Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports (SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS!!!)

I got this lens in late October with the dock.
Right out of the box I took it to shoot at a night football game.
Pictures were a disappointment. Lots of soft pictures or out of focus.
Did the focus adjust with the dock and the pictures were like night and day.

I have a 300mm 2.8 L non IS to compare this lens to.

The speed of the focus tracking I don't think is as good as the Canon's.
I do find I have a few more out of focus pictures the normal.
If you have non fast moving subject the lens works pretty good.
The image quality with this lens is excellent.

I mainly used this lens for sports.
So far I used it for football, soccer and basketball.

Here are a few samples.
Body used is a 1DMK4
I think all shot at 2.8
All the pictures have sharpening during post processing .

I am expecting delivery of the Sport version in about a week. I had rented it in the fall and found it to be useful, heavy and really great. I typically shoot lacrosse and volleyball although I was lucky enough to try it out on some soccer as well:

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/gkEax​d

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/gkEqd​x

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/gkEue​t

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/gsGVD​1

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/gsH2d​Y

sun5150 wrote in post #16690672
The speed of the focus tracking I don't think is as good as the Canon's.
I do find I have a few more out of focus pictures the normal.
If you have non fast moving subject the lens works pretty good.
The image quality with this lens is excellent.

I think the image quality is undisputed, it is whether or not the lens performs well enough with AF and tracking to justify the ~$3k as opposed to a down payment on a Canon/Nikon 300 f2.8 IS.

Do you think it can get the job done consistently?

It has for me. and my bank account thanks me!

kobeson wrote in post #16691892
I think the image quality is undisputed, it is whether or not the lens performs well enough with AF and tracking to justify the ~$3k as opposed to a down payment on a Canon/Nikon 300 f2.8 IS.

Do you think it can get the job done consistently?

If you have time to track and focus it'll do the job.
If you have to make a quick movement like from one player to another player on a different part of the field. That is hard to say. There were times I had good luck other times not so good in the first few frames of the shot.
Best is to rent it and try it for yourself.

Like someone said in another post. The lens is heavy.
All my shots were handheld.

I wish I could rent it, no stores have it near me!

sun5150 wrote in post #16692307
If you have time to track and focus it'll do the job.
If you have to make a quick movement like from one player to another player on a different part of the field. That is hard to say. There were times I had good luck other times not so good in the first few frames of the shot.
Best is to rent it and try it for yourself.

Like someone said in another post. The lens is heavy.
All my shots were handheld.

Would you say the tracking/AF performance would be as good as 70-200 mk2 with a 1.4x mk3? Have had good success with that combo so far.

kobeson wrote in post #16682217
Encouraging words felix, taking into account as you say the 5D2 isn't known for being a sports camera in regards to AF.

Do u have any photos online?

Hi Kobeson,

Here's photobucket link - http://s872.photobucke​t.com …/Sigma%20120-300%20Sports

few of the sailing photos ware with 1.4x TC and 10 yr old 2x TC

Quality of the photo / lense might not upto your standard, but for me the 120-300 "Sports" is the only one on the market at the moment (300mm zoom with f2.8)

Cheers
Felix

Thanks felix, some really nice examples in there!!

Thank you Kobeson, if the AF tracking is better at low light (Man's Hockey one, not sure it's the lense or camera itself), will be even better.

To those that use UV filters - which brand are you using on your 120-300? And how is the Sigma 105mm UV?

I'm using the Sigma one, I believe it's the most economical one. I didn't notice any degrading.

Again, thank you Felix

kobeson wrote in post #16698180
To those that use UV filters - which brand are you using on your 120-300? And how is the Sigma 105mm UV?

I don't think you really need a UV filter, longer lenses tend to have HUGE lens hoods.

I got the Sigma on mine.
The only reason for the filter is protect the glass.