Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS

I have a Sigma 50-500 (non OS) that needs repair (warranty).

I like the versatility the 120-300 OS can provide.
120-300/2.8
170-420/4.0 (with 1.4x TC) - I have a Kenko Pro 1.4x
240-600/5.6 (with 2.0x TC) - I would buy a Sigma APO 2.0x TC

I use most of the time the Bigma with a tripod. Few times with a monopod.
I think the 120-300 is a lens for tripod.

For a weekend shooter, do you think it is worth the replacement ?
Does it deliver good IQ with the TCs ?

I couldn't find many testimonials about it.
I think I read someone here got one.

Thank you.

With what camera?

I'm skeptical that an f/2.8 telephoto zoom can deliver the sharpness, and the couple of reviews I see online seem to confirm that. I also saw a comment that AF is not very fast, but did not see any quantitative numbers on that.

In the telephoto range, nothing beats a fix focal length lens for AF speed, sharpness and contrast in the fine details. See Canon's MTF charts for good examples of loss of fine detail contrast on zooms.

Roger

I rented this lens from Lensrental.com a few weeks ago. I'm looking for more focal length with a fairly light weight for my wife. My wife loves a zoom so I had high hopes for this.

I mainly tested it with the new Canon 2x III extender. I even took the time to use my lens align for micro adjustments. I found the image quality was very good compared to what I was expecting. I normally shoot with the Canon 500f4 with 1.4 extender. I sent it back pretty disapointed in it. I'm not sure if this was a fluke or if it might work better with another extender.

I'm going to test the new Canon 300 f2.8ii and I expect shots with the 2x III extender will be much better.

Still, I've heard other people are happy so you might rent it to see for yourself. Lensrentals has a deal with a reseller that will credit your rental price toward the purchase which is nice.

Canon 7D.

I have no doubt it is sharp at the center, but there aren't MTF charts with Sigma's 2x or 1.4x TCs.

Although not as sharp (and expensive) as a prime, my hope is that its image quality is high. Since I believe it will bes used wide open most of the time (even with the TCs), the image borders will be out of focus so not too much of a problem here.

My main consideration is related to AF performance (mixed reports) and reliability.

There is no rentals in Brazil and even to buy the lens is a nightmare. If I decide to buy it, it's cheaper to go to New York and buy there instead of buying here.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

With what camera?

I'm skeptical that an f/2.8 telephoto zoom can deliver the sharpness, and the couple of reviews I see online seem to confirm that. I also saw a comment that AF is not very fast, but did not see any quantitative numbers on that.


Roger

---

Roger,

I presume you mean that because the lens is a zoom it will not deliver adequate sharpness. I have to humbly disagree based on the images that I have seen and messages I have received from a pro photographer (who has used it with a 5D and a cropped sensor camera). There are also reviews (more than a couple), that indicate the lens is bitingly sharp. Sharpness is, to some measure, a subjective matter and I am convinced that there is a placebo/nacebo effect when evaluating lenses, that is to say, when some folk evaluate lenses they bring to the evaluation all their prejudices and biases. Such prejudices run between brands, and lenses within brands. In my view, Sigma as a brand is knocked disprortionately to what it may deserve. It is odd how many folk using the big Canon primes especially the 500 have noticed improvements after messing around with micro adjustments...yet the same folk never came out of the woodwork to complain about their 'superior' Canon primes which were giving relatively soft results prior to the the time they made adjustments.

Although this is not the best point to illustrate, I recall reading countless reviews on the Canon 70-200f2.8 IS lens indicating what a beautifully sharp lens this was etc, etc ...since the release of the new version comments regarding the old version have been far more negative to an extent one would wonder how the lens ever sold in the first place. Perhaps we should be aware of the tale about the 'Emperors new clothes.'

In reality lenses vary in quality in delivering OQ and what you get, is partly if not wholly, based on luck with the copy you get (for this reason I find MTF charts utterly meaningless).

As a general note I think many folk are too hooked up on sharpness/detail to the point of obsession. Yes, an images needs to be sharp but only sharp enough. When I visited the 'Wildlife photographer of the year' exhibition I noted that there were 5 times more winners using the Canon 100-400 than the Canon 400 prime...now there might be statistical reasons that might explain this but the fact is a lot of zoom lenses were deemed adequate and up to the job.

