# Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX DG OS HSM



## edouble (Sep 22, 2010)

I have read that Sigma is bringing  OS to the 120-300 f2.8 as well as improved optical performance and a few other improvements. I am very excited to see how this lens performs. I am hoping that it is sharper at 300mm f2.8 and that the af is faster than the previous none OS version. This lens with Sigma's APO 1.4x EX DG tele converter might be the only option I have for a long focal length zoom for motorsports photography that I can somewhat afford. Hopefully the MSRP isn't raised above the current $4200 price tag. 

A 200mm zoom lens just isn't long enough for me, I need +300mm. So far this Sigma lens fits my needs and hopefully my budget.

Thoughts on the new OS lens?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2010)

MyY thought is "Yeah, Baby! Yeah!". It's kind of sad that SIgma has raised the price on this lens from an affordable $1799 USA gray market/$2,199 USA official price, up to the current levels; however, back when the lens was $2,199 at the Big Boys and $1799 at Tri-State Camera, Cameta Camera, etc, the 120-300 had the reputation of very poor quality control...as in horrible QC. Loads of bad-focusing units, and all sorts of issues. Lensrentals.com has mentioned the 120-300 several times in their reliability commentary articles, and the lens was bad in terms of reliability for Lensrentals.com; apparently however, they have had much better results with the 120-300 over the last year or more.

I dunno...I bought the lighter,smaller 100-300 f/4 Sigma EX HSM lens for daytime sports work, and the range of focal lengths is really,really handy. I wish they'd made their 2.8 a 100 to 300, not 120-300; the lower end is really handy for many sports, where the problem is actually wanting a wider angle of view. And the sharpness--yeah...from what I have seen, the 120-300 is not as sharp in the upper reaches as any of the prime 300's from Canon or Nikon. However...the STABILIZATON...now, that's a big,big plus for panning shots. OS makes panning look much smoother, and just flat-out better. I'd really like to own this lens with the new OS feature, but can't justify it these days. I already have a solution, but this new OS in this lens, and their 150mm macro,would seem to make already good lenses even more better!


----------



## Travis F (Sep 22, 2010)

I have the older version 120-300 non DG and I have had no problems with focus speed or sharpness. I have shot it at the same time as shooting a friend's 300 f/2.8L non-IS and compared images and it is really tough to tell them apart (well except for those shot at less than 300mm). The 300L did autofocus marginally faster but the 120-300 focuses fast enough for me (shooting field sports and stage dance performances). I think that I would put the focus speed somewhere between my 70-200 F/2.8L and the 300L.

If the newest OS version improves upon an already stellar lens I think it will be unbeatable..... especially since there is no other 300 f/2.8 zoom available.

On a side note regarding the QC issue, I did have to send mine in for calibration due to backfocus issues. I think Sigma had it about 4 weeks (they had to wait on parts from Japan) but it came back performing wonderfully and they sent me a loaner in the mean time.

Let us know how this one is if you get it.

Travis


----------



## icassell (Sep 22, 2010)

Derrel said:


> MyY thought is "Yeah, Baby! Yeah!". It's kind of sad that SIgma has raised the price on this lens from an affordable $1799 USA gray market/$2,199 USA official price, up to the current levels; however, back when the lens was $2,199 at the Big Boys and $1799 at Tri-State Camera, Cameta Camera, etc, the 120-300 had the reputation of very poor quality control...as in horrible QC. Loads of bad-focusing units, and all sorts of issues. Lensrentals.com has mentioned the 120-300 several times in their reliability commentary articles, and the lens was bad in terms of reliability for Lensrentals.com; apparently however, they have had much better results with the 120-300 over the last year or more.
> 
> I dunno...I bought the lighter,smaller 100-300 f/4 Sigma EX HSM lens for daytime sports work, and the range of focal lengths is really,really handy. I wish they'd made their 2.8 a 100 to 300, not 120-300; the lower end is really handy for many sports, where the problem is actually wanting a wider angle of view. And the sharpness--yeah...from what I have seen, the 120-300 is not as sharp in the upper reaches as any of the prime 300's from Canon or Nikon. However...the STABILIZATON...now, that's a big,big plus for panning shots. OS makes panning look much smoother, and just flat-out better. I'd really like to own this lens with the new OS feature, but can't justify it these days. I already have a solution, but this new OS in this lens, and their 150mm macro,would seem to make already good lenses even more better!



I love my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 for sports too (I use it for outdoor stuff and my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for indoors). If they put OS on it, it would be killer! I wish more manufacturers would forget the f/2.8 glass so that we could afford it!  My 7D (as do many other new cameras) does well at high ISO and I don't feel the need as much for very fast glass. f/4 is nice because it is still useable with a TC, but not so fast that it weighs a ton and is priced out of reach.


----------



## Travis F (Sep 22, 2010)

icassell said:


> I wish more manufacturers would forget the f/2.8 glass so that we could afford it!


 
I don't know, I love the ability to isolate the subject. While f/4 does decent at 300mm that extra stop really comes in handy at times.

Travis


----------



## icassell (Sep 22, 2010)

Travis F said:


> icassell said:
> 
> 
> > I wish more manufacturers would forget the f/2.8 glass so that we could afford it!
> ...



Agreed, but it often adds a great deal to the cost of the lens. A long tele usually has a relatively restricted DOF anyway.


