Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS

HMmm.. Pages is the wrong term. Should have posted that in terms of total post count since different people display a different number of posts per page.

arentol wrote in post #14216015
HMmm.. Pages is the wrong term. Should have posted that in terms of total post count since different people display a different number of posts per page.

I see, got you.

Tested some shots out in the back yard today just before sunset. The OS seems to work but I noticed it jumps every so often (few seconds interval). Going to give it a real world testing this weekend.

Hey Gabe,

Did you get the lens fixed yet? I know its been like a year since you bought it from me, but I still feel bad

fiveohmike wrote in post #14221543
Hey Gabe,

Did you get the lens fixed yet? I know its been like a year since you bought it from me, but I still feel bad

I sent it in, they'll receive it on Monday, then we'll see.
Actually, I bought it from you in the fall, you purchased it in July, so it's not even a year old

Two from today at 600mm and 75% crop

One wildlifeshot with Sigma 2.0 EX DG teleconverter and ISO 3200:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/brummel2010/6​911806206/

Brummel wrote in post #14231514
One wildlifeshot with Sigma 2.0 EX DG teleconverter and ISO 3200:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/brummel2010/6​911806206/
Nutria von Brummel2010 auf Flickr


Kamera-Modell: Canon EOS 7D
Objektiv: 240-600mm
Aufnahmedatum: 2012-04-08 18:06:11 +0000
Brennweite: 355mm
Brennweitendistanz: 5.29m
Blende: f/8.0
Belichtungszeit: 0.0020s (1/500)
ISO: 3200
Belichtungsabweichung: keine
Belichtungsmessung: Spot
Belichtung: Blendenpriorität (halbautomatisch)
Weißabgleich: auto
Blitz ausgelöst: nein (erzwungen)
Software: Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 6.7 (Windows)

Well that looks pretty awesome, did you apply a lot of sharpening in postprocessing?

freddyronny wrote in post #14233911
Well that looks pretty awesome, did you apply a lot of sharpening in postprocessing?

No sharpening.
Processing RAW in LR4, adjusted middle contrast (+13) and raised the shadows (+33) and decreased lights (-35), lowered exposure -0,5.
Export to PS, denoise at background with dfine 2.0, set size to 1600x1067 (method bicubic sharper) and added the logo. Thats all.

I hope, my bad english is understandable.

Brummel wrote in post #14234100
No sharpening.
Processing RAW in LR4, adjusted middle contrast (+13) and raised the shadows (+33) and decreased lights (-35), lowered exposure -0,5.
Export to PS, denoise at background with dfine 2.0, set size to 1600x1067 (method bicubic sharper) and added the logo. Thats all.

I hope, my bad english is understandable.

I understood it perfectly. And wow that lens is really sharp then in combination with the Sigma 2.0 teleconverter. And your 7D performs really well at iso 3200 too Could you maybe post a 100% crop of the nose/eye area?

I am still saving up for the lens, I should be able to afford it by the summer, at least I hope so. If I understood well, you have both the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter. What converter do you use the most? I want to use it for birding and other wild animals. I actually prefer deer, foxes etc to birds, but in Belgium they are very hard to find and often even more shy than the birds making that you need a lot of mm's. I often think that my Sigma 400mm f5.6 hasn't enough mm's.
want to use the lens with my 450D so I don't have a huge amount of megapixels to crop. What tc would you buy (first)? Eventually I will probably buy both, but I can't afford both tc's and the lens at the same time.

freddyronny wrote in post #14235081
I understood it perfectly. And wow that lens is really sharp then in combination with the Sigma 2.0 teleconverter. And your 7D performs really well at iso 3200 too Could you maybe post a 100% crop of the nose/eye area?

...

It's easier to link the RAW
http://www.brummels.ne​t/eos/IMG_0572.CR2
But you will see, that the RAW without postprocessing isnt very good.

Now you can process the RAW by yourself and compare it with my try.