FWIW I have to say I have reservations in regard to the focus speed of the Sigma 120-300f2.8 OS especially when combined with a 2X converter. Reports of its being a little slow may be attributable to there being no focus limiter on this lens , which in my mind is a great shame. However I am seriously considering purchasing this lens. The fact that you have a focal range between 120mm and 600mm in one package has to be worth something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Schurman

I mainly tested it with the new Canon 2x III extender. I even took the time to use my lens align for micro adjustments. I found the image quality was very good compared to what I was expecting. I normally shoot with the Canon 500f4 with 1.4 extender. I sent it back pretty disapointed in it. I'm not sure if this was a fluke or if it might work better with another extender.

---

I am a little confused. You say the lens performed better than expected but you took it back disappointed...? To say something was a fluke indicates a good result obtained more by accident. So did the lens perform well and you just didn't believe the results (which to some extent confirms one of my observations made above) or is it the case that the converter may have been lousy and it may be that the converterr was not up to the job, in which case you did not really mean to use the word 'fluke' in the manner in which it is usually understood?


I might add that the few shots I have seen when the lens has been coupled with a Canon MkIII converter seemed very promising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

Roger,

I presume you mean that because the lens is a zoom it will not deliver adequate sharpness. I have to humbly disagree based on the images that I have seen and messages I have received from a pro photographer (who has used it with a 5D and a cropped sensor camera). There are also reviews (more than a couple), that indicate the lens is bitingly sharp. Sharpness is, to some measure, a subjective matter and I am convinced that there is a placebo/nacebo effect when evaluating lenses, that is to say, when some folk evaluate lenses they bring to the evaluation all their prejudices and biases. Such prejudices run between brands, and lenses within brands. In my view, Sigma as a brand is knocked disprortionately to what it may deserve. It is odd how many folk using the big Canon primes especially the 500 have noticed improvements after messing around with micro adjustments...yet the same folk never came out of the woodwork to complain about their 'superior' Canon primes which were giving relatively soft results prior to the the time they made adjustments.

---

Adrian,
At the risk of the thread degrading, I'll respond. It seems threads like this get into religious wars.

I find the Canon MTF charts very accurate, and the reviews on Photozone pretty much in agreement with published MTF charts. My own tests agree with the MTF charts. It seems though that people don't understand how to read Canon's MTF charts.

Example, some people say Canon's 100-400 is really sharp, then you see others say they often leave it at home because it is not that sharp. For fine detail, only look at the thin black lines (solid and dashed) on the MTF charts: that is the fine detail with lines spaced 33 microns apart (Nyquist sampling 16.5 microns). Note the sampling of pixels in a Canon 7D is 4.3 microns, so even these lines are not showing what the lens delivers at the level the camera resolves, but is close.

Now look at the Canon 100-400:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum..._5_5_6l_is_usm
At 400 mm the two thin lines are at 90 percent in the center (0 on the horizontal axis), then rapidly degrades as one moves to the edge (to the right on the plot). But more important is the divergence between the dashed and solid lines. That says a round object (like a star) will be stretched into an oval (or worse shape) and in complex detail, the fine detail is lost.

Now look at the 300 f/4:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...mm_f_4l_is_usm
The thin lines start at MTF=0.8 but do not drop as fast, nor do they diverge. The image quality is much better.

Now compare the 300 f/2.8 L IS II:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...2_8l_is_ii_usm
Somewhat similar to the 300 f/4 (but note this is wide open, so f/2.8). The lines only diverge beyond about 18 mm from center, so only affecting the corners of a full frame sensor,

Now look at what may be may be Canon's sharpest lens: the 500 f/4 L IS II:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...f_4l_is_ii_usm
Wow.

I own the 100-400 L IS, 300 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8 L IS I, and 500 f/5 L IS I. I'll probably upgrade to the 500 II.

I rarely use the 100-400 because it is not sharp. I makes OK 8x10 inch prints at 400 wide open. And I do agree that subject, lighting and composition trumps technical sharpness (see my web site articles), but why hamper oneself with a sub-performing lens when one has a choice?

Besides lower contrast and sharpness, telephoto zooms are slow in AF. Again, why limit one's photography?

In my own testing, a 300 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC produces images with more detail than the 100-400 at 400 mm, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2/
See Figure 10.


I'll counter that people, especially bird photographers, seem obsessed with focal length when there are diminishing returns. Today's DSLRs with small pixels change the playing field. See my article on telephoto reach:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

A 7D with 4.3 micron pixels and a 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC resolves similar detail that a 1D Mark II + 800 mm lens did only a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

Although this is not the best point to illustrate, I recall reading countless reviews on the Canon 70-200f2.8 IS lens indicating what a beautifully sharp lens this was etc, etc ...since the release of the new version comments regarding the old version have been far more negative to an extent one would wonder how the lens ever sold in the first place. Perhaps we should be aware of the tale about the 'Emperors new clothes.'

