# sigma 120-300 review at petapixel



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/01/review-sigma-120-300-f2-8-one-sexy-beast/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PetaPixel+%28PetaPixel%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

this is a very good lens and is very good for wildlife on a crop body. some are scared off by the talk that it is bad with tc's. i saw the test shots with the sigma tc's at tdp and they look horrible? i decided to buy the lens and experiment myself. from what i have found so far:

it is really good with the 1.4x kenko pro/promaster, sharp, good af, good all around

the kenko pro/promaster 2x is sharp but the colors are washed out and it overexposes by +1 ev fast af but inconstant

canon 2xiii has slightly slower but better accuracy and constancy af, better colors and contrast, same sharpness as kenko pro but performs better in real word shooting

i will try and do some comparison shots and post this weekend


----------



## AlanF (Nov 2, 2013)

What a rambling waffly review, quite the opposite of TDP's tightly written prose, and nothing quantitative.


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

i like to see reviews done in a matter that relates to real world shooting because sometimes the more technical based ones don't always correlate to that?


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 2, 2013)

Call me a snob, but I didn't see sharp like I see sharp on my L lenses. I just wouldn't be happy knowing that for a few more dollars I could have had really sharp.

sek


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 2, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Call me a snob, but I didn't see sharp like I see sharp on my L lenses. I just wouldn't be happy knowing that for a few more dollars I could have had really sharp.
> 
> sek



Shot on a Nikon...prolly why 
Seriously though, this review is full of..."it's great because I've just bought it and it's new and shiny".
Anyone who does a side be side objective comparison with a ef 70-200 f2.8 LIS II would see the Sigma's deficiencies very quickly....like the focal drop to 240mm near Min Focus distance...sorry not worth the weight, size and cost over a 70-200 for the little extra it offers.


----------



## pwp (Nov 2, 2013)

This reads more like a casual blog post than a real review. But it is reassuring that the author Colin Peddle likes the lens so much across a variety of subjects and projects. He's clearly much stronger than me, I think this would be largely monopod mounted if it ever found its way into my kit.

The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is a lens that has fascinated me for years without taking the next step of adding one to my kit. Frankly the 70-200 f/2.8isII and 300 f/2.8is never leave me wanting. Though I am thinking this lens may be more appealing in a fully FF environment. My 70-200 is generally bolted to a 1D MkIV. The X1.3 crop delivers a handy 260mm at the long end. 

But more than anything, I think it's the hefty 2950g / 104oz spec that keeps my Visa card in this weakling's wallet.. 
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/120-300mm-f28-ex-dg-os-apo-hsm

-pw


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

pwp said:


> This reads more like a casual blog post than a real review. But it is reassuring that the author Colin Peddle likes the lens so much across a variety of subjects and projects. He's clearly much stronger than me, I think this would be largely monopod mounted if it ever found its way into my kit.
> 
> The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is a lens that has fascinated me for years without taking the next step of adding one to my kit. Frankly the 70-200 f/2.8isII and 300 f/2.8is never leave me wanting. Though I am thinking this lens may be more appealing in a fully FF environment. My 70-200 is generally bolted to a 1D MkIV. The X1.3 crop delivers a handy 260mm at the long end.
> 
> ...



thats the old version, the new one is even heavier!
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/120-300mm-f28-dg-os-hsm-s

if you are going to be shooting it at an event or out of a blind then you definitely want a monopod or bean bag rest.


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

i have been experimenting with both the promaster/kenko 2x pro and the canon 2xiii converters and in both cases the images are very usable, the heron is the promaster and the cranes are the canon


----------



## AlanF (Nov 2, 2013)

Here is a similar size crop (100%) taken at random from my photos of herons using the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTcc III for comparison.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 2, 2013)

And, here are crops of the birds faces from the photos before, the Sigmas at the top and the Canon below. For amusement, I have added a 100% crop of a heron taken on a Powershot SX50, from about the same distance as the others, but the SX50 has a 1200mm FF equivalence (in practice a 215mm lens with a 5.6x cop sensor). The SX50 costs about the same as a Canon TC.


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

the sx50 probably weighs less than the canon 2xiii also. they say its 12oz but it feels heavier. but hey, whats an extra pound or two when the lens is already 8lbs? that's as much as a gallon of milk


----------



## Rudeofus (Nov 2, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Anyone who does a side be side objective comparison with a ef 70-200 f2.8 LIS II would see the Sigma's deficiencies very quickly....like the focal drop to 240mm near Min Focus distance...sorry not worth the weight, size and cost over a 70-200 for the little extra it offers.


I really wonder why you keep repeating this nonsense after I called you out on this less than half a year ago? What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to sell something?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 2, 2013)

Rudeofus said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who does a side be side objective comparison with a ef 70-200 f2.8 LIS II would see the Sigma's deficiencies very quickly....like the focal drop to 240mm near Min Focus distance...sorry not worth the weight, size and cost over a 70-200 for the little extra it offers.
> ...



I replied to your lengthy post several times...you seem tho think you are some kind of moderator here. Policing what you don't like to hear. My comments and 1st hand disappointment on this lens hasn't changed so why should my opinion?


----------



## Rudeofus (Nov 2, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I replied to your lengthy post several times...you seem tho think you are some kind of moderator here. Policing what you don't like to hear. My comments and 1st hand disappointment on this lens hasn't changed so why should my opinion?