To teleconverter: Use of the 2.0 TC isn't always easy. 600mm and crop of camera is hard for handheld shooting. The 1.4 TC is definetly easier to handle, results are alot better. I delete many pictures with the 2.0 TC because they are not good.

I would buy the 1.4 first and upgrade to 600D/60D/7D.

Brummel wrote in post #14235517
I delete many pictures with the 2.0 TC because they are not good.

Not good because of motion or because of other sharpness issues? Have you tried it with a 2.0 on a tripod? I ask this because I can't afford the Canon 500/4 and was thinking of buying this lens to use with a 2X (I already own the 400/5.6, so using it with a 1.4X doesn't give me much advantage).

icassell wrote in post #14235559
Not good because of motion or because of other sharpness issues? Have you tried it with a 2.0 on a tripod? I ask this because I can't afford the Canon 500/4 and was thinking of buying this lens to use with a 2X (I already own the 400/5.6, so using it with a 1.4X doesn't give me much advantage).

I shoot almost all pictures handheld. I used a monopod last week but i need a Monostat with its better 'foot'. Without this 'foot' shaking left and right is too much rotation and i often had better results handheld.
I use my tripod only when i settle on one place. Mostly i walk through nature and dont want to carry the tripod.

The big advantage to your 400/5.6 is the OS, f/4 and the range from 120-399

Sorry again for my english.

There is no problem with your English, I understand you perfectly

Thank you for your input.

For OS, I have never felt the need with my 400 because the lens is so sharp. I really don't need the zoom as I need longer, not shorter (I have a 100-300 f/4 when I want to go shorter). I'm not sure f/4 gives me that much ...

so ... I'm very interested in it specifically for the ability to do 600mm. If the IQ and AF aren't good at 600, I'm not interested. From what I've seen here, the IQ can be very good, but I still don't have a good feel for the AF speed at 600 (I haven't seen enough BIF).

Brummel wrote in post #14235517
It's easier to link the RAW
http://www.brummels.ne​t/eos/IMG_0572.CR2
But you will see, that the RAW without postprocessing isnt very good.

Now you can process the RAW by yourself and compare it with my try.


To teleconverter: Use of the 2.0 TC isn't always easy. 600mm and crop of camera is hard for handheld shooting. The 1.4 TC is definetly easier to handle, results are alot better. I delete many pictures with the 2.0 TC because they are not good.

I would buy the 1.4 first and upgrade to 600D/60D/7D.

Thank you for the raw file. I took into LR4 and I personally think it offers great detail. I processed it nearly the same except I added some LR4 sharpening and didn't do -0.5EV.

It is more or less comparable with what my Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO Tele Macro HSM would do at 400mm f5.6. So I would be very satisfied with such results at 600mm f8. I saw it the exif that it is at 355mm f8 but it is with the 2.0 converter, right? I guess you'll have more issues with camera shake at 600mm. Does the sharpness worsen too at 600mm?

I am not really afraid of camera shake because I am already used to an unstabilized 400mm f5.6. I don't think a stabilized 600mm would make me have less keepers, right? I always use a tripod with a decent ballhead for static shots. I only use my lens handheld for BIF shots.

I am not able to purchase both an 600D/60D/7D and the 120-300OS with one of the TC's I am still a student and 2000 euros for a lens is already a very substantial amount of money My most expensive lens at the moment is my sigma 10-20 at 409, so I guess you get the picture

I want to purchase the 120-300OS with a 1.4 or 2.0 TC to use in combination with my 450D on the tripod most of the time during my summer birding trip in Southern France (Cévennes and Camargue). I will upgrade my body around Christmas I think. I am waiting for the 7D mark II which should offer better ISO performance. I think the 7D is already pretty good at it, but the Nikon D7000 is a step better so I expect the next Canon camera to be quite a lot better Would you still go for the 1.4 converter for using it with 450D on tripod most of the time?