# The New Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Reviewed



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 25, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/the-new-sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-reviewed/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/the-new-sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-reviewed/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From The-Digital-Picture

</strong>Bryan over at TDP has completed his review of the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909812-REG/Sigma_137101_120_300mm_f_2_8_DG_OS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM</a> lens.</p>
<p>Bryan, just like a friend of mine that is sponsored by Sigma in Canada, was pleasantly surprised about how much they like the lens. I keep hearing the build quality, optical quality and focal range are very useful on a day-to-day basis.</p>
<p><strong>From Bryan

</strong><em>“It is hard not to like a great looking lens with a 120-300mm focal length range in a non-extending, solidly built body that also feels great – and delivers image quality that leaves most other zoom lenses wanting even at this lens’ wide max f/2.8 aperture. I like the direction Sigma has been going with their recent lenses and I think they have another hit with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the Full Review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909812-REG/Sigma_137101_120_300mm_f_2_8_DG_OS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RomainF (Jul 25, 2013)

My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach. 
I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one. 

If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...
Ideally i'd buy it to complement my 70-200 as the 120-300 remains really cheaper than the Canon 300mm and i often need an extra reach that a 300mm (or 420 with 1.4x) would bring me. 

Anyone ? Have you ever heard any kind of complaints like this ?
Does anyone could compare the reach of the 120-300 to the 300L ?


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 25, 2013)

Sigma should introduce its Big Brother, a 200-500 f/4.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 25, 2013)

Given all I have heard and read so far, I see no reason why this new lens does not represent excellent value for money! If I could afford it, I would just buy one without even trying it out first. As for the extra reach, there's always the 1.4x teleconverter. Whether or not the IQ degrades too much with Sigma's 2x TC, it seems to me that it's really more their 2x TC that is the weak link. Perhaps Sigma will introduce a series two teleconverter designed to work well with this lens...and preferably a 1.7x model...because I feel that is more useful than 2x.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 25, 2013)

RomainF said:


> My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach.
> I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one.
> 
> If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...
> ...



This is addressed in the review:
_" The also-phenomenal Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II Lens' image quality is seriously challenged by the Sigma 120-300 S. The Sigma costs more in this case, but the 70-200 needs an extender to get out close to 300mm. And it becomes an f/4 lens in that case.

You also may think "280mm is not 300mm". This would be a good time to mention that specified focal lengths are not always exact - especially on zoom lenses. The Canon 300 f/2.8 IS II frames a just-under 4' wide target at 33.19' while the Sigma 120-300 OS S must be moved 2.24' closer (to 30.95') for the same target framing. The Canon 70-200 IS II frames the same target at 29.75' at 280mm (w/ 1.4x) - just 1.2' closer than the Sigma. *Basically, the difference between the focal length of these lenses is not very significant.* "_

So, at 300mm on the Sigma you would need to stand 2 feet closer to a 4 foot wide subject to frame it the same as the Canon 300.


----------



## RomainF (Jul 25, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> This is addressed in the review:



Thanks but i've read that review too. 
I would appreciate if someone directly compare both models @ 300mm (Siggy and Canon prime). 

Here's the Sigma 70-200 APO DG OS EX HSM and the 120-300 EX OS, if anyone is interested :






(image ain't distorted, the top of the roof is not straight ;D )


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 25, 2013)

RomainF said:


> Thanks but i've read that review too.
> I would appreciate if someone directly compare both models @ 300mm (Siggy and Canon prime).



I don't understand. He did directly compare them and came to the conclusion that if you are taking a picture with the Canon of a subject that is 33.19 feet away, you would have to stand 30.95 feet away to take the same picture with the Sigma. That is a direct comparison.


----------



## RGF (Jul 25, 2013)

a couple of drawbacks for me - the weight at 8 lbs (Canon's 300 F2.8 II is 5 Lbs, the mark 1 is similar) and the reach only 300. I would like to see 4-5 Lbs 70-300 F4 (fixed) with IS. Canon's current 70-300L is a great lens but a bit slow. Fixed F4 would make this a real winner and a great alternative to the 200-400 on a APS-C body.


----------



## vlim (Jul 25, 2013)

i would be curious to see it compared to my canon 300 f/4 IS, because the weight difference is so huge but how is the real difference between them in term of sharpness ?

and i would be interesting to see Sigma working on a 200-400 f/4 or a 100-400 f/4-5.6 with the same quality and sharpness...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2013)

vlim said:


> and i would be interesting to see Sigma working on a 200-400 f/4 or a 100-400 f/4-5.6 with the same quality and sharpness...


It likely depends on the sales of the lens. If it sells well, that would be a encouragement to them to spend the money and effort on the bigger zoom. A 200-400mm f/4 might be a tad larger, and, they will want 4K for it.


----------



## RomainF (Jul 25, 2013)

vlim said:


> i would be curious to see it compared to my canon 300 f/4 IS, because the weight difference is so huge but how is the real difference between them in term of sharpness ?


Weight difference is so huge cause one of them is able to reach 120mm ;D


----------



## Chris Burch (Jul 25, 2013)

I just got the new Sigma and my friend has the new Canon 300, so I'll try to get some direct comparisons done soon and will share the results.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 26, 2013)

From what I'm seeing this lens is on my Want list, however I still feel like I need a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens first. 120mm isn't going to be wide enough for most of what I end up shooting, which is smaller inside music venues. The 135mm is good for close ups, 85mm is good for somewhat wider shots, but I'd love to be able to go simply from 70mm to 135+ for more full(er) stage shots, but still able to get in really close and get some artsy type performance shots.


