Sigma 120-300 2.8 Question - Sports Use

BCSPhotoguy

Hey All! I was wondering if anyone out there uses a Sigma 120-300 2.8 lens for sports? I shoot mainly racing - basically any sort of racing!! I would like to know some views on its focus speed and clarity. I have a chance to pick up one used and the price is right. I have used a 300 2.8 VR but the price is a little high at this point for me to justify. Also, let me know if you've used it with the Sigma 1.4x tele. I will be using it on a Nikon D300 - but brand doesnt matter.

If you have the lens and would like to offer opinions and examples i would greatly appreciate it.

MOD - i put this thread in here as the use will be for sports and am hoping for examples from people using it with MX or Motorcycles in general.

Thanks in advance!!

action-pics

BCSPhotoguy wrote: »

Hey All! I was wondering if anyone out there uses a Sigma 120-300 2.8 lens for sports? I shoot mainly racing - basically any sort of racing!! I would like to know some views on its focus speed and clarity. I have a chance to pick up one used and the price is right. I have used a 300 2.8 VR but the price is a little high at this point for me to justify. Also, let me know if you've used it with the Sigma 1.4x tele. I will be using it on a Nikon D300 - but brand doesnt matter.

If you have the lens and would like to offer opinions and examples i would greatly appreciate it.

MOD - i put this thread in here as the use will be for sports and am hoping for examples from people using it with MX or Motorcycles in general.

Thanks in advance!!

I'm sure you will find some differing opinions, but here is what I can offer. The 120-300 was my first "long" lens when I started a few years back. In good light it can be a decent performer. I did also use it with the matching 1.4tc (it did alright, but takes a sharpness hit as you would imagine). As I started replacing my glass I sold it. For me it didn't compare to the 300/2.8 VR at all...not even close in sharpness, contrast, focus speed, etc. With that said when I had that lens I was using the D300 and now use the D3s and D700 with the 300/2.8 so I wonder how the 120-300 would fair on these bodies. I would consider a good economical entry into 'fast' glass with a nice range. It is hard to compare it to the Nikon combo of 70-200 and 300/2.8s though. The pro glass from Nikon is just in another class.

mercphoto

Do you want the Sigma because of the price, or because its a zoom? I've shot before with a Canon 300/2.8 a lot and it was magical, much as the Nikon is revered to be. Unreal focus speed, really sharp image. A Sigma rep once tried to convince me the much cheaper Sigma Zoom was just as good but that just defies logic to me. I'm inclined to say if you can't justify the expense of the Nikon 300/2.8 prime lens due to business reasons (i.e. the lens won't pay for itself) then its a no-brainer: get the cheaper Sigma and who cares if the image quality is not as good?

I'm relatively certain the Sigma would produce good results. I'm also relatively certain it won't be as good as the Nikon. But only you can determine if you can make that trade off on price and image quality. I must admit, having sold the Canon 300/2.8 a few years back I would consider the Sigma 120-300/2.8 or the Canon 100-400 mostly due to business reasons. Love the 300/2.8, can't justify the expense.

jonh68

I am happy with my copy

BCSPhotoguy

Well Mercphoto, you hit the nail on the head! My issue is HOW LONG is a decent return on the 300 2.8 VR? The price is a huge thing for me right now and i have read some decent things about the Sigma lens. I had a sigma before and hated it but the examples shown here were decent! You and i shoot motorsports. I am fairly picky with my shots - if the stickers arent sharp - it goes in the bin! I have the 70-200 and love it but need more reach - if the Sigma is similar then i would be fine i would say. I dont want to settle on something strickly on price.

The lens is coming from a reputable photographer - but if i dont like it - there isnt a return policy!

