Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM

[Snook]

Hello! I am a college student who shoots football and will shoot men's basketball. Photography is purely a hobby for me and I don't intend to make a career out of it. That said, here is my situation:

I had previously been using a 70-200 2.8 non-IS for football, but recently lost access to that. I was also not satisfied with a focal length of 200mm. I am looking for something with more reach. I rented for free from my school's communications department a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 for the most recent football game (a night game) and was quite obviously disappointed with the results. It reminded me how important having a fast lens is.

What I want to do is purchase a telephoto lens for my 6D, (which will probably be replaced with a 70D or 7DII as they are more suited for the type of photography I do).

Here is what I have considered recently:

Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC USD - $1070 - Concerned about slowness of this lens. Would be basically unusable during night games and probably basketball as well because of how slow it is. Also concerned about sharpness at 600mm.

Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 OS HSM "S" and "C" - $2000 and ~$1000 - Same concern about slowness. IQ is to be seen.

These concerns pointed me in the direction of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS HSM "S", which costs ~$3500 which is out of my price range, unfortunately. As a result, I am looking at older versions of this lens. I am having some difficulty understanding the versioning of the older versions of this lens. I found a deal on a used Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM. It costs ~$2300. I am wondering if anyone could offer their advice based on my situation/and/or comment on any of the lenses I mentioned, especially the Sigma APO 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM.

Thanks!

 

[Steve]

I haven't used the Sigma 120-300 2.8 but by all accounts its really sharp but also really heavy. The older used lens you're looking at is the non-Sport version I bet, which isn't much different optically but can't be used with the lens dock, I think. Probably wouldn't matter. I think that lens would be awesome for football and field sports but is too long for basketball. I use a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and I'm pretty much slammed to the wide end on my APS-H camera 95% of the time shooting from court side.

 

[noncho]

Well, there is another option for football that I'm using - Sigma 100-300 F4 - lighter, cheaper, good quality and focus. Here are some examples (click for larger):

For basketball maybe some closer zoom

 

[lol]

I have the "middle" Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. In short, the first one was without OS. Then there was one with, which I have. Then they remade that in the current "Sport" form. The last two appear to share the same optical formula, so you would expect image quality to be similar, although they might have tightened tolerances on the later one.

In short, it provides decent enough images, with medium speed focusing. I mostly do wildlife so can't comment on sports usage, but it does ok on tracking movement similar to, for example, the 70-300L or 100-400L.

As mentioned, it is heavy. You wouldn't want to constantly hold it up unsupported so that may need some consideration.

 

[candc]

i have the tamron and the sigma sport lenses. the tamron is a great lens in good light but the af is a bit slow for what you want, i don't think you really need 600mm either. i would try to get the sport version of the lens if you can. it may have the same optical formula but it is a sharper by most accounts, better coatings i reckon? there was a recent firmware update which addressed some bugs and focus issues. with that update and setting the focus to "speed priority" with the dock it is very fast focusing.

 

[Harv]

Unfortunately, as with everything else in life, speed costs money.

From what I've read, never having owned either, the latest version of that lens is noticeably sharper. Here is a review you can have a look at.....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Lens.aspx

The other option you can consider for a 300mm lens is the original Canon 300 f/2.8L (non-IS) which can be purchased for considerably less. Just food for thought.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[TexPhoto]

The latest version is the best. The previous version which looks like the current version, but is not labeled as a "S" for sport is supposed to be the same. i don't think I'd buy one any older.

But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II? This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.

 

[The Bad Duck]

I have the 120-300 EX OS HSM and I really like it.
On the plus side,
- cheap compared to other 300/2.8 (plus it zooms!)
- sharp (considering how cheap it is)
- takes 1.4 extender nicely if stopped down to about f/5.6 or f/8.

On the down side
- heavy
- not as contrasty as for instance the 135 /2 or the 70-200 /4 L IS (I can only compare to other lenses I own, I bet the 70-200 /2.8 L IS II is better aswell). It kind of lack "magic" but produces good photos.
- not so sharp in corners wide open
- not so sharp in corners @300 mm

But considering the fact that you get a unique lens... I´d say it is totally worth it, even the non sport one (that I own).

Ehm, photos.... well I mostly use it to shoot agriculture so
https://www.flickr.com/photos/marten_svensson/15235254360/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/marten_svensson/15235186729/in/photostream/

Anyways... I like it. As always, use it where it shines and you will get great results.

 

[Steve]

But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II? This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.

It would be better to have a native 300 at 2.8 then a 280 f/4 via tc. That said, I think the 70-200 2.8 + tc might be better for the OP simply because he has a limited budget and needs to shoot indoor and outdoor sports. Another alternative could be to get both a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 for ~$650ish (or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) and a used Canon 300 f4 IS for ~$1000 and get decent coverage indoor and outdoor with native FL's and apertures. Either way would be cheaper than the 120-300 2.8 and have a bit more versatility, even if its not ideal for dedicated field sports shooting.

 

[TexPhoto]

But I really wonder if this lens will out resolve a 70-200 f2.8 IS II? This is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. I would put my money there, add a 1.4X converter III and shoot my pants off.

It would be better to have a native 300 at 2.8 then a 280 f/4 via tc. That said, I think the 70-200 2.8 + tc might be better for the OP simply because he has a limited budget and needs to shoot indoor and outdoor sports. Another alternative could be to get both a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 for ~$650ish (or the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) and a used Canon 300 f4 IS for ~$1000 and get decent coverage indoor and outdoor with native FL's and apertures. Either way would be cheaper than the 120-300 2.8 and have a bit more versatility, even if its not ideal for dedicated field sports shooting.

If the 300 is as sharp as the 200, or the "280" yes, it would be better to have a 300. But in this case the 200 is much sharper. And as the shooter is using a crop camera with a very high pixel density, the lens being sharp is much more important.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

In fact after looking at this test, I'd say ditch the teleconverter and shoot at 200. Crop to 300 or whatever is needed.