----------



## dswtan (Jul 26, 2013)

vlim said:


> i would be curious to see it compared to my canon 300 f/4 IS...


You realize there is a handy comparison tool at TDP, right?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2013)

Not bad but it still doesn't look as good as the 70-200 2.8 IS II or 300 2.8 IS II or 300 2.8 IS. I'm not sure it would take 2x TC so well while the 300 primes from Canon can get away with it. Apparently it weights a lot more too which would be really bad. Considering that the TDP seemed to have tested a poor copy of the 70-300L, the sigma seems to perform more in line with that lens (the sigma does look better on his charts at f/5.6, but arguably worse at f/8, and again his 70-300L was bum or poorly tested IMO). Not that 70-300L is something to compare to this since they are for much different purposes.

Still, it could be the solution for some I'd bet.


----------



## thesycgroup (Jul 26, 2013)

I just spent 7 days on an Alaska cruise with this lens, All handheld and it really does an amazing job. I can not wait for football season to get here so I can shoot more with it.

You can see the shots in this gallery
http://www.minnihan.com/p81550852

I have found that with the 2x sigma teleconverter that it is soft.


----------



## lol (Jul 26, 2013)

As an owner of the older EX version, I find it curious that TDP claim the new one is "sharper". All the info we have suggests nothing has changed optically. Lensrentals even pulled them apart and the optical modules appeared identical. Is this "sample variation" at work?


----------



## RomainF (Jul 26, 2013)

Chris Burch said:


> I just got the new Sigma and my friend has the new Canon 300, so I'll try to get some direct comparisons done soon and will share the results.



Thanks a lot 8) !


----------



## Click (Jul 26, 2013)

thesycgroup said:


> I just spent 7 days on an Alaska cruise with this lens, All handheld and it really does an amazing job. I can not wait for football season to get here so I can shoot more with it.
> 
> You can see the shots in this gallery
> http://www.minnihan.com/p81550852
> ...



Beautiful shots. Very nice gallery too.

...And Welcome to cr.


----------



## darth mollusk (Jul 26, 2013)

I am a little confused. The Digital Picture review claims that this new S version shows a significant improvement in sharpness, and has the comparative test results to back this up. Yet the MTF charts and optical design for this lens and the previous version are identical. Also, Roger over at LensRentals (who I have a great deal of faith in) says: "the optics are identical" and consequently he wouldn't pay the extra grand for the new version.

What do you think is going on here?


----------



## jthomson (Jul 26, 2013)

darth mollusk said:


> I am a little confused. The Digital Picture review claims that this new S version shows a significant improvement in sharpness, and has the comparative test results to back this up. Yet the MTF charts and optical design for this lens and the previous version are identical. Also, Roger over at LensRentals (who I have a great deal of faith in) says: "the optics are identical" and consequently he wouldn't pay the extra grand for the new version.
> 
> What do you think is going on here?



Explained in article.

Roger, after tearing down both OS versions of the 120-300, said it appeared that elements in these lenses could be interchanged. The optical design seems unchanged. When questioned about this, Sigma replied that the 120-300 "S" has 2 FLD Glass elements instead of one. FLD glass has performance equal to fluorite, which is excellent. 

So 2 FLD elements instead of one so better IQ.


----------



## vlim (Jul 26, 2013)

> You realize there is a handy comparison tool at TDP, right?
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx



I know but i mean in real situation, in a rainforest for example...

But definitely a great lens like all the new ones made by Sigma !

I guess 2 bodies and my 70-200 f/4 L IS and 300 f/4 L IS are still lighter than one body and the 120-300 f/2.8... That's the huge point for me


----------



## lol (Jul 26, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Explained in article.
> 
> Roger, after tearing down both OS versions of the 120-300, said it appeared that elements in these lenses could be interchanged. The optical design seems unchanged. When questioned about this, Sigma replied that the 120-300 "S" has 2 FLD Glass elements instead of one. FLD glass has performance equal to fluorite, which is excellent.
> 
> So 2 FLD elements instead of one so better IQ.


One major problem with that... if you look back to the older one, Sigma says that has two FLD elements, and further references to this can be found in various reviews like at photozone and lenstip. The only way this unspecified source at Sigma could be right now is if Sigma were originally lying about having two SLD elements. Doesn't add up.

I'd speculate it could still be down to sample variation, especially if Sigma have tightened up their build quality.


----------



## AJ (Jul 26, 2013)

Quite the gushing review!

Maybe it's sample variation, but the new version does appear to be quite a bit sharper than its predecessor:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

Sharpness is close to (but not quite) Canon 300/2.8 mk1
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=249&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 29, 2013)

RGF said:


> Canon's current 70-300L is a great lens but a bit slow. Fixed F4 would make this a real winner and a great alternative to the 200-400 on a APS-C body.



Well, see it the other way around: The 70-300L is a f5.6 lens with added f4 at the wide end  ... it's a zoom after all. If it would be constant aperture it'd have to be much heavier, most likely a good deal more bulky and surely more expensive, which would deprive the 70-300L of the defining characteristic "flexible, sturdy, ok iq & still portable".


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 29, 2013)

AJ said:


> Quite the gushing review!
> 
> Maybe it's sample variation, but the new version does appear to be quite a bit sharper than its predecessor:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=803&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> ...



