Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS

@tdodd. I would also consider the distance to subject in this instance. Usually when shooting cars or humans playing sport the subject's movement and appeared velocity is minor relative to the frame size and panning much easier, whereas with a dog filling most of the frame (or a much higher % of it) the movement appears at a relatively higher speed and panning therefore more difficult, dogs close up are a tough subject for most cameras/lenses.

At that distance, and at f2.8, even if the AF is out just a tad the shot will appear OOF, especially taking into consideration the approx. 1/3 - 2/3 focus rule. When shooting rugby the pro I worked for told me to always focus in front of the subject (so they are moving into the plane of focus) and shoot at f8 wherever possible (with long teles you are still going to get a decent bokeh but with the combatants in focus, better that than an OOF shot) !

All the below were with the Sigma 500mm f4.5 (sorry for going OT) but I believe the 120-300 could do an even better job since the AF seems faster to me.

f6.3, 1/1600, ISO6,400

@frogfish. Sure, I understand about the close proximity of a small, frame filling dog and the challenges to the AF and DOF as a result, and probably shooting 6' tall humans at full length would be less demanding, but there are examples in my series where everything was going perfectly and then focus just collapsed completely. It wasn't just off by a little. It was lost. Cameras lose focus. Lenses do not. I could understand if the focus was drifting behind the subject if it was unable to keep up, but suddenly leaping ahead of the subject to such an extent that nothing is sharp anywhere in the frame is just goofy. Also, the dog was really just trotting back to me on the return with the ball and not gunning it as it would when chasing after it. Panning was not a required skill here, because the dog was heading back to me in a straight line, pretty much. The more difficult thing to deal with was the bouncing gait, but that's trotting dogs for you.

I'm not a stranger to shooting my dog whilst she is running and I have found that the best approach is to use a single active AF point and to really nail positioning of the focus point on the subject's head/mouth. All the other fancy AF options seem to lead to increased confusion for the camera and it doesn't really know what it is supposed to be tracking. Having a low contrast dog probably doesn't help, but that's where the tennis ball comes in. Yesterday I was trying every option going just in an attempt (failed) to nail a consistent sequence of sharp shots. As I said, cherry picking some good examples is possible. Guaranteeing that you will secure the shot you need at "the decisive moment" is far from certain. That's fine when shooting your own pet; very much not fine when shooting sports professionally.

@Frogfish_Shanghai You convinces me that the sigma has problems with servo;/ If 120-300 have similar AF it sucks.

Frogfish_Shanghai wrote in post #15785618
A simply superb series Gabe

My favourites are the 1st (though not sure it's a family, the female is casting admiring glances behind her partner's back at his competitor !) and the last (what amazing light) !

Whenever I watch egrets, darters and gulls they never seem to successfully catch anything when I'm around

Fuzbal wrote in post #15785925
@Frogfish_Shanghai You convinces me that the sigma has problems with servo;/ If 120-300 have similar AF it sucks.

My 120-300mm f2.8 non OS had big problems when using AI servo. This on 1dmk2. I had 300mm IS at the same time and it would give me much much higher keeper rate. In one shot, sigma non OS was as good as my canon.

@FrogFish - Sports at f8? Why I need to spend all that money on f2.8 glass. Here is one from 300mm f2.8 IS. No issue tracking anything @f2.8 IMHO. This with 5dmk3. Sports aperture rules. Wildlife, birds, focal length over aperture, quite simple.

Fuzbal wrote in post #15785925
@Frogfish_Shanghai You convinces me that the sigma has problems with servo;/ If 120-300 have similar AF it sucks.

Sorry but I don't understand your reasoning here at all ... do you want to explain ? It seems to me that you have already made up your mind not to buy it and now want to denigrate a lens you have zero experience with.

Of course there are better lenses out there if you want to pay US$6,000 (Nikon) to US$7,000 (Canon) instead of US$2,000 - 2,200 for the current Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS version. That's your prerogative and your money. But if you are saying it doesn't perform then you couldn't be more wrong. As good as those lenses ? No. Damn good ? Yes.

Mhm Your sport isnt well-hit;/ Maby the last one have sharpnes there where it should be (or sigma just isnt sharp :P). And it all was at f8??

Compare Your shots with the last one from bobbyz. Do You see the difference? No offence but i must chose perfect AF and sharpness in my 70-200II or lottery in Sigma with better range. Ehh its difficult and i think i must go to see it and test by myself.

If I had the money i wouldnt ask and now i will have 1dX + 400/2.8 II

bobbyz wrote in post #15786282
My 120-300mm f2.8 non OS had big problems when using AI servo. This on 1dmk2. I had 300mm IS at the same time and it would give me much much higher keeper rate. In one shot, sigma non OS was as good as my canon.

@FrogFish - Sports at f8? Why I need to spend all that money on f2.8 glass. Here is one from 300mm f2.8 IS. No issue tracking anything @f2.8 IMHO. This with 5dmk3. Sports aperture rules. Wildlife, birds, focal length over aperture, quite simple.

I feel bad I had to sell my canon. Next time I have some money I will be seriously looking at sigma for the its zoom advantage when shooting sports but I am not seeing much action shots using AI servo. Local rental place doesn't carry 120-300 OS as they had too many issues with non OS model.

Lensrentals have 17 copies of the Sigma 120-300 in stock last I heard. Though there are still issues with this lens, the price and the Sigma guarantee give some peace of mind - to a certain degree.

It is well known that the non-OS version was not up to scratch and that this current OS version is much improved so naturally a much more expensive lens such as your Canon 300/2.8 would be considerably better and have a much higher keeper rate.

However my experience with BIF tells me the AF on the OS version of the 120-300 is excellent, maybe not brilliant as per the Nikon/Canon 300/2.8 lenses but amazing value for money nonetheless.
From the hundreds of shots from the rugby shoot above I threw away around 1 in 10 for being OOF. That's an excellent return IMHO.

Why f8 ? Well for two reasons really, if I were a pro sports shooter I'd be using a 400/2.8 (or the 200-400/2.8), that is the go-to lens for sports pros, and be looking for subject isolation. However, not having pockets that deep it means an alternative lens and as the AF of course isn't as fast as lenses costing upwards of US$6,000, then f8 means getting the shot 90% of the time - even at