Sigma 120-300 f 2.8 Sample

[Ward]

I'm new to the forum (as I guess nearly everyone else must be), and I like the format.* I've lurked around and posted on Steve's Digicams, Digital Photo Review, Onlinephotographers and others for years, and I'm always looking for something new.* I like the "tree" structure here, and hopefully as the site matures, this will be retained.* Anyway, posting an image from my lone, non-L lense was my excuse for saying "Hi", so I'd best get on with it.*

The image below was taken a little over a week ago at the National Drag Boat Races held in Oklahoma City.* This will be a major event on the tour for the next few years anyway.* The St. Lous event had 101 boats, Ft. Worth had 112, and OKC in it's inagural season had 171 in the water by 10:00 AM Saturday.* The top class of boats hit speeds well in excess of 230 mph in a quarter mile, and can do it in 5 seconds or less.* Capturing images of something moving this fast can be a bit of a challenge unless you have the right equipment.* A 1DMk2 and a 2.8 lens certainly helps.* Here is one example from over 40 boats that I shot in a little under 2 hours.* I hope you like it.

[Chris]

I'm about to buy this lens- probably within the next two weeks, I've heard it's quite the lens (especially for a poor college kid looking for 300mm at 2.. I'm also in the market for a good monopod and maybe a ball head setup for shooting sports on my campus- what setup were you using for that shot?

[Ward]

Hi Chris.* My setup for the +/- 480 shots that I took at the National Drag Boat races in OKC, OK was......* hand held - and I'm an old geezer.* With good sun, ISO 200, and f 2.8, you can shoot at 1/4000 most of the time.* There was a little variation around that speed, but generally it was right around there.* I shot AV mode to keep the 2.8.* I paid the extra $$$ for the 2.8, so I figured that I should use it, right?* Hope this helps.

Here is the link to the Pbase album where I park some of my 120-300 images: http://www.pbase.com/wmlarso/sigma_120300_images

Ward

[Ditchmeaver]

Ward...man, you're Bruce Willis' twin!

Anyway, I've used a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for over 1 1/2 years and have been elated with it. Even though its AF capabilities might not match up 100% with Canon's 300 f/2.8, its zoom capabilities are handier than a shirt pocket. Probably 90% of all the stuff on my website --- www.MitchDeaver.com --- have been taken with my Sigma and a 1D with or without a 1.4 Canon teleconverter.

Back over the Christmas holidays, I came very close to selling my Sigma to purchase a used Canon 300 f/2.8, but in the meanwhile I ripped through 15-20 football folders I'd shot in the previous couple of months and came to the vivid realization that I had very, very complaints about the Sig's performance.

It's a lot of bang for the buck and comes highly recommended from this end.

[Ward]

Mitch - you too can become Bruce Willis!* Just click on the right spot in the Profile tab, and Voila!* Only thing is, it doesn't come with the chicks that Bruce gets.

I too lust for the 300 2.8 IS, but a pocket that's been sewn shut by my wife prevents that move.* Last year I shot the OU football games with my 300 f 4.0 IS, and my 100-400 IS in various combinations with the 1.4x, and these generally produced images that to me were excellent in most cases.* *This year, I'm going to leave the 300 4.0 at home, and hang the 100-400 on one body, and the 120-300 on my other body, and insert the 1.4 as needed.* I'll still be revealed as a poor man when standing next to the SI and Sporting News guys with all of their fantastic hardware, but I have no doubt that I'll get a bunch of very good images.* My 120-300 is my most-used lens at this time, and it will probably remain that way until my wife allows me to open up my pocket at some point in the future.

Ward.

[Gambo]

Nice Pic!...I just got the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX and so far have been pleased...getting pictures I could never get before because of speed. However, I do find that wide open at 2.8 and to a lesser extent, closed up at f22 or higher gives me much softer images. I shoot mostly sports with a Canon Digital Rebel 300 on a monopod. Have you seen this on the 120-300? At f8 the focus is tack-sharp. I was wondering if I should speak to Sigma about it or if that is the norm. I do have a friend that has a Canon (not L) that exhibits similar behaviour...

[Ward]

Gambo,

I believe that most, if not all lenses are least sharp at the two extremes - wide open and minimum apeture.* The classic example of this in my opinion is the $75 Canon 50mm f 1.8.* This is a fantastically sharp lens around the 5.6 - 8.0 apetures, but embarassingly soft wide open and shut down.* I have a few lenses that pertty much defy this rule that are so sharp, that they can produce very good images at least when shot wide open.* (I don't use the smaller end of the apeture range generally).* Those lenses are the 85mm f 1.2, 135mm f 2.0, 70-200mm f 2.8 (non-IS), and the Sigma 120-300mm f 2.8.* I like the ability to do action shots that are sharp, and have good color saturation -* and I like good bokeh.* These lenses all give me at least some combination of those elements in most cases.

I can't give you any advise on your Sigma 70-200 as I am not very familiar with that lens.* I seem to recall that there are different models of that lens, also.* The newest one has a "DG" in the various alphabet soup naming conventions that Sigma uses, and that means that it was designed for digital.* Fred Miranda's site has a review forum and has some information on at least one of the Sigma 70-200 lenses and this should help you decide if you have a defective unit or not.* It doesn't seem right that you have to go all the way to f 8 to get crisp images.* You should be able to get consistent, acceptably sharp images at f 2.8 with that lens, unless it is one of the older, earlier modelss.* If it is, you may have to have it "re-chipped".* Apparently there is a circuit board built into the lens that Sigma can change out that will optimize it for the last generation or two of Canon digital cameras, but I'll admit that I'm a bit fuzzy on that one.*

Now I'll tell you the last part of this, and then I'll quit taking up bandwidth......* I believe that it was on (once again) Fred Miranda's site, under the Canon Lens Mount forum, that I read about others having similar problems to yours with their Sigma 70-200 f 2.8 lenses.* They actually loosened the flange holding the rear element in place, by 1/8 - 1/4 of a turn, and were able to correct the softness of this lens.* The people writing about this had already sent their lenses in to Sigma for adjustments, which had turned out to be unsatisfactory.* Go to Fred's on that forum, do a search on the Sigma 70-200 and I think that you will find detailed instructions (turned out to be easy) on this issue.* I don't think I'd do it if I had one, but you might be more adventuresome than I am.* I hope that this helps you Gambo.

Ward

[rnyholm]

Does this Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO HSM have a stabilisator? What are the Sigma lens letters for stabilisator?

[Ward]

Sigma's Image Stabilization acronymn is "OS", for Optical Stabilization. Nope, at this time the 120-300 f 2.8 does not come with OS.

[ellette]

Well, welcome to the forum and I'm glad you jumped right in and got your feet wet...as far as posting a picture is concerned anyway. I hope you didn't get in the water the day you were shooting those, you'd have gotten run over.

I look forward to seeing more pictures.

Sara