I had an OS mk 1 for a while. It's certinly a sharp lens, nearly as sharp as a prime wide open. Excellent still with a 1.4x and a little softer with a 2x. Mine needed a fair bit of MA to coax the best out of it. I found that the focal drop at MFD to be quite alarming (beyond what I've experianced with other zoom lenses) and I found the AF to be fast (but slower than Canon's finest) but a little erratic. When I popped a 2x TC on it (theoretically a 600mm FL) and popped it along side my 400L. At 3m focus I found that their focal lengths were nearly identical. So when I put all this togther and considered the vast size and weight, I figured I was better off with a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a 1.4x TC or a 400L. But that was my findings! If you like this lump, go for it, it's your money!


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Quite the gushing review!
> ...



But what about at distances farther away than 3 meters? Surely most people who would use this lens with a 2x TC, will be shooting things farther away than that?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 1, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > AJ said:
> ...



It all depends on what you are photographing. If you want a diffused background and you are photographing wildlife, then the subject needs to be close to decouple the background. If you are in a hide or shooting from along way away then sure it's a fine lens for that.


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 2, 2013)

RomainF said:


> My biggest (and only one so far) concern is about the reach.
> I've read a couple of times that the Siggy is shorter @ 300mm than the canon fixed 3002.8ISII. Those reviews were about the previous model of 120-300 but it ain't supposed to be optically different from the brand new one.
> 
> If this was real, the Sigma wouldn't be as interesting as it seems...
> ...




"...Siggy is shorter @ 300 than the canon..."

It irritates me when people make confusing statements like this without stating what focus distance they are referring to.

I suspect that focussing at "infinity" ie in practice say 200 to 300 metres and beyond the new Sigma is probably a true 300 lens. However it seems to be the case that at close focus zooms generally loose focal length faster that primes.

The same used to be said of the 100-400L. I once carefully compared image size of a 100-400L @ 400 with the Canon 400/5.6 using same camera focussed on a distant building and guess what - the image size was exactly the same ie my 100-400L was a true 400 at distance.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 2, 2013)

The big problem is the weight: as TDP writes "There is no question that this lens can be handheld and that OS aids in doing so – but such use will be avoided most of the time by all but the strongest photographers. " It weighs a full kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II and 200g more than the 500mm f/4 II. I tried it out and found it far too heavy for hand holding for me. Also, the IQ is ruined by a 2xTC, unlike that of the 300mm prime.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 2, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The big problem is the weight: as TDP writes "There is no question that this lens can be handheld and that OS aids in doing so – but such use will be avoided most of the time by all but the strongest photographers. " It weighs a full kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II and 200g more than the 500mm f/4 II. I tried it out and found it far too heavy for hand holding for me. Also, the IQ is ruined by a 2xTC, unlike that of the 300mm prime.



But the prime is a prime, and can't zoom...which is the main reason to own the Sigma...besides the far lower cost, at around half or less than half of the Canon. It's not a fair comparison to judge the Sigma against a prime that weighs less and costs twice as much. If the Canon were a zoom it would weigh closer to what the Sigma weighs...Canon's only super-tele zoom, the new 200-400, weighs even more than the Sigma! And anyway, why not use a monopod? I use a monopod on my smaller and lighter 120-400, so I would definitely use one for a heavier lens. A monopod can be cumbersome at times, but as long as it has the "flip" latches rather than the "screw" ones, it can be extended and retracted fairly quickly...and once retracted, it can aid in the use of hand-holding the lens, by simply propping it against your chest/stomach. Couple this with a good strap, and you could carry it around all day and use less energy than carrying around a 70-200 f/2.8 (without support). I'm not exactly a weak guy, I used to lift weights...but I'm also not remotely as big as a WWE wrestler either. When I'm doing photography I prefer to not ever have to strain my muscles, haha. I like it to feel as luxurious as possible.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 2, 2013)

The Sigma is too heavy for me in absolute terms, not just relative to the 300mm prime. If you are strong or don't mind using a monopod, then you may be happy to lug it around. The rest of us will have to make do with a 100-400 or a 70-300L with a smaller aperture but at a fraction of the weight if we need a zoom.


----------



## lol (Aug 3, 2013)

I don't consider myself to be strong, as I have rather thin arms and never do any exercise. But I have lugged the older 120-300 EX OS around and can hand hold that for a day. No, it isn't as easy as the 100-400L, which itself I thought was heavy until I got used to it. Maybe using this kit is weight training for my arms!


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 5, 2013)

Very odd ISO 12233 crops for this new lens on the-digital- picture which Sigma refer to as the DG OS HSM/S lens.

First of all scrolling down two OS lenses are listed but not DG OS HSM/S specifically.

So we have to assume that the latest lens crops are actually the "DG OS HSM" crops.

What is odd is that the "EX DG OS HSM" (the first OS version?) gives very much sharper 1.4x and 2xTC crops than the new lens!!

Are Sigma going backwards here or does it show wide variability in the Sigma product compared to Can/Nik?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 5, 2013)

lol said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Explained in article.
> ...



I think there's a bit of confusion to which version is the "old" one. I can't help wonder if TDP have confused the older non-OS version with the first OS version. From my spec reading, the new S version is optically the same as the old OS version, but different from the original non-OS version. 
I had the old OS version and optically it was very strong. With a Canon 2x mkII TC, it needed to be stopped down to f6.3 and the results were very usable. 
I found this lens awkward and heavy to use. It's fine for domestic / hobbiest use where occasion use is implied. But for professional use, it lacks the AF accuracy and Speed of Canon's white lenses. It's OS is unrefined and the focal drop at MDF isn't ideal. There's the weight too, I would rather save for a 300mm f2.8 L IS II and have a slightly sharper, lighter and more consistent performer. But if i was only going to use it occasionally in a non-pro guise then it would be high on my list. Although having two 5DIII bodies and a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II....the zoom function of this lens is of limited appeal to me.


