Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8-Update: first impression 4-20

[Rich Gibson]

I've been pining away for a 300mm f/2.8 and contemplating selling my beloved 28mm f/1.4 to finance the 300mm f/2.8 but recently came upon some very positive reviews for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Any of you have any feedback? I am sure I will hate myself if I let go of the 28.

Thanks, Rich

 

[Mason]

Rex had one that he thought about selling last year...and I thought about buying because I thought I would like the zoom. His is the only one I have actually seen. If you don't here anything here, get in touch with Rex and he can help you out.

I ended up with a older Nikon 300 2.8 AF and I have no complaints, if that helps.

 

[rbsmith]

Hey Rich, I just sold mine. It was a great lens and I may end up regretting letting it go. The zoom sure has its pluses. It focuses fast with the HSM, (I hope the 300 is a little faster or I will really be disappointed. And it is a very sharp lens. I came back from the get together with a terrible case of lens lust for the 300 2.8VR. Sold some lenses and the 300 will be here tomorrow.

 

[Rich Gibson]

Hey Rich, I just sold mine. It was a great lens and I may end up regretting letting it go. The zoom sure has its pluses. It focuses fast with the HSM, (I hope the 300 is a little faster or I will really be disappointed. And it is a very sharp lens. I came back from the get together with a terrible case of lens lust for the 300 2.8VR. Sold some lenses and the 300 will be here tomorrow.

That's exactly what's been on my mind. Honsestly though, I rarely go birding, but with 6 grandkids playing soccer and baseball the 120-300 may prove more useful. The write-ups say the teleconverters are actually good.

Thanks, Rich

 

[snakeman]

I know a guy from another forum who uses this lens and the pics he produces are breath taking!! I really want this lens but have settled for the 100-300mm f4 for now...Hopefully at the end of the this year i will be purchasing one.
i would say its one of sigmas finest if not THE best lens they do...

 

[Rich Gibson]

I know a guy from another forum who uses this lens and the pics he produces are breath taking!! I really want this lens but have settled for the 100-300mm f4 for now...Hopefully at the end of the this year i will be purchasing one.
i would say its one of sigmas finest if not THE best lens they do...

That's what I find in the reviews. A number say it's even sharper than their 300mm f/2.8.

Rich

 

[snakeman]

Rich I know he rates it above the prime!!..

 

[DanielD]

Rich, didn't you play with Panos' copy in London last year?
Watching the photos I noticed he had one.
I also consider(ed?) that lens (+TC) in my lust for 400mm that need not to be stopped down that much.
On the other side I love hand holding my Sigma 80-400 and I'm not sure how I could handle that even bigger 120-300. (And it doesn't have VR/OS...)

But interested I am.... :biggrin:

 

[rbsmith]

I think the biggest difference between it and the 80-400, other than the 2.8, would be the focus speed.

 

[Commodorefirst]

Also the Sigma converters are a must for the sigma lenses, they really work well. On my 300 2.8 that I had the 1.4 and 2x both focused just as fast and the same. both were very sharp.

Wade

 

[koolk2]

Rich,

I'll let you know next week as I just closed a deal on FM for one with a 1.4 TC.

 

[Retief]

I know this guy, really well, who USED to have a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 that he sold a year ago. And I also know that this same person has regretted the sale ever since. I also know, really well, the fellow who bought the lens from this Rex fellow in this thread, in fact I might go so far as to say that he is sitting right here typing away, moving my fat fingers as it were :biggrin: And if you were to ask me flat out who this is, well, I guess I'd have to admit it is ME :biggrin:

As with the Sigma 500 that I had, and that folks like Jim Thiel are currently using, I'd rate the focus speed as just a touch, maybe, slower than the equivalent Nikon. I don't think you are going to see "night and day" differences. Off course if the 300 is the VR version, you will get that added bonus.

As to the TC's, I could only see one advantage to using the Sigma TC's vs. my converted Nikon TC's, and that had to do with recording of the EXIF data. With the Nikon TC's the recorded focal length and aperture are not multiplied, but the metering is all correct.

My opinion, it must be a great lens or why would I be stupid enough to buy one again? And it AIN't just because Rex is a nice guy :biggrin:. And for me, shooting youth sports, the zoom far outweighs the slight AF advantage I would see from the Nikon 300 AFS. Question now is, do I sell my 70-200 AFS f2.8 VR?

 

[catalyst]

Hey Rich -

I researched it extensively, and was convinced that for my type of shooting it would have been an extraordinary and flexible addition.

When push came to shove (i.e., when it came time to pony up the $ - LOL), I went for the much less expensive, and still stellar, Nikon 300 mm f/4.

I have two Sigma lenses - the 70-200 mm f/2.8 HSM and the 30 mm f/1.4 - and they are wonderful performers. My readings on the 120-300 told me that this would be in that same category . . .

Eric

 

[Kerry Pierce]

I bought the 120-300 DG version last fall, and couldn't be happier. It's sharp and the focus is fast and accurate. It works very well with my older, non-DG 1.4x TC and not too bad with the 2x TC.

The 2x TC might be okay, though, cuz it's really a test of my long lens technique and support. I don't have a wimberly or similar. I use a loose ball head. :redface:

The ability to zoom for sporting events is unbeatable, for the type of shots I want.

 

[InitialD]

The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is tempting and every now and then I do lust for it. :biggrin: So from what I've been reading of late, no more backfocus / frontfocus problems with this lens?

 

[Flyfishdk]

I love mine. I have had it for about 1½ month. I love it. If you go to my blog www.nicolaibrix.blogspot.com the last 2 posts are shot with the combo of that lens and my D200. if you have any needs to see some pics in full size just pm me and I can send you some examples.

 

[HickoryShampoo]

This one is at the top of my Lenses to Acquire list. I can't imagine how cool it would be to have the flexibility of 120-300mm 2.8 and 240-600mm 5.6 with the 2x TC.

 

[TimK]

I have used the Sigma 120-300 and I'll say it is at least as sharp as the 300 F4. It is a very good lens and it works quite good with Sigma's 2x TC. The only complain is that with the TC CA becomes a bit with backlight objects (maybe 4-5 pixels).

 

[Panos Kazanelis]

...remember this...???

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

...or this... :wink:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The 120-300/2.8 is a fantastic lens that will prove VERY useful for your grands ...even when they grow up :wink:

 

[Rich Gibson]

This one is at the top of my Lenses to Acquire list. I can't imagine how cool it would be to have the flexibility of 120-300mm 2.8 and 240-600mm 5.6 with the 2x TC.

Which raises an interesting question. My 70-200 with a 2.0 TC was not very good..in my opinion. That's why I sold the 2.0. The images were foggy with loss of contrast. Is the 2.0 with this lens any better?

Rich