Rags, if you are reading this thread - didnt you use to use one of the lenses before you bought the primes?

phatman

Hi, BCS
fwiw, i shoot w/ canon. I have had two copies of the sigma... both back-focused like crazy..
Both were sent to sigma for "calibration", still had the focus issues. sold them both and will not look back.
Now shoot w/ canon 300 2.8 and 400 2.8. Simply, black and white difference, no comparison at all!
Having said that... had oppurtunity(sp) to shoot a sigma 300 2.8 for three situations. the lens was comparible(sp) to
the canon, but i was shooting in great light each time, not low light like high school night football. the sigma 300
might be a little hard to find, but the cost might make it worth looking for. just my two cents worth.:D
b

BCSPhotoguy

UGH! The back focusing comment again! I am reading that in a few reviews too. I think i may at least go and try the lens to see for myself. I hate the fact that the decision is coming down to money - but I am at the start of finally getting people to see my work. No large cheques coming in yet! The Sigma is about a third of the cost of a 300 2.8. But i know that if the lens doesnt perform, I will be in the same boat as you and others who have sold it. Also, I havent seen a Nikon 300 2.8 for sale used in a looong time. Yes i know, that says alot!

Damn Nikon execs! Lower the price of your lenses would ya!!!!

torags

BCSPhotoguy wrote: »

Well Mercphoto, you hit the nail on the head! My issue is HOW LONG is a decent return on the 300 2.8 VR? The price is a huge thing for me right now and i have read some decent things about the Sigma lens. I had a sigma before and hated it but the examples shown here were decent! You and i shoot motorsports. I am fairly picky with my shots - if the stickers arent sharp - it goes in the bin! I have the 70-200 and love it but need more reach - if the Sigma is similar then i would be fine i would say. I dont want to settle on something strickly on price.

The lens is coming from a reputable photographer - but if i dont like it - there isnt a return policy!

Rags, if you are reading this thread - didnt you use to use one of the lenses before you bought the primes?

Nah, I had a Nik 200/400, that didn't deliver in low light

I think the value of a zoom in track work far out runs a prime. If you're shooting surfing, a prime is fine (unless you have a pwc).

You have to move at a course & you may not be able to get the position for a prime

The range on the Canon 100-400 sounds interesting if the IQ is there

I'm no expert on the finer points of lenses, but my sigma 10/20 & 300 2.8 get good IQ

Personally I'd go for it. Downside risk is minimal, if you upgrade; put it on FredMiranda FS.

BCSPhotoguy

Well, i went and tried the lens today! Great timing, the seller was going to a racetrack that was only about 30 mins from me. He let me try it for about 20 mins. Only problem was i was only able to test it with cars coming directly at me so i dont think it was a fair test for focusing as i remember even the Nikon had some issue with fast moving vehicles coming head on. I wanted to try Panning but wasnt able to. One thing i loved was the zoom factor - i was able to make the best of situation without having to find another spot to shoot from.

I am going to go over the images and let him know if I want the lens. First impressions are that a few are slightly soft - or softer than i would like. I have been told about the Fine Adjustment that i can do in camera and I think that will take care of that. Then again, it may have been that fact it was my first time shooting with it...Jitters! A real plus - it just came back from Sigma for an adjustment/cleaning - Came back with a clean bill of health!

I will let you know if I am going to a little lighter in the wallet soon!

jonh68

One thing to be aware of if the lens has been adjusted is it doesn't mean much if it was adjusted for the owners camera. The focus characteristics of your camera may be different.

torags

jonh68 wrote: »

One thing to be aware of if the lens has been adjusted is it doesn't mean much if it was adjusted for the owners camera. The focus characteristics of your camera may be different.

I don't think third party lens makers adjust to your camera. At least Tamron didn't for me.

BCSPhotoguy

jonh68 wrote: »

One thing to be aware of if the lens has been adjusted is it doesn't mean much if it was adjusted for the owners camera. The focus characteristics of your camera may be different.

It was sent in to Sigma for a cleaning and adjustment - or thats what the bill says. I think it was just a routine cleaning. According to the owner there was nothing changed internally. On a different note - i will be sending you a msg about the 'in camera' adjustment you did for the sharpening with yours and the method you used. I think i found it, but just wanted to make sure with someone who has done it.

HoofClix

I've had one for about a year, and I've been fairly satisfied with it. My standard lens when shooting horse shows it my 70-200 f2.8VR, which I agree is much sharper and accurate generally than the Sigma lens. I got it because it is the only f2.8 lens that is out there in such a zoom range.