----------



## weixing (Aug 5, 2013)

Hi,
When comparing the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM S with 2x converter (F5.6) with my EF 400mm F5.6L with 1.4x (F8), the Sigma doesn't look that good... only step down to F8 then the IQ is on par with the EF 400mm F5.6L with 1.4x (F8).

Then I compare the Sigma with 2x converter with the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR with 2x converter, I was very surprise... did TDP get a bad copy of Nikon 300mm f2.8 or is the Nikon 300mm f2.8 that bad??

Suddenly, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM S look like a very good value lens... the only issue is did Sigma solve the sample variation issue??

Have a nice day.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 5, 2013)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 400mm f/5.6 L is not very good with a 1.4xTC, so saying that the Sigma with a 2xTC is on a par with it is not exactly a selling point. 

Ps On checking, I think you need to have the Sigma at f/16 to have it on a par with the Canon at f/8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=803&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=6


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma is too heavy for me in absolute terms, not just relative to the 300mm prime. If you are strong or don't mind using a monopod, then you may be happy to lug it around. The rest of us will have to make do with a 100-400 or a 70-300L with a smaller aperture but at a fraction of the weight if we need a zoom.



I still don't understand your resistance to a monopod...and implying "the rest of us", as if most people who use a 300 f/2.8, always handhold it. That's absurd...most use some kind of support. I've personally not tried this lens, but I have rented the 200 f/2, which is about the same weight. I damn sure never carried it around for long without its strap, and without it being mounted to my trusty monopod.

And again regarding the weight...I had thought the Sigma was 6.1 pounds, but apparently it is 7.45 pounds. The Canon 300 f/2.8ii is listed as 2350 grams, which is 5.18 pounds...so the difference is 2.27 pounds. It's more significant than I had thought...yes...but again...I feel the comparison is not fair because one is a zoom, the other is not. And one costs more than twice as much as the other. To argue that whatever faults this Sigma has, make it not worth owning...I just don't see it. It's definitely worth owning.

You would have to be pretty strong to carry a Canon 300 f/2.8 around all day, and hand-hold it the entire time you're shooting. I see no reason to handhold it, unless the subjects you are shooting are flying above you all the time. If you're shooting subjects closer to your own level, you need to use a monopod. I also don't believe anyone actually does walk around all day with a 300 f/2.8, and hand hold it for hours of shooting...never resting it on anything while shooting. Maybe for less than two hours...but definitely not all day long.


----------



## Apop (Aug 14, 2013)

AlanF said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> The 400mm f/5.6 L is not very good with a 1.4xTC, so saying that the Sigma with a 2xTC is on a par with it is not exactly a selling point.
> 
> ...




I wouldn't use it with the 2x teleconverter, the 300f2.8 IS II is much better with it.

However, the new sigma looks really really good if you don't opt for the 2x converter

With 1.4 converter and 1 stop down, you will have a 1 stop disadvantage to the canon 200-400, but it's still remarkable for a zoom less than 1/3 the price of the canon

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3

Then @ 300mm f4, it looks ''equally good'' as the 200-400 @ 300 f4 ( maybe slightly better than it).
Even on 300 f2.8 it looks close to the 200-400 @ f4

Which is pretty remarkable.
In case of emergency I guess a 2.0 converter could be added, but If you intend on buying the 200-400 with 1.4,
Consider getting the sigma 120-300 S and canon 300 f2.8 IS II and use it with two bodies 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

The 300 [email protected] 6.3, looks slightly better than the 200-400 @ 560(which might be slightly shorter due to breathing).

You would have a 
120-300 f2.8 (pretty sharp)
168-420 f4(f5.6 imo) with ;equal' iq to the 200-400
300 f2.8 ( the sharpest, lightest , fastest focussing etc)
420 f4 ( equally good to the 200-400, when the 200-400 breathes you get some extra pixels on targets with the 420 f4 compared to it, similar or faster focussing and much lighter).
600 f5.6 (f6.3-f8 imo) , again more pixels on target than the 200-400 @560.

And instead of a 70-200 on a second body you can put a 24-105 on a third body! ^_^

also price wise, where the 200-400 is 11k euros , you can get the other two for around 9-9.5k, which leaves room for a second body! ( I think most people already have a backup body anyway)

the sigma 120-300 without tc on one body
canon 300 with 1.4 on another body

sigma 120-300 with 1.4 tc (shooting at 5.6) on one body
canon 300 with 2x tc (6.3-f8) on another body.

Im only thinking for wildlife photographers here, it may be cumber stone to walk around with 

Or just the sigma 120-300 on one body ,

When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up


----------



## candyman (Aug 14, 2013)

Apop said:


> When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up


That must be the old version.
Actually there are 2:
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM (around 1350 euro)
- Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (around 2000 euro)

The new version - the sports 120-300 - is for sale around 3500 euro


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 14, 2013)

candyman said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up
> ...



I think you are incorrect the latest is called the DG OS HSM/S (ie drop the EX). Confusing!!

Now looking at tdp crops it would appear that the previous EX DG OS HSM model is sharper on axis than the current expensive one with TCs. Very odd maybe Sigma have a QC problem here!!


----------



## Apop (Aug 14, 2013)

candyman said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > When the price comes down, or there is another sale ( one guy recently bought it for 1871 euros!) , I am sure to pick one up
> ...



Jep , but there was discount according to the outside temperature, and it was around 37 degrees Celsius in germany.

