Sigma 120-300 2.8 for birding?

[Natural Images]

I know this is the bird section of this forum but I thought I would get a better response in here then in the EF and EFS Lenses section.
I'm considering the Sigma 120-300 + Sigma 2x TC or 1.4x for Wildlife shooting on a EOS 30D.
Does anybody use this combination, and how well does it work?
I want to have something that will be tack sharp at 2.8, and provide me with quality images.
The weight and lack of IS is a question for me but I'd be using a monopod most of the time anyway.
I've heard the build quality is really superb, and it is tack sharp at 300mm f/2.8 and even sharper at f/4 and higher. And it would be nice to have a 2.8 lens.

Can I see some pictures wide open (with and without TC) and please rate the AF especially with TC?

Thanks! You guys are great :lol:!

[trmwf]

I can't help you with the lens in question but from my newby experience 300mm would be as short as you would care to go. I recently sold my sigma 150-500 due to weight reasons and picked up a canon 300L and can say that the 300 just barely covers some of my shooting situations such as feeders located close to the house but have also a set of Kinko extension tubes to increase the range. While you're asking, if anybody uses the setuup you are asking about you might want to include if they have tried any kind of "extra magnification" or the tubes.

I will say, that if the lens IS tack sharp as you say at 300 then you will be able to get by in certain situations but will probably be looking for more before you are done.

Mike

[MikeES]

can say that the 300 just barely covers some of my shooting situations such as feeders located close to the house but have also a set of Kinko extension tubes to increase the range. While you're asking, if anybody uses the setuup you are asking about you might want to include if they have tried any kind of "extra magnification" or the tubes.
Mike

Extension tubes (kenko, etc) won't give you extra reach. In fact, when on, they prevent infinity focus. They are used to increase magnification ie. can make the 300F4 a macro lens for "zooming in" on smaller objects. The extenders will give you extra reach. That being said, there's a good chance you will never use that sigma lens between 120 and 299mm when you're birding. In fact, 300 is pretty short for birding, so you will need an extender (1.4 or 2) to get decent shots...

[Natural Images]

Extension tubes (kenko, etc) won't give you extra reach. In fact, when on, they prevent infinity focus. They are used to increase magnification ie. can make the 300F4 a macro lens for "zooming in" on smaller objects. The extenders will give you extra reach. That being said, there's a good chance you will never use that sigma lens between 120 and 299mm when you're birding. In fact, 300 is pretty short for birding, so you will need an extender (1.4 or 2) to get decent shots...

I'd probably would be using a tc most of the time.

[jgrussell]

I have to agree on the length -- I rarely use anything but the 400mm end of my 100-400mm lens for birds and other wild critters.

[RikWriter]

I have used a Sigma 120-300 in the past for wildlife but the keeper rate wasn't too good. The AF really suffers with TCs.

[artyman]

If you are considering using a TC for most of the time, wouldn't you be better off getting a longer lens to start with. I appreciate your option would give you a faster lens at it's shorter range without the TC, but if it's being permanently attached then a Sigma150-500 would seem to make more sense.

[jmik26]

Not sure about the Sigma but the Canon Rocks! My Canon 300mm F/2.8 is extremely sharp at f/2.8. It also takes a 1.4tc very well and a 2.0tc with some degradation but still very usable.

300mm f/2.8
http://www.jmikosphotography.com/Photos/Owl/GHO1.jpg

420mm f/5
http://www.jmikosphotography.com/potn/Male_Red-Bellied_Woodpecker.jpg

600mm F/6.3
http://www.jmikosphotography.com/potn/Northern_Shoveler.jpg

[Natural Images]

Not sure about the Sigma but the Canon Rocks! My Canon 300mm F/2.8 is extremely sharp at f/2.8. It also takes a 1.4tc very well and a 2.0tc with some degradation but still very usable.


Yeah, I was thinking about the canon. But it is a little out of my budget.

[butterfly2937]

Not sure about the Sigma but the Canon Rocks! My Canon 300mm F/2.8 is extremely sharp at f/2.8. It also takes a 1.4tc very well and a 2.0tc with some degradation but still very usable.