Since getting it I have been really able to adjust my thinking when shooting the xc phase of horse trials, enabling me to shoot tighter in on an extra jump out there. That extra jump means an extra picture for the customer.

I have three gripes about it, that it has a hard time tracking in focus when pushed all the way out to 300mm. I find myself not trusting it and pre-focusing in most cases. Second, I hate that the zoom ring moves opposite of my Nikon lenses. I have to adjust to that every time I put it on the camera. Third I hate the collar. I have broken two already, as the snap attachment seems to wear out. I have a Really Right Stuff long lens support system, which helps a bit, but when I use that I have to zoom over the top, which is really irksome.

I have a friend who shoots a lot of upper level dressage, and he has to go into an indoor arena. He has a D700, and I let him borrow it for that situation, and it was useful there for him as well.

If Nikon made one I'd buy it. The 200-400 f4 is great except in low light conditions, and for most of what I do I think the images are just too flat in perspective..

BCSPhotoguy

Thanks for the comments! I laughed about the zoom ring! That was my first complaint about it!! When you say tracking focus - Do you mean the lens has problems keeping focus as you pan with the subject you are focused on? I do mostly racing photography - so that is an important thing for me!

Have you used it with a teleconverter by chance?

HoofClix

BCSPhotoguy wrote: »

Thanks for the comments! I laughed about the zoom ring! That was my first complaint about it!! When you say tracking focus - Do you mean the lens has problems keeping focus as you pan with the subject you are focused on? I do mostly racing photography - so that is an important thing for me!

Have you used it with a teleconverter by chance?

I have never personally, but a staff of mine did, and it was not so good. stick with the primes on teleconverts.

I think it has problems at 300mm when I'm trying to stretch it even farther than I should be, meaning that my subject is even a bit small to fill in the focus bracket in the viewfinder. I think that anyway.

jonh68

1.4 Sigma TC works pretty good for me.

HoofClix

jonh68, those look great.. I just didn't like what I saw one of my staff do with one.

I do know a nationally prominent Dressage shooter who uses one with her Canon system, and that with a 70-200IS. She is happy, and her comment in some cases is "who cares if they are a little soft.."

Yours are not soft at all, imo...

jonh68

You really have to experiment with this lens to get the most out of it while using and post processing. I had to play around with the AF fine tuning to get it sharp at 2.8, and when using the TC, mine gets critical sharpness at f5. It is my poor mans 170-420 f5 compared to a Nikon 200-400 f4. I will say in a bind, f4 is usable if you just have to get the shot and the light fades. By this time though, I am probably taking the TC off anyway.

For post processing, a little extra sharpening and contrast go a long way to improving the image.

For my type of photography, the Sigma suits me just fine as the lens I grab when I know I need long range and the conditions will change throughout the assignment or day. I can use a TC for field sports and wildlife, and then take it off and get 2.8 when the sun sets. I couldn't do that with a Nikon 200-400. If I had a Nikon 300 2.8, I wouldn't be able to sit behind homeplate and get shots of the infield making plays while pulling back and getting the tag at homeplate. I like having one lens instead of carrying a 70-200 on one camera and a 300 prime on the other.

The tradeoff is of course IQ to a degree. Compared to a Nikon 300 prime, the Sigma will lose. However, I only think pixel peepers would notice. I am a freelancer for the local paper and the staff guys use Canon gear. I have not had an editor complain about the sharpness compared to the Canon primes the staffers use.

mercphoto

jonh68 wrote: »

You really have to experiment with this lens to get the most out of it while using and post processing.