This guy practically stole it for 1871 euros :/


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 14, 2013)

AlanF said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> The 400mm f/5.6 L is not very good with a 1.4xTC, so saying that the Sigma with a 2xTC is on a par with it is not exactly a selling point.
> 
> ...



I had a good copy of the Canon 400mm f5.6 L for about 7 years. It was nice and light weight, but it's MFD was quite far out and not that useful. I found mine was still very sharp with a 1.4x TC, but the issue was that the tripod collar wasn't that stable (especially with the hood extended) and the AF wasn't as accurate. If I manually focused it and really bolted down the tripod collar, I got very sharp results.


----------



## macroman1 (Oct 12, 2013)

For those concerned about the weight, I was too, so I hired one for a motor racing weekend. I used it hand-held for 3 days, panning/tracking at 1/100 to 1/160th for blur, shooting thousands of frames with my 1-DX on burst. I'm a 70kg middle aged weakling, so I felt it, but persevered without untoward after effects.

Suffice to say that I was impressed enough to purchase it off the hire company, 4 months old, cUS$900 under new price. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this lens hire it and see for yourself.

I now need to get a definitive answer to which 1.4x (Sigma or Canon) will work best with this beast?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 12, 2013)

macroman1 said:


> For those concerned about the weight, I was too, so I hired one for a motor racing weekend. I used it hand-held for 3 days, panning/tracking at 1/100 to 1/160th for blur, shooting thousands of frames with my 1-DX on burst. I'm a 70kg middle aged weakling, so I felt it, but persevered without untoward after effects.
> 
> Suffice to say that I was impressed enough to purchase it off the hire company, 4 months old, cUS$900 under new price. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this lens hire it and see for yourself.
> 
> I now need to get a definitive answer to which 1.4x (Sigma or Canon) will work best with this beast?



You imply that a Canon TC would fit and work? I have a Canon 1.4 TC II and would be very interested in people's experiencies (if any) with a combination of this TC and the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM. Both full frame and APS-C results.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Oct 12, 2013)

Sigma.........YOU ROCK!


----------



## macroman1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Yes, the Canon 1.4x fits - at the same time as I hired the Sigma, I also hired Canon 1.4MkII. I wasn't entirely convinced, but then we have been getting equinoxial winds (read gales) and the lens hood ("bucket") collects an awful lot of it! It just wasn't as sharp as some shots I've seen using Sigma 1.4x, but then I don't know how much pp they've done.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 13, 2013)

macroman1 said:


> Yes, the Canon 1.4x fits - at the same time as I hired the Sigma, I also hired Canon 1.4MkII. I wasn't entirely convinced, but then we have been getting equinoxial winds (read gales) and the lens hood ("bucket") collects an awful lot of it! It just wasn't as sharp as some shots I've seen using Sigma 1.4x, but then I don't know how much pp they've done.



Thanks for sharing your experiences


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 14, 2013)

Interesting.

I don't think comparing this to Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 L is a good comparison. The 70-200mm is an excellent small venue lens. For up to 300 or so people, it's hard to beat.

With the Sigma, you're just too far at 120mm to get a good shot of someone and not have someone get in the way. And at 300mm, you're almost 75' from someone to get a good full-body portrait of them. So I'd regard this lens as a 'performing arts' or sports lens. Put it on a crop body and it's definitely sports oriented.


----------



## candc (Oct 14, 2013)

I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all

They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.


----------



## candc (Oct 14, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Very odd ISO 12233 crops for this new lens on the-digital- picture which Sigma refer to as the DG OS HSM/S lens.
> 
> First of all scrolling down two OS lenses are listed but not DG OS HSM/S specifically.
> 
> ...



This is puzzling to me also I don't understand why a new lens which appears to be sharper would be worse with tc's? I've decided to try for myself and maybe experiment with different brands of tc's.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 14, 2013)

candc said:


> I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource
> 
> http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1559/cat/all
> 
> They claim it is sharper on a crop body which is what I will be using it on. So you are getting similar focal range and performance as you would from the canon 200-400 on full frame. The 1 stop aperature advantage should in theory help counteract the better iso of the full frame setup and you are talking about 1/3rd the price . I will post more when it gets here.


On a crop body, you will loose a stop in iso performance and an effective stop of DOF against full frame. While your camera will state f2.8, the reality is that it is effectively dropping a stop to become a 192-380mm f4..so it doesn't really gain anything. The AF on this lens slower and less accurate than the big white and the focal length drop as the focus pulls into MFD is really quite apparent and dissapointing. I found that I was better off with a native 300mm f2.8 lens or a 70-200 f2.8 LIS with a 1.4x TC.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 14, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> I don't think comparing this to Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 L is a good comparison. The 70-200mm is an excellent small venue lens. For up to 300 or so people, it's hard to beat.
> 
> Put it on a crop body and it's definitely sports oriented.



Actually, I found I perfered my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II over this lens for a number of reasons and a worthy comparision. Popping this lens onto a crop body doesn't make it sport orientated at all...what a bizarre statement to make. I used my copy on a 5DIII and 1Dx and found that it's AF was slower and less accuate than any of the Canon white lenses (including 70-200 lenses). At the moment there isn't a crop camera with an AF system to rival the 1Dx or 5DIII. The 7D and 70D cameras have a good AF system, but it pales against the full frame cameras. Likewise, this lens can't deliver consistenly with those cameras either. It's a nice lens but it's no match for Canon's whites.