Moderators are (thankfully) here to put a clamp on illegal and disruptive postings, and their judgment is made based on personal and individual decisions. What I called you out on in that past thread is your technical illiteracy. We do not need moderators or judges to decide on this, I suffices if we look at facts and numbers. I showed you the numbers and explained the facts back then, and you seemed to have accepted them back then, only to start with the same BS here all over again.

If you really think your 70-200L with its internal focusing gives you anywhere near 200mm focal length at minimum focus distance, I have a bridge to sell you. If you keep implying this nonsense despite being shown otherwise, it is apparently you who is trying to sell us a bridge here. Or something else ...


----------



## pwp (Nov 2, 2013)

candc said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > But more than anything, I think it's the hefty 2950g / 104oz spec that keeps my Visa card in this weakling's wallet..
> ...


Thanks for picking that up.
Whoa! The new model is a full 440g (or 15.6 oz) heavier! That's 3,390g / 119.6oz.
Canon 70-200 f/2.8isII is 1,490g
Canon 300 f/2.8isII is a svelte 2,400g

-pw


----------



## pwp (Nov 2, 2013)

Rudeofus said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I replied to your lengthy post several times...you seem tho think you are some kind of moderator here. Policing what you don't like to hear. My comments and 1st hand disappointment on this lens hasn't changed so why should my opinion?
> ...



_Ahem_....keep it nice. Part of what makes CR a quality destination is the prevailing friendliness and tolerance of viewpoints, skill levels, opinions and grasp of language.

-pw


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

pwp said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



i know that canon did a good job of making the series ii super teles lighter, maybe sigma will do that next and use titanium instead of depleted uranium?


----------



## Rudeofus (Nov 3, 2013)

pwp said:


> _Ahem_....keep it nice. Part of what makes CR a quality destination is the prevailing friendliness and tolerance of viewpoints, skill levels, opinions and grasp of language.


A friendly and tolerant resource becomes useless if people intentionally and against their better knowledge post misleading statements to push some agenda. My stern tone may have been a bit over the line (sorry for that), but the essence still stands: CR will turn into KR style laughing stock if we let marketing drones, shills and fan boys take over the show.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2013)

Rude
You wrote in another thread where you were arguing with GMC: "I leave it as an exercise to the reader to search the web for information how much shorter the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS II gets at nearest focus distance. It's all there for anyone to read.".

During my searching for that information, I read a lot of articles about lens design, including some very illuminating ones about Nikon 80-400 zooms, showing how different designs give different changes in focal length on focussing. But, I could not find the information about the 70-200mm, perhaps because of my ineptitude. As the tone of your comment implies that you have that data, please put me out of my misery and post the right link.


----------



## Apop (Nov 3, 2013)

No doubt it's a good lens and it delivers for the price.
But the problem for me was the price on this one, When introduced it was about the same price (or slightly more) as a used canon 300 f2.8 IS , I would guess the latter holds it's value better and perform slightly better.

A further price drop would be nice , I mean really it's still 4500 $ here (3300 euros).
When it drops below 3000$ I will be more interested again.


----------



## Rudeofus (Nov 3, 2013)

AlanF said:


> During my searching for that information, I read a lot of articles about lens design, including some very illuminating ones about Nikon 80-400 zooms, showing how different designs give different changes in focal length on focussing. But, I could not find the information about the 70-200mm, perhaps because of my ineptitude. As the tone of your comment implies that you have that data, please put me out of my misery and post the right link.


The data can be found on photozone, see the table at the bottom of that page (The content of that page is written in English language despite the .de domain of that site). According to this table the 70-200 L IS II has a focal length of 172mm at minimum focus distance, the older 70-200 L IS ends at a focal length of 161mm. 

Please note that this is a design characteristic of internally focusing lenses and in no way an optical deficiency or a flaw of these lenses. If we add a 1.4x teleconverter to the 70-200 L IS II as suggested by GMC, we end up with 241mm and F/4 which is similar to the 120-300 at minimum focus distance but a full aperture stop dimmer (with the respective effect on shutter speed, DOF and bokeh).


----------



## candc (Nov 4, 2013)

got a chance to use the lens with extenders today a bit. i have not tried the sigma 2x because i have seen some images taken with it and they don't look very good. i have tried it with the canon 2xiii and the promaster 2x and 1.4. the promaster 2x can give good results but its quirky and inconsistent. the promaster 1.4x is good but the one that i have gets soft on the left side wide open. the canon 2xiii works really well on this lens and would recommend it. the rusty ball and the squirrel are at 600, the cat is 240, all taken with a 70d


----------



## AlanF (Nov 4, 2013)

They are much, much better at 600mm than you would have expected from the TDP iso tests.


----------



## candc (Nov 4, 2013)

AlanF said:


> They are much, much better at 600mm than you would have expected from the TDP iso tests.



that's what i thought too. you would think it would be better with their own brand of tc but with this combo it looks like the canon 2xiii is the way to go.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 4, 2013)

AlanF said:


> They are much, much better at 600mm than you would have expected from the TDP iso tests.


Stop down 2/3 of a stop to f6.3 and it sharpens up nicely. Its certainly a sharp lens, it's nearly as sharp as a Canon prime no question. I'm not sure I'd want to use a 2x TC on a 1.6x crop camera...that's pushing it a bit too far for critical sharpness. But on a full frame, a 2 x TC and a stop drop works very well. I used a Canon 2x mkII and a Canon 1.4x mkII & III. The 1.4x hardly drops any quality and can easily be used wide open. The 2X, not quite so well.


----------