Good info to know. I think a little experimenting and a little extra PP (especially if it can be batched!) is worth the flexibility and the price savings. I know when I had the Canon 300/2.8 I never got the hang of shooting youth football with it (the very shallow DOF and getting the focus point on the wrong spot, causing a soft face), but for some reason I did very good shooting karts and motocross with it. Long, fast glass, no matter who makes it, is not something you just start shooting with and get instant success.

johng

On the TC front - I have the 120-300 2.8 and the sigma 1.4x TC. I have a Canon 20d and 1dmkIII. Now, the lens neeeds +8 micro adjust on my mkIII. The TC worked great on the lens wth my 20d but for the life of me I can't get good results with it on my mkIII - even with a different micro-focus adjustment. I've given up trying. And that's frustrating because not being able to use the TC really degrades the usability of the lens for me. Of course, when I bought it, it sold for $1900 so I'm very happy with the performance at THAT price. At it's current price I would be a lot less happy. Now, of course that could all be part of the whole mkIII trials and tribulations but I don't know - after the MF adjustment I've never had a problem with focus and the 120-300 2.8 without TC nor with any of my other lenses. But, I do love the flexibility of shooting field sports with a single body

BCSPhotoguy

Well, all this info is great! I am picking up the lens tomorrow!! Now - the experimenting begins!

I also need to learn about the Fine Adjust with a D300...

BCSPhotoguy

Well, The lens has been bought and i have been eagerly awaiting a chance to try it out. That chance came yesterday at the Toronto Motorsports Park as they were having the Canadian Nitro Nationals. Long story short, I had a friend who just finished building a brand new Pro Mod and wanted some pictures of it. That 'want' gave me quite the 'need' The need for trackside access! I got it! This isnt him - but for years i have wanted the chance to take a picture like this! Not every day you can stand 5 feet from 5000+ HP as it leavs the line! This image could be framed better and the mid day sun was beyond brutal - but with excitement and a learning curve of using the lens that was being hand held - I am happy with it! Overall, I think this lens will serve me well! The ability to zoom was priceless for this event! Bottom line - Very happy! More pics to follow!!!

HoofClix

Well that is just absolutely excellent!

travischance

BCSPhotoguy wrote: »

Well, The lens has been bought and i have been eagerly awaiting a chance to try it out. That chance came yesterday at the Toronto Motorsports Park as they were having the Canadian Nitro Nationals. Long story short, I had a friend who just finished building a brand new Pro Mod and wanted some pictures of it. That 'want' gave me quite the 'need' The need for trackside access! I got it! This isnt him - but for years i have wanted the chance to take a picture like this! Not every day you can stand 5 feet from 5000+ HP as it leavs the line! This image could be framed better and the mid day sun was beyond brutal - but with excitement and a learning curve of using the lens that was being hand held - I am happy with it! Overall, I think this lens will serve me well! The ability to zoom was priceless for this event! Bottom line - Very happy! More pics to follow!!!

While I'm a little late to this thread, how has the 120-300 treated you thus far? I've been in the market for a Canon 300 2.8 & came across a LN Sigma 120-300. I'm nervous as the last non-OEM lens I purchased (Tamron) was simply a bad lens & I said that I'd never purchase again. However, the $2,000 difference is very tempting. Thanks!

BCSPhotoguy

So far - I am liking it! I will admit, i have some questions about the foucs at 2.8 when at 300mm. I talked to the service depot and its not to far from me so i think i may drop by and have them test it. It seems fuzzy? I will say this, I used it for the above drag racing shot. I used this lens ALL day. the zoom was priceless! Others with a prime were walking down the track and then coming back to change lenses. Its sharp and focus fast on my D300. Overall - I am not regretting buying it!

What sports will you be shooting?

travischance

BCSPhotoguy wrote: »

So far - I am liking it! I will admit, i have some questions about the foucs at 2.8 when at 300mm. I talked to the service depot and its not to far from me so i think i may drop by and have them test it. It seems fuzzy? I will say this, I used it for the above drag racing shot. I used this lens ALL day. the zoom was priceless! Others with a prime were walking down the track and then coming back to change lenses. Its sharp and focus fast on my D300. Overall - I am not regretting buying it!

What sports will you be shooting?

I'll be shooting football & baseball. While the zoom (in all practicality) will eliminate the need for two bodies (300 + 70-200), I think I'll stick to my first choice in a 300 prime. Thanks again!