---

Yes, the MTF charts for old and new are only a little different, an improvement, yes, but not stellar like the new 500 f/4. In my opinion, from the MTF charts, only the new 500 is an amazing improvement on an already excellent design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

In reality lenses vary in quality in delivering OQ and what you get, is partly if not wholly, based on luck with the copy you get (for this reason I find MTF charts utterly meaningless).

---

I strongly disagree with this. I think the greatest factor in reviews is they only compare the one lens, and those who bought them want to like them and they don;t do a side-by-side comparison. Note people are doing side-by-side comparisons of the new and old TCs and have concluded there is little difference in the 1.4x TCs. But most reviews do not compare with other lenses side by side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

As a general note I think many folk are too hooked up on sharpness/detail to the point of obsession. Yes, an images needs to be sharp but only sharp enough. When I visited the 'Wildlife photographer of the year' exhibition I noted that there were 5 times more winners using the Canon 100-400 than the Canon 400 prime...now there might be statistical reasons that might explain this but the fact is a lot of zoom lenses were deemed adequate and up to the job.

FWIW I have to say I have reservations in regard to the focus speed of the Sigma 120-300f2.8 OS especially when combined with a 2X converter. Reports of its being a little slow may be attributable to there being no focus limiter on this lens , which in my mind is a great shame. However I am seriously considering purchasing this lens. The fact that you have a focal range between 120mm and 600mm in one package has to be worth something.

---

I own and have won national contests with Sigma lenses. I have nothing against Sigma. I do have a problem with telephoto zooms as one can get much better performance, including higher contrast, better sharpness, less flare, and faster AF with a fixed focal length lens. Those are important properties to consider for wildlife photography, especially in difficult lighting situations.

Roger

Roger

I certainly do not wish to degrade the thread and I certainly do not relish being in disagreement with you. I hate religious wars. Fabio has previously indicated in another thread that he regards your opinions highly (as do I, I have frequently referred folk to your website and will continue to do so) but that does not mean I have to agree with you. I would be most surprised if Fabio was not aware of your views regarding prime and zooms lenses, indeed he has in effect acknowledged that fact, it seems ,by his second post here. I made that assumption when I first read his question. It seems clear to me that that Fabio has determined a zoom lens will best suit his requirements. I simply do not see the point in going over what must for him be 'old ground'. Respectfully I think you must accept that some folk choose zooms for a number of legitimate reasons. For some (as in my case) it is simply not feasable to carry an arsenal of prime lenses around (or a big 500 on its own) and even if I could it would in some photographic situations be extremely limiting, in my view this cannot be argued. Cost is a major consideration and in some situations a zoom is actually the 'appropriate' lens for the job. Only very recently I was photographing a red- throated diver which occasionally came very close I was using a Sigma prime. I wished I had a 120-300mm lens that day! Occasionally I find myself in a position where I can 'work' a subject and in that regard a zoom will trump a prime.

I do not wish to argue about MTF charts but I am puzzled as to why you acquired a 100-400 lens if it is only good for 8"X10" prints wide open? I also wonder why you did not take it back? It is simply not true, based on my experience, that there is no variance between lenses of the same type, I could quote Bob Atkins who has at least acknowledged minor differences and and you might also read Romy Ocon's experiences with the 100-400 on his web site.

I can only wish Fabio luck with his decision and I can assure you that if I choose to buy the Sigma 120-300 and it is not up to scratch you will be the first to know and I will eat humble pie! However what I have said above will not be invalidated .

One final word though for Fabio, If you do photograph anything at 600mm wide open you may have depth of field issues.

Kind regrards

AD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

I am a little confused. You say the lens performed better than expected but you took it back disappointed...? To say something was a fluke indicates a good result obtained more by accident. So did the lens perform well and you just didn't believe the results (which to some extent confirms one of my observations made above) or is it the case that the converter may have been lousy and it may be that the converterr was not up to the job, in which case you did not really mean to use the word 'fluke' in the manner in which it is usually understood?


I might add that the few shots I have seen when the lens has been coupled with a Canon MkIII converter seemed very promising.

---

I can see why my statement was confusing. I meant to say
I found the image quality wasn't very good compared to what I was expecting.

