Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Discuss equipment and methods or ask for advice
Post Reply
User avatar
Magic440
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2011, 5:06 pm

Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by Magic440 »

Seems a cracking bit of kit.Anyone using one?
Just need them numbers on lotto now!

User avatar
Skyflash
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:51 pm
Location: Musselburgh, nr Edinburgh

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by Skyflash »

I've just bought one, and it had its first outing at Wittmund for the Phantom Pharewell.

It's a phenomenal lens, much sharper and quicker than my old Nikon 80-400mm (which it was bought to replace). Very, very happy with the results so far. I have also purchased a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter to go with it, which (assuming the damned thing ever actually arrives) will be getting its own first outing at RIAT next week.

The only drawback I can report so far is that the lens is approximately the same weight as Michelle McManus...
Posting comments on an aviation-related chatroom, are ya? Looks like it an' all...

hmeasures
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun 23 Jun 2013, 1:27 pm

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by hmeasures »

Yup, one here too, I use one of the older, non OS ones. Use it for sport, racing and aviation... Excels at the first two, not so much aviation.

The constant 2.8 is a god send shooting football/rugby/cricket with that super zoom range. Mine isn't tack sharp at 2.8 but certainly acceptable.

I used it with a Canon 2x III for Waddo and the results are that disappointing I'm going to flog the convertor and put the money toward a 50-500 or 150-500 which I know are fab for airshows having borrowed one in the past. It's the lens that's the problem, not the TC though.

In short if all you shoot is Aviation just buy a Bigma and forget the 120-300.

PM me if you want some more info/samples.

Regards, Harry.

User avatar
ashenden92
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat 06 Sep 2008, 10:34 am

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by ashenden92 »

I have one of these lens and can confirm as relayed above a very heavy lens to use, it's main drawback is its not the fastest focusing lens either, however I have had some very good results with it on occasions however it has also disapointed me on the lack of speed of focus when trying to get that shot

I would concur with the advice above I would think a bigma is a better option for aviation photography

User avatar
Sulman
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009, 7:31 pm

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by Sulman »

I do feel a 2.8 is much faster than necessary for aviation, and you are essentially paying all that wedge for those two extra stops; optical quality on a good day isn't going to make a huge difference unless you're a pixel peeper. If I had to do it all again I'd definitely choose a Bigma or a Canon 100-400 for aviation stuff; they're popular for a reason.

User avatar
AlexC
Posts: 6040
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:40 pm
Location: New Forest

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by AlexC »

Sulman wrote:Optical quality on a good day isn't going to make a huge difference.


:shock:
Pte. Aubrey Gerald Harmer, R. Suss. R. (att. to the Sherwood Foresters) KIA 26/9/1917 Polygon Wood, aged 19, NKG. RIP

User avatar
Sulman
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009, 7:31 pm

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by Sulman »

AlexC wrote:
Sulman wrote:Optical quality on a good day isn't going to make a huge difference.


:shock:


Seriously!

By an MTF chart, you bang out a load of images on top end, 2.8 glass at F8 at an airshow, you would be pressed to see the difference between a 300 F4 & F2.8, or a 70-200 F2.8 or F4. The MTF and pixel peepers say they're a little sharper, but at that level what you're really buying is that max aperture.

User avatar
AlexC
Posts: 6040
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:40 pm
Location: New Forest

Re: Sigma 120-300 F2.8

Post by AlexC »

Yes, seriously!
Pte. Aubrey Gerald Harmer, R. Suss. R. (att. to the Sherwood Foresters) KIA 26/9/1917 Polygon Wood, aged 19, NKG. RIP

Post Reply