----------



## canon1dxman (Oct 14, 2013)

I bought the Sigma 120-300 Sport when it first came out, possibly one of the first to be released. I also got the 1.4 and 2x Sigma extenders.

IQ was more than good enough for me on it's own but was slightly disappointing with both converters, although I could live with them. The image below was standalone.

Biggest problems for me though were the weight and sluggish autofocus (although I never did get around to tweaking it on the dock which may have helped)

I am over 6ft and built like the proverbial BSH but it was tiresome on a long shoot when a monopod was impractical. Sometimes I needed to carry the 1DX/ lens combo in a rucksack instead of a proper bag and I found it just too cumbersome so I ended up selling it. Purely personal reasons I know.

Also, I think the lens hood is a poor design, fitting wise. It was so easy to think that it was fixed OK and then it fell off several times whilst walking. Never did get the hang of it.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9066549478/# http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/


----------



## endiendo (Oct 14, 2013)

Hi,
just a simple note about reliability.
I bought the 120-300 f2.8 is os hsm (first stabilized version), and after 4 months, I had it back to service.. the stabilizer was broken and making noise. They changed it and it is now ok.
This version stay less than 1 year in their products-catalogue... ..


----------



## candc (Oct 14, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I have been on the fence about this lens for a while. I just ordered one today from BH photo. Here is a review from imaging resource
> ...



an f2.8 lens is an f2.8 lens regardless of whether you put it on full frame and crop out a square or on a crop body. 

what i am saying is that comparing the 120-300 on a crop to the 200-400 on ff is going to be very similar in practice, standing in the same spot zoomed in they will frame about the same. without doing a shootout you can't say if the iq will be the same but i am thinking it is from what i have seen. 

the 120-300 is a 2.8 so its a stop faster and will allow 1 stop lower iso in the same scene framed the same way with the same dof as the f4 lens on the ff camera

it may not be the same its hard to say without a shootout, maybe the 120-300 is better? maybe the 200-400? it would be fun to try i think the results would be closer than you think. and the thing you are gaining is $8400.00


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 15, 2013)

candc said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



The lens may be f2.8 but it's one part in a chain of parts. The change in camera format (full frame vs 1.62x crop) will dictate it's Iso performance, resolved detail, effective DOF and effective angle of view. A 120-300 f2.8 OS on a 7D is not the same as a 200-400 f4 L Is on a 1Dx....not even close. Sure it's cheaper but the image quality, IS sstem, AF speed, Weather sealing, Out of focus rendering, AF tracking and contrast will be worse. Expect a night and day experiance between them. If you are so sure, hire them all and do a comparision. I have a 400mm f2.8 L IS and I compared it against a 120-300 f2.8 OS on a 7D vs a 5DIII on my big 400. The Sigma lens was good but in reality it didn't come close for all the reasons I mentioned.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 15, 2013)

candc said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Have you factored in the difference in ISO performance (and consequent noise) while making the above statement? If not, reality check! Unless the light is good (and I mean, very good), the advantage of using APS-C with a smaller FL lens with a 1 stop brighter aperture over a FF with better FL and one stop slower aperture is a fallacy.

Also, comparing the Sigma 120-300 over the 200-400 is a big fail. The 200-400 beats the Siggy hands down! It's quite all right to save those $ 8,000 odd if all you are doing is pushing off your photos on to FB.


----------



## candc (Oct 15, 2013)

in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one. that would indicate the lens has plenty of resolving power so that shouldn't be a problem. i've seen photos of horse riders and baseball games and the images look great, sharp, contrasty, nice out of focus quality etc. 
dpreview made the statement that both jpegs and raws from the 70d were indistinguishable from those taken with the 6d up to about 3200iso.

the one stop advantage on the lens will allow one stop lower iso.

i will find out soon how well the 120-300 performs, everything i have seen so far looks good but i will have to find out for myself.

my whole point is that if you can get similar results as the 200-400 on ff then that is saying a lot and a good alternative for a lot, lot less money


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 15, 2013)

candc said:


> in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one.



This indicates the center is way better than mid-frame to edges.



candc said:


> dpreview made the statement that both jpegs and raws from the 70d were indistinguishable from those taken with the 6d up to about 3200iso.



... if looking at them at the camera lcd, or you're really drunk and everything gets fuzzy  ... no, really, for certain pictures with a lot of background blur where nr doesn't have that much of an impact Canon aps-c shots might be ok @100% crop, but iso3200 is where the small sensor really drops the ball. Face it, a aps-c with this Sigma cannot replace a ff+200-400 :-o


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... if looking at them at the camera lcd, or you're really drunk and everything gets fuzzy  ... no, really, for certain pictures with a lot of background blur where nr doesn't have that much of an impact Canon aps-c shots might be ok @100% crop, but iso3200 is where the small sensor really drops the ball. Face it, a aps-c with this Sigma cannot replace a ff+200-400 :-o



Good point, but why not use a Canon full frame _with_ the Sigma 120-300? Just because it doesn't have enough "reach"? What f/2.8 zoom has more reach than it? Nothing under $40,000...and that one doesn't even have "OS"...and that one is also made by Sigma.

I've never even used any verison of the 120-300 f/2.8 lens (as of now), yet I feel comfortable stating that it is a fine lens for the money, and would work superbly on a full frame camera. What's the absolute cheapest that a good copy of the Canon 200-400 f/4 will sell for in the future on the used market? $8000? $9000? Probably closer to $10,000 US Dollars. Maybe if it's deeply scratched all over and sunbleached, and internal elements soiled...it might get under $9000.

Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it. Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. Why? Because IT'S A CANON "L"...


