Sigma 120-300 test shots.

[Crashoran]

Purchased this lens from a very nice fellow POTN member
I've noticed that this lens at f/2.8 is almost superior than f/4 in terms of sharpness

F/2.8 1/250
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/test1-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/test2-1.jpg

f/2.8 1/400 handheld

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/test3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/test4.jpg

[Digitalwave]

Wicked sharp for f/2.8 in my eyes! I lust for this lens.

[LightRules]

Looks good...but you need to sensor swab your radio.

[Crashoran]

Power of the 2xtc - ISO 1600, 1/30, F5.6, 600mm. slightly handheld


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/test5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/test6.jpg

And most of my tests are at high ISOs, I am completely satisfied. I dont even feel the need to lower the iso and mount on a tripod to see the real results, I fear the sharpness will cut my eyes!

The first and second tests are with a UV filter on also

[blonde]

holy crap!!!! i am blown away but these results!! if this is what it looks like with the 2xtc, i think that this is my next lens!!! sports lens and wildlife lens all in one for $1600!!!

[liza]

Congrats on your new acquisition. I'm sooooo jealous!

[GSH]

Surely it can't be any good, it's a Sigma ? ;)

[LightRules]

Surely it can't be any good, it's a Sigma ? ;)

I agree. Sigma sucks. Stay away from this 3rd party junk.

[Keiffer]

Wicked sharp is right. Congrats. BTW you need to dust your alarm clock. he he he

[RikWriter]

Congrats! I love mine. Though I might be forced to sacrifice it to get something more hand-holdable, like a Sigma 500mm f4.5.

[Snoozle]

it sure seems a remakable lens by all accounts. You also seem to have remarkably shake free hands getting that sharp at 1/30th sec. I'd just have a green blob trying that shutter speed with such a heavy lens.

[muscleflex]

i've just seen this lens at jessops in kent today when i walked past them! at £1600, it ain't cheap! and i'm surprised you managed to hand hold it....it's a beast! would love to have this lens tho! it's the same price as the canon 28-300!
is it really just $1600 in the states? that's a bargain!
being 2.8, would this lens be better than canon's 100-400?

[LightRules]

being 2.8, would this lens be better than canon's 100-400?

At 300mm, the EX is at f2.8 max ap and the L is at f5.6 max ap. So it's a 2 stop difference at 300mm. Of course, with the L you get IS. So they can have different applications. Both excellent glass.

[CyberDyneSystems]

being 2.8, would this lens be better than canon's 100-400?

For a lot of things yes.. but they are not really often compared as the intentions and use are pretty different (for the most part)


All around though,. generally speaking yes without a doubt the Sigma is a more capable lens.

[Dorman]

S-H-A-R-P.

[muscleflex]

thanks Fstop and cyberdyne..i was just really impressed with the size of this thing! BIG!

[Crashoran]

The pringles can, I had the lens leaned against a table and pointed it up a bit. I cant handhold completely at 1/30 sec!

[arkturas]

Every Time I make my mind up about a zoom lens, something new comes along, and completely knocks me for 6 (Cricket thing for all you yanks) Over the last few months ive been searching for an all round zoom lens.
I started off wanting the 70-200 IS L with a 1.4tc - then I decided the 100-400 was better... Now that the 120-300 DG has been released this looks like a good contender.

So now I’m back to square 1 - no decision and no ZOOM !!

[Crashoran]

Football from yesterday:

http://spotted.lubbockonline.com/images/photos/16/2006/06/20/zoom/915771.jpg

[GSH]

With the 2x TC at almost 500mm...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Croft%20HSCC/IMG_4211C.jpg


And way out at 600mm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Croft%20HSCC/IMG_4657C.jpg

[Digitalwave]

I'm blown away, honestly. This lens is now on my dream list.

[JohnTheLuck]

Wow. Bad news for me, I don't get this kind of sharpness with the two 120-300 I have in hand right now.

Crahsoran, for the football shot, which focus settings are you using? Did you change the default 20D settings for sharpness?

Thanks,
JTL

[RikWriter]

Wow. Bad news for me, I don't get this kind of sharpness with the two 120-300 I have in hand right now.

Crahsoran, for the football shot, which focus settings are you using? Did you change the default 20D settings for sharpness?

Thanks,
JTL

Are you shooting JPEGs? Have you tried shooting RAW and seeing what your results are?

[Sporty]

Ooops!


I agree, the Sigma 120-300 is a cracking lens!

maybe you'll be lucky enough to find someone selling one in the classified section. ;o)

[Bill S]

Here are a couple

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/70567667-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/74933230-L.jpg

[Bill S]

John the luck, results with this lens can vary. When I first got it the results were less then perfect and as I understood it and got better the results got better (and keep getting better).

I found technique must be good (it is long glass afterall). You must have a steady hand, higher shutter speed and your exposure must also be correct, the better the exposure the sharper the shot. I am no expert but after 4,000 shots this is what I find to be true. Good luck!

[JohnTheLuck]

John the luck, results with this lens can vary. When I first got it the results were less then perfect and as I understood it and got better the results got better (and keep getting better).

I found technique must be good (it is long glass afterall). You must have a steady hand, higher shutter speed and your exposure must also be correct, the better the exposure the sharper the shot. I am no expert but after 4,000 shots this is what I find to be true. Good luck!

Bill, Rik,

I did some test with a tripod, mirror lockup, timer, RAW, center focus, with my 20D and a borrowed Digital Rebel, with a DG and a non DG version. All present focus errors. By example, I shot a propane tank at 4 meters, and the characters on the tank were not properly focussed on any pictures. I don't know what to do now.

JTL.

[County Man]

I have just sent my copy back to the dealers. Backfocussing and very soft with a kind of ghostly image around captures. I must have got a bad copy. I sent of a few tripod mounted pics taken at 1/1000 and 1/2000 for the dealer to refer to. I have asked them to change it for another.
Ive seen too many good images from this lens to believe that this is not a good lens so I hope my replacement is ok, should be here Sat or Mon.

Mark

[Crashoran]

2xtc-600mm, f/5.6, 1/2000

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/600.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/6001.jpg

Amazing.
EDIT: (NO SHARPENING APPLIED TO 100% CROP!)

[Krapo]

2xtc-600mm, f/5.6, 1/2000

Amazing.
EDIT: (NO SHARPENING APPLIED TO 100% CROP!)

Bloody hell! This is insane! :eek:
I didn't know that lens was still that amazingly sharp with a x2 attached!

[Crashoran]

It is sharp but autofocus is noticebly slower

[Bill S]

Crashoran,

Sorry I am trouble following, the autofocus is noticeably slower then what?

[GSH]

Sorry I am trouble following, the autofocus is noticeably slower then what?

Sharper than it is without the TC in the way ;)

With the TC it's too slow for motorsports (my main use) to rely solely on AF, but with some pre-focussing it will do the job nicely.

Makes you wonder how Photogrpahers got decent images in the days before AF, doesn't it....must those 2 srange things called practice & technique :D

[quickben]

Out of the two Sigma lenses i've had, I've only been happy with one (70-200 f2.8 ), but this lens is DEFINITELY on my WANTED list.

Can't wait to get it.

Gary.

[Crashoran]

I got a kick out of this - could read the plays on his arm :lol:
120-300 +1.4xtc - f/4, 420mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/1-1.jpg

(flipped) 100% crop no sharpening
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Crashoran/2-1.jpg