've been using this lens for almost a year with thousands of action sports clicks and its performance has been flawless. Tack sharp with great bokeh wide open at 2.8.
When I've paired it with my EX DG 1.4tc the images are not even close to cropped images from the lens alone. Maybe my tc is a bad copy.
Overall I couldn't be happier with any other lens in this category. A great value for your money.
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2009
|
|
Beau Arnold
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 568
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,750.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 120-300 zoom lower cost than the white ones
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
I got my Ms Siggy from a known entity from this board. From the moment I shot my first shots and opended them in PS I knew I had made a great buy. It's a non dg and on my 1D for kids sports like tball it's the perfect fl. Maybe one day I'll move it own but not before I see the files from my 300/400 before I let this lens go.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2009
|
|
Il Medico
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 471
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Makes a nice door stopper or anchor (for a small boat)
|
|
Cons:
|
Well... after 5 trips to for service and having nearly everything but the glass and housing replaced it's still doesn't focus worth a sh!t. Constant BF, many where nothing is in focus, tracks horribly if at all.
|
|
Bought this POS from here a FM. Had it since August 08. Didn't focus from the day I got it. Sent for service 5 times. It still doesn't focus reliably. It still won't even track somone WALKING towards the camera.
It is sharp at 300/2.8 when manually focused via LV. So I'm into this lens for $2200, got screwed, can't sell it, but at least I can use it as a MF only lens. YIPEE!
|
|
|
May 1, 2009
|
|
Steve Langton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, even wide open
F2.8
120-300 range very useful for sports and wildlife
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy!
No stabilisation/vibration reduction system
|
|
I use this for sports and and animal photography, including several African safari trips in recent years, usually on a Canon 1D Mk III.
I've heard mixed reports about image quality on this lens but I have no complaints at all about the images taken with my copy - sharp and contrasty. Most importantly, it's actually very sharp at F2.8 (I can't see the point of an expensive long lens with a F2.8 maximum if it's not sharp at that aperture). The focal lengths covered are very useful for a sports or wildlife photographer. It focuses quickly and accurately.
On the negative side, of course it's heavy (what did you expect?) and does not have IS/OS, which would really be a big advantage, and I had an issue with the back of the lens becoming loose, which was easily sorted by simply removing the lens mount (3 screws) and tightening the internal screws that hold the lens together. Not an ideal situation but not a disaster, either.
Overall, excellent for its versatility and image quality.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009
|
|
Portengen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 4, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Rasor sharp images, fast autofocus, zoomlens with primelens performance which makes it the best alternative for the 300mm 2.8 primes.
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod collar for the older versions is not doing the job. Paint (coating) comes off easily on the exterior. I would have prefered a drop-in type of filter instead of a big 105mm screw-on-filter (like on the 500mm and 300-800mm)
|
|
This review is for the older 'Non-DG' version. It produces amazingly sharp pictures with my D300 body. They're a perfect couple together. Even set on f2.8, the quality is still very good, going to excellent on f4 and higher.
It's a true professional lens, it weighs a lot and it's build like a tank, just not for the coating on the body. After 4 years of use, pieces of paint of the entire body had come off. Sigma however repaired this free of charge! They replaced all the external body parts. Great, because there has to happen a lot before I sell this piece of glass.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2009
|
|
Tobers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wont focus consistently, fails to track properly, only 10% (if that) keeper rate.
|
|
I've just returned the 2nd copy of this lens. The first one was truly awful - it wouldn't focus on anything. The sharpest it got was still a blurry mess. No amount of focus micro-adjustment could get the image any sharper. I concluded that it was optically incorrect at f/2.8.
The second copy was less bad, but still pretty awful. It simply cant keep up with the Canon 1Dmk3 at 10fps. In comparison to my Sigma 100-300 F4, which has a pretty-near 100% keeper rate (i.e. this isn't the camera's fault), the 120-300 is just really bad. It simply would not focus accurately in AI Servo mode.
You could see the focal point moving in front and behind the subject on successive frames of moving cars in a sequence. There was no consistency at all that might allow me to dial it out with micro-adjustment.
My suspicion is that the motor cannot handle the speed of focusing required to follow fast (40mph) objects. I went to see Sigma's calibration expert to confirm it wasn't just me and he saw the same results. We tried a third copy of the lens which was just as inconsistent. We then put on a 300 2.8 prime which was also pants, and then put the 100-300 F4 back on again to make sure we weren't going mad, and it again was pin sharp on each frame in each sequence.
Even shooting stationary objects would yield poor results, with focus in front of or behind the subject. Even when it was in roughly the right place, the sharpest area of the focal plane was still blurry and messy. And yes the shutter speed was high enough, and the 100-300 F4 returned excellent results even at a lower shutter speed in exactly the same circumstances.
I've handed it back and have asked for a 3rd copy (3rd time lucky) so I'll see how that goes, otherwise its money-back time and saving starts for a Canon 300 2.8 L IS....
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2008
|
|
jwmelrose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
HSM and IF is nice. The focus is fast and accurate: great for sports
|
|
Cons:
|
very heavy, but what did you expect. Tripod or monopod all but required.
|
|
I really like this lens. I have used it on a rebel xt and a 5D to shoot sports. The one real downside is that because its so big, heavy and expensive I find I am unlikely to take it with me unless I am sure I will want to use it.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2008
|
|
dinny66
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 10, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast apeture, built like a tank, non-rotating and non extending.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't think of any.
|
|
What a workhorse. Finally managed to get a secondhand one (non-dg) for a great price after reading the reviews on here.
It's all true!
Use it for football and wildlife. Takes the TC's well.
Really pleased with it. Great for low light too.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2008
|
|
KurtHansen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range, speed and price. One notch below a Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR in focus speed and image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
For the price, none. If willing to pay more for a 300 2.8 AF-S VR you will get more. But that is not an apples to apples comparison in my POV.
|
|
I like this lens (and Sigma 1.4x combination) and will not repeat the many positive comments already written. For quality, speed, zoom and price there is no other lens that meets this.
After the 1st year I did have some maddening focusing problems with this combo. I found 1/2 of the screws near the mounting rings in the 1.4x and on the lens were loose. I removed the screws, added a tiny drop of Lock-tight - problem solved.
On one occasion since my focusing started acting up and a quick clean of the electrical contacts (lens, body and 1.4x) with a swab and alcohol solved the problem.
I use the Sigma 120-300, Sigma 1.4x and Nikon D200. This combo works great for soccer or footbal and gets you right on top of the subject. 2nd D200 has a Nikon 70-200 VR.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008
|
|
glsammy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 1, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Non I can think of. If the thing can't take decent shots, it's not much use.
|
|
Cons:
|
Terrible AF performance. Struggled to focus correctly on anything. 75% of tests shots were out of focus. Shocking lens performance on all shots taken.
|
|
I'm afraid I have to post a negative review of this lens.
The one I got was shockingly bad. It struggled to focus correctly on anything and even the few it did correctly focus on there was very poor image quality, no definition, poor contrast, in fact little detail to be seen.
I can only assume the lens was faulty. I returned it within 48 hours of receiving it.
The supplier said it wasn't faulty, but if they had admitted it was, they would have had to pay for the return postage cost. I've got dozens of sample shots that prove it was.
I've bought four Sigma lenses, two of the four were faulty from new. I think that says something about Sigma quality control. This time I was so angry I refused a replacement. My next lens will probably be an off shade of white rather than Sigma black.
|
|
|
Sep 1, 2008
|
|
|