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Good point, but why not use a Canon full frame _with_ the Sigma 120-300? Just because it doesn't have enough "reach"?



No reason at all, and I would probably own the Sigma if it wouldn't be far more than double the price of my 70-300L - which is fine unless you want to use a tc. Also I have to say I'm currently very happy with the 6d-70-300L combination since it's both rather sturdy and still very portable, the Sigma is a "real" tele you don't just chuck into your backpack and carry around.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Good point, but why not use a Canon full frame _with_ the Sigma 120-300? Just because it doesn't have enough "reach"?
> ...



Good point, although I could carry the 120-300 around in my front pants pocket...

Yes sounds like a great combo...If I hadn't bought several other lenses lately, the 70-300L would have been nice to have. I can get by without it, but eventually I might get one. Would rather have something similar to what I mentioned above though, or better yet, something even faster aperture but narrower zoom range, yet also compact and affordable. Probably never get built though.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it. Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. Why? Because IT'S A CANON "L"...



Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it. Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. Why? Because IT'S A CANON "L"...
> ...



Why? Because that combo does not "nearly get you there", it merely gives you a 100-280 f/4, and it weighs 3.5 pounds...and it costs not much less ($2200 + $500 = $2700). It's also only f/4, rather than f/3.5. So that's why. Think about it...50-300 millimeters of zoom at f/3.5. There's a lot of shots you can do in that range from 50 to 100mm that you would miss...and that you even miss with the 70-200 without a TC. A "fast" ultra-wide zoom...wider and faster than the much-loved 70-300 f/4-5.6. Weighing the same or less than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii...I want one!


----------



## macroman1 (Oct 15, 2013)

Re the weight issue (and FF), as I indicated in my original post, I'm using on 1DX - total weight 5.4kg, too heavy for my Manfrotto tripod and head which are rated at 5kg :-(
So yes, weight is an issue, but it's something I've found you just get used to. When I first handled a 7D I thought I'd struggle to manage it. Again when I first got my Sigma 120-400 I thought I'd never be able to handhold it, let alone pan/track racing cars with it - now it feels like a bit of a toy. (I got a lot of sharp shots at 400 on my 7D, but the 1DX seems to show up that lens' shortcomings.)

Shooting racing, I'm on my feet and carrying the lens round my neck for hours at a time. One issue that does annoy me is the form of the tripod foot - the edges are a bit square for comfort. I'm looking into a BushHawk as I think that would be ideal for tracking cars and also for carrying the combo around between corners, but can't find any agencies in NZ, and I've heard some folks had issues with the cable reliability.

Anyone with experience of 1DX + large lens on BushHawk?

Re backpack, I managed to fit it into my Kata 123 Go bag, admitted not attached to the body, so I lose the "slide, grab and shoot" convenience. I can fit my 70-200f4L IS and 24-105L and/or 100L Macro either side, with the 1DX in the top compartment.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Good point, but why not use a Canon full frame _with_ the Sigma 120-300? Just because it doesn't have enough "reach"?
> ...


 shooting sports a f5.6 vs 2.8 means 12800 iso instead of 3200. And if the lightning's bad, 25600 instead of 6400.. that's a reason big enough for me. Happy owner of the siggy 120-300os (non sport) on a 6d and shooting lots of events and sports.


----------



## candc (Oct 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one.
> ...



the review goes in to detail of center sharpness on both bodies and such. I have researched this lens pretty heavily so i am pretty sure of what its qualities are. 

here are the points i am making:

1) 120-300 on a crop body will act in practice as 192-480 on full frame
2) the lens sharpness, build quality are by all accounts in real reviews to be in the same category as the canon primes
3) its a stop faster than the 200-400 the consensus is that ff is 1.5 or 2 stops better than aps-c so you have a one stop equalizer
4) if you are really concerned about the depth of field, they should be very similar wide open

from what i have seen, the canon 300ii and the 200-400 are better on ff but its close, i have read that the sigma is slightly softer than the canon 300ii but not by much.

so as i said before, i think the sigma 120-300 on a crop body is a good alternative to the 200-400 on ff unless money is not a concern and you just want the absolute best that can be had


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Why? 70-200L II + 1.4x TC gets you nearly there, is more compact and lighter, and costs less.
> ...



Right, f/3.5 is such a big difference from f/4: 1/3 of a stop. And at <= weight of a 70-200L II. You're dreaming!


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 16, 2013)

candc said:


> 3) its a stop faster than the 200-400 the consensus is that ff is 1.5 or 2 stops better than aps-c so you have a one stop equalizer
> 4) if you are really concerned about the depth of field, they should be very similar wide open
> [...]
> so as i said before, i think the sigma 120-300 on a crop body is a good alternative to the 200-400 on ff unless money is not a concern and you just want the absolute best that can be had



Very good points, though I'd question the alleged consensus because from my experience 60d->6d ff is *more* than 2 stops better at *high* iso because nr works better on the newest ff sensors (might be the same for 70d, I don't know). But I'm very happy Sigma is releasing such competent lenses to put pressure on Canon, even if this Sigma also exceeds my budget.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > in the review by imaging resource they point out that the lens is slightly sharper on a sub frame camera than the full frame one.
> ...



I agree with you Marsu42. I would question any lens review which thinks that a 70D is anywhere near close to the IQ of a 6D between 400-3200iso....there is a lot more between those sensors and Aliasing filters than just that. My old 7D was questionable over 400 iso. The iso noise ramps steadily and I have yet found a 1.6 crop camera which come close to a full frame output and i'm not just talking about iso noise.