My apologies for the confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian dancy

Roger

I certainly do not wish to degrade the thread and I certainly do not relish being in disagreement with you. I hate religious wars. Fabio has previously indicated in another thread that he regards your opinions highly (as do I, I have frequently referred folk to your website and will continue to do so) but that does not mean I have to agree with you. I would be most surprised if Fabio was not aware of your views regarding prime and zooms lenses, indeed he has in effect acknowledged that fact, it seems ,by his second post here. I made that assumption when I first read his question. It seems clear to me that that Fabio has determined a zoom lens will best suit his requirements. I simply do not see the point in going over what must for him be 'old ground'. Respectfully I think you must accept that some folk choose zooms for a number of legitimate reasons. For some (as in my case) it is simply not feasable to carry an arsenal of prime lenses around (or a big 500 on its own) and even if I could it would in some photographic situations be extremely limiting, in my view this cannot be argued. Cost is a major consideration and in some situations a zoom is actually the 'appropriate' lens for the job. Only very recently I was photographing a red- throated diver which occasionally came very close I was using a Sigma prime. I wished I had a 120-300mm lens that day! Occasionally I find myself in a position where I can 'work' a subject and in that regard a zoom will trump a prime.

I do not wish to argue about MTF charts but I am puzzled as to why you acquired a 100-400 lens if it is only good for 8"X10" prints wide open? I also wonder why you did not take it back? It is simply not true, based on my experience, that there is no variance between lenses of the same type, I could quote Bob Atkins who has at least acknowledged minor differences and and you might also read Romy Ocon's experiences with the 100-400 on his web site.

I can only wish Fabio luck with his decision and I can assure you that if I choose to buy the Sigma 120-300 and it is not up to scratch you will be the first to know and I will eat humble pie! However what I have said above will not be invalidated .

One final word though for Fabio, If you do photograph anything at 600mm wide open you may have depth of field issues.

Kind regrards

AD

---

Adrian,
Regarding the 100-400, it was the first of the Canon L lenses I bought. Previously having only experience with consumer zooms, I did not realize the lens quality until long after I bought it, otherwise I would have returned it. I bought the 300 f/4 L IS several years later and never looked back. I only wish I knew the IQ difference before buying the telephoto L-class zoom. Actually, previous to the 100-400 I had a sigma 150-500. Guess what, the 150-500 was slightly sharper, but neither as good as the 300 f/4L.

Regarding carrying a heavy lens in the field, the the 120-300 is both large and weighs a lot. I would like to see a side-by-side test with the 300 f/4 L IS, which is smaller, lighter and costs less. I bet the 300 f/4 might well provide images with more detail.

If I have a fixed focal length lens on and the subject is too large to fit in the frame, I simply do a mosaic, and get an even higher resolution final image. This, of course does not work with a fast moving subject.

I'm fine with making a choice of a zoom, just that one should know the trade issues.

Roger

My friend Nop, a photographer for the Missouri Department of Conservation, who has countless awards and magazine covers has always spoken highly of the Sigma 120-300/2.8. I almost bought one when I first started out in wildlife photography but went with the more affordable Canon 300/4 L IS which I still love to this day but don't use much as it is a bit short for my work. Hope this helps.

DB

I have the sigma 120-300 OS for Nikon. The lens is super sharp when it focuses correctly. There was severe backfocus (had to dial in -20) on my D7000. Actually tried 3 different D7000s. For some reason the backfocus issue vanished when I put it on a D3100 so I have no idea if it is something wrong with the lens or D7000s in general or if the D3100 had bad frontfocus that cancelled it out. (Most of my lenses do require about negative 10 micro focus adjustment on the D7000) Also, the focus is spot on at close distance but only has the backfocus issues at a distance so you have to decide if you want focus to be accurate close up or at a distance, you don't get both.
This lens does NOT work with the Kenko teleconverters (AF just twitches)
The build quality and image stabilization are excellent. I have a few handheld shots at 1/4 second at 300mm that were sufficiently sharp. I'm waiting for a 2x sigma teleconverter to see how the combo performs.

Thank you for all the replies. I was on vacation so not much time to jump in the topic.

The 120-300/2.8 is a lens that I like for its versality (with TCs 1.4x and 2x) and I would like to use to replace the 50-500. I believe I would use very little as a 120-300/2.8 alone.

Since there are no MTF charts of it with TC 1.4x and/or TC 2X, it's difficult for a non pro (and no official distributor in his country) to put the money on it. The biggest drawback for me would be its weight.
I think if the price was between $2,400-$2,700 it would sell a lot.
But it's not out of my wishlist, the problem is the variety of options we have.

Some pros that I know recommend the 300/4L IS for its IQ. I would buy one if the IS was updated.

The MTF of the new 500/4L IS II is really amazing, I saw first the MTF with the TC1.4x and was shocked !
IF I were a professional photog, definately I would buy one.

Thank you