300mm f/2.8
http://www.jmikosphotography.com/Photos/Owl/GHO1.jpg

420mm f/5
http://www.jmikosphotography.com/potn/Male_Red-Bellied_Woodpecker.jpg

600mm F/6.3
http://www.jmikosphotography.com/potn/Northern_Shoveler.jpg


Great shots! This is where I am headed. I have gone back and forth and researched this to death and I do believe this combo for all around sharpness and usefulness is hard to beat!

[jmik26]

Yeah, I was thinking about the canon. But it is a little out of my budget.

Might be able to pick up a used one for around the same price?

[jmik26]

Great shots! This is where I am headed. I have gone back and forth and researched this to death and I do believe this combo for all around sharpness and usefulness is hard to beat! I did the same thing, researched it to death. I thought if I don't like it I can sell it in a year and get 90% of my money back. After using it since October I don't think I will ever get rid of it, the lens is simply amazing...Jeff

[condyk]

You might be surprised how tiny most birds will appear in a 300mm lens; you really do need at least 400mm and more likely 500-600mm to do any opportunities justice. I think a 400mm 5.6 L and 1.4x will get you better images and more length for less money. I've looked in the Sigma option myself and wasn't convinced finally. However, the prime route probably needs a shorter lens to suppliment the longer prime.

[jmik26]

butterfly2937 - just to add, I photograph all wildlife and not only birds and that also played into my decision. 300mm is a little short for exclusively doing bird photography but with the 1.4tc it just as good as 100-400 IMO... Jeff

[brecklundin]

I know this is the bird section of this forum but I thought I would get a better response in here then in the EF and EFS Lenses section. :lol:!


If I had the cash I think this lens is a very easy call with the idea that to do long range shots, like most birding shots, a 2x will be a must. So, you are shooting at 5.6 most of the time. Even w/o a 2x it would make a great zoo lens. Or even a hiking walk around.

The other thing I see is the beast looks to be one of the heaviest lenses around. It weighs in at about 5.7lbs. Soooo, unless you are Charles Atlas you will need at minimum a monopod most of the time. And maybe a couple Sherpa bearers to lug it around for ya...and I think the Bigmos was heavy when I had it...still a super zoom 2.8 for around $2k would not suck...the question I would have is would the IQ at 5.6 with a doubler be any better than the Bigmos. I do suggest looking at the Bigmos sample archive, the latest shots, to see there might not be that much difference other than a stop at the long end and no difference at the short end. And it's $1200 cheaper, though not an EX build like the 120-300. Still even the EX builds from Sigma are not weather sealed like most of the L's.

Hard call, it sure would be tempting to get the 2.8 after reading the reviews I found and the samples around the web. One thing I see in a lot of the shots though is they look a tad fuzzy probably because people are over cropping to make up for the shorter range and on top of it, a lot of the shots are hand held inducing enough shake to make the crops look fuzzy. The first set of shots in the archive here are AMAZING and I suspect what the lens really can do if used correctly.

Just the opinion of another potential buyer of the thing...never would have looked at it until your post, so, thanks!

[butterfly2937]

butterfly2937 - just to add, I photograph all wildlife and not only birds and that also played into my decision. 300mm is a little short for exclusively doing bird photography but with the 1.4tc it just as good as 100-400 IMO... Jeff

I love shooting wildlife but I also like shooting sports, so buying this lens although very expensive really is like giving me 3 lenses plus super fast AF at 300 and 420mm and at 420mm I am only at f4. The fact that I can use a 2X and be at 600 f5.6 and still get very sharp nice shots really makes it worth it for me. Better to spend now and be happy with my shots and just work on technique than be constantly searching for a better lens. With this lens to complete my kit plus a 2x I will have really everything I could possibly need.

[hollis_f]

butterfly2937 - just to add, I photograph all wildlife and not only birds and that also played into my decision. 300mm is a little short for exclusively doing bird photography but with the 1.4tc it just as good as 100-400 IMO... Jeff

My experience is that my 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC is substantialy better than my 100-400. Dunno if it's the extra 10% focal length, or the extra stop, or if the prime is sharp wide open whereas the zoom really needs to be around f8, but the difference is quite noticeable.