The problem I find with a lot of Sigma users these days is they emotionally fool themselves themselves that they are buying something identical for less..get one of those...only a lot cheaper...aren't I cleaver....when in reality they are buying something a lot less for less. A 200-400LIS on a full frame will blow away a 120-300 OS on a 70D in nearly every measurable area. The two are not equal and the reality is that the sigma doesn't come close. It is cheaper becuase it is cheaper. You get what you pay for.
It's a questionable lens, innovative - yes, but deeply flawed.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 16, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs to make a 50-300 f/3.5 IS, and charge $3500 for it. Most of you would buy that instead of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. Why? Because IT'S A CANON "L"...
> ...



That's exactly the conclusion I came to when I had one. Why pay for a lens which was short on it's focal length, darker than it's stated aperture, looses a ton of focal length at close distances, has irratic and slow AF and an OS system which is pretty clunky? It's unneccisarily heavy and very bulky. I've found my 400 2.8 LIS easier to handle for some reason. 
When I compared it against my 70-200 2.8 LIS II with or with out TC's I found it a far better option. Even with the 1 stop drop with a 1.4x TC.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 16, 2013)

candc said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



It's not a 120-300mm, please understand that. It's a 120-280mm and that's quite short. The max focal legth is the same as a 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC. This short coming magnifies with a 1.6x crop to only 450mm not a 480mm. 
At close focussing distances, this lens looses a massive amount of focal length. By my measurements is around 240mm at 3m. By MFD it's even lower and not that different to a 70-200 f2.8. So lets look at those figures at close distance, on a full frame at MFD it's a 120-240mm.
Then there's the engineering aspect, it's not particularly durable. Just look back though this thread. There's been a lot of warrenty claims for such a low volume lens. I would question it's long term resell value and durability. 
9/10 I was better served using a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and a 1.4x TC. For the other 1/10 I was better served by other lenses (300mm f2.8 LIS mk I for instance).


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 16, 2013)

macroman1 said:


> Re the weight issue (and FF), as I indicated in my original post, I'm using on 1DX - total weight 5.4kg, too heavy for my Manfrotto tripod and head which are rated at 5kg :-(
> So yes, weight is an issue, but it's something I've found you just get used to. When I first handled a 7D I thought I'd struggle to manage it. Again when I first got my Sigma 120-400 I thought I'd never be able to handhold it, let alone pan/track racing cars with it - now it feels like a bit of a toy. (I got a lot of sharp shots at 400 on my 7D, but the 1DX seems to show up that lens' shortcomings.)
> 
> Shooting racing, I'm on my feet and carrying the lens round my neck for hours at a time. One issue that does annoy me is the form of the tripod foot - the edges are a bit square for comfort. I'm looking into a BushHawk as I think that would be ideal for tracking cars and also for carrying the combo around between corners, but can't find any agencies in NZ, and I've heard some folks had issues with the cable reliability.
> ...



Very interesting commentary and suggestions! I'm glad to see a fellow 120-400 owner, and that you're getting good results with it. What does the 1DX show as its shortcoming? The slower AF tracking ability as compared to the 70-200 f/4?

What kind of racing do you shoot, and are you a professional racing shooter?

The Bushhawk has looked interesting to me for some time but I've yet to try one. Will be interesting to hear your thoughts.


----------



## macroman1 (Oct 17, 2013)

Hi CarlTN, on the 1DX my 120-400 seems a bit soft at the long end. I've noticed that it's sharper up to about 330mm on the 7D and then loses a bit, so a bit hit & miss. That seems to be exacerbated on the 1DX, no idea why. I've never noticed it being particularly slow, but perhaps ii isn't quite perfectly locking on. My new 120-300 is so far giving me a much better keeper rate, including compared to my 300f4L.
I'm not a pro but have had a couple of drivers offer me money for shots of their cars. (Can't retire on that income yet, though!) I started out just going to the classic/historic car meets (love those machines, many of which I watched in their prime) but have branched out to other classes as I've got to enjoy the challenge of tracking cars at speed. Modern tin-tops are also colourful beasts and make good subjects. We've got a circuit 80km away which is ideal for shooting, with banks slightly elevated above the track - no blankety-blank heavy catch fencing getting in the way. I'm off there again this weekend. 
Have also shot rallying, which has been my primary passion for the last 30 years - you can get a lot closed to the action and a bit of dust and gravel flying adds to the shot!.


----------



## candc (Oct 20, 2013)

i have been using the lens for a couple days now. if you are interested in this lens you have to get the dock and will need to spend some time tuning it and then it is really, really good it is super sharp everywhere on the 70d especially wide open at 300 where it counts. the lens is internally zooming and focusing, it suffers from heavy focus breathing. it is 300 at infinity focus but only 230-240 or so at minimum focus. that's why lens testers point out its 280 at the distance they are testing at.

you can set custom af speed, focus limit and is behavior with the dock. i have c1 set to fast af, limited the focus from 10m to infinity and set moderate is. using it like this and ai servo it has no problem focusing and tracking low flying geese in the fog as they pass overhead.

i haven't used it with converters and i am not sure i will. its a really useful range on an aps-c body and there is plenty of room to crop with the 70d if you need to. the 70d is too small for the lens, your fingers pinch between the grip and the lens. it feels good on the 40d so i think it would be really good on the 7d and presumably the 7d2. 

you have to be willing to spend some time tuning and fiddling with this lens but then it will give you excellent results. it is heavy, sigma tank construction on this one, there does not appear to be any consideration for weight saving, its around 8 lbs with the collar and hood


----------