----------



## edouble (Sep 22, 2010)

Travis F said:


> I have the older version 120-300 non DG and I have had no problems with focus speed or sharpness. I have shot it at the same time as shooting a friend's 300 f/2.8L non-IS and compared images and it is really tough to tell them apart (well except for those shot at less than 300mm). The 300L did autofocus marginally faster but the 120-300 focuses fast enough for me (shooting field sports and stage dance performances). I think that I would put the focus speed somewhere between my 70-200 F/2.8L and the 300L.
> 
> If the newest OS version improves upon an already stellar lens I think it will be unbeatable..... especially since there is no other 300 f/2.8 zoom available.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for sharing your experiences with Sigma. I have read stories of Sigma sending back a refurbished lens instead of the repaired lens. Pretty shady in my book.

I am very anxious to read reviews on the new OS version. Hopefully my local camera store will have one I can rent for a week to test out myself. If all is well I would like to purchase this lens the beginning of 2011, pending the price tag is reasonable


----------



## Travis F (Sep 22, 2010)

edouble said:


> Thanks for sharing your experiences with Sigma. I have read stories of Sigma sending back a refurbished lens instead of the repaired lens. Pretty shady in my book.
> 
> I am very anxious to read reviews on the new OS version. Hopefully my local camera store will have one I can rent for a week to test out myself. If all is well I would like to purchase this lens the beginning of 2011, pending the price tag is reasonable


 
No problem.

As for the service, I have never heard that before but I can vouch that the lens I sent in was the lens that was returned to me. I don't know if getting a refurb would be such a bad thing though. A refurbished lens "should" have all new components and the lens will likely be individually tested before leaving the shop. Makes me kind'a wish they sent me a refurb now .

I'm curious to know the price on the OS version also. How much did the price of the 70-200 OS increase? $700 or so, I wonder if we can expect roughly the same cost up on this one?

Travis


----------



## gsgary (Sep 22, 2010)

The one problem with the old lens was that it was not 300mm it was only about 270mm compared to my 300mmF2.8L


----------



## Travis F (Sep 22, 2010)

gsgary said:


> The one problem with the old lens was that it was not 300mm it was only about 270mm compared to my 300mmF2.8L


 

I wonder if that differed from sample to sample? I shot mine along with my friends 300L as mentioned early and tested this very thing. Some members in another forum I visit were curious so I obliged and took some test shots. I can post them up later tonight if anyone is curious/interested.

Hopefully it doesn't sound like I am knocking the 300L, I'm just saying that there are some misconceptions about the 120-300 that I hear alot. If I could have afforded the 300L rest assured that I would have chose that hands down. But as it is the 120-300 has worked out great for me and even surprised me on many occasions.

Travis


----------



## Travis F (Sep 22, 2010)

Okay so here are the sample shots of the Sigma and the Canon 300 f/2.8L non-IS. A couple full frame shots and a couple 100% crops. All images were taken from the same location, same day. I took shot, changed lenses, took a shot,......

All shot on a 40D body.

EDIT - All shots are straight out of the camera other than resizing and then obviously the 100% crop too.

Anyway, for those curious.

Sigma - Full frame






Canon - Full frame





Sigma - 100%





Canon - 100%





Sigma -Full frame





Canon - Full frame





Sigma - 100%





Canon - 100%





Hopefully it helps someone or at least gives some info.....

Travis


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2010)

Here's a good page to start at WRT to the "older" 120-300 Sigma's performance in the hands of many,many different users.  FM Reviews - 120-300mm f2.8 EX DG HSM

I'm not sure if this newer Optically Stabilized version of the 120-300/2.8 is the same optical formula as the older pre-Dg and the later DG series models. Motorsports do not strike me as a specialty where the absolute sharpest,highest-rez lenses are as needed as in say, nature work, where bear fur or cougar whiskers being resolved are needed...motorsports typically involve rather larger subjects, and lots of broad, flat planes of track and background, and big expanses of sheet metal and tires--the kind of stuff that Unsharp Masking can make look "Sharp". (No offense intended, but the subject matter of motorsports is so,so different from nature). I dunno...almost any zoom lens that can lock focus and give you the framing you want is sharp enough these days, for "most uses".

The thought I keep having is this: SIGMA CAN make very good lenses, like their 180 and 150 macro, for example, and with the price being higher, maybe, just maybe, this 120-300 OS + their TC1.4x will be "an optimized combination". Sigma's newer, much higher prices than before would allow them to make the lenses and assemble them better than they used to when this thing was a $1799-$2199 lens...some six or seven years ago. Nikon and Canon have shown recently that it's possible to make even-better zooms...better than those designed in 2001 and 2002...maybe Siggy has re-worked this zoom to make its optics even better AND to work very well with their 1.4x converter.


----------



## edouble (Sep 22, 2010)

Travis F: the Canon lens does appear to be a slightly longer focal length than the Sigma; that does not bother me. The Canon does look a tad sharper at 100% crop.

Derrel: No matter what I am photographing I want a sharp image. Often with motorsports photography post cropping is necessary to isolate the subject or to enhance the photo. Cropping brings out an out of focus image even more. I have to disagree with you. I think motorsports photography demands a sharp image equally as nature photography or any other type. I do understand your point though. I could not agree with you more on the price tag. If it is expensive it better perform like an expensive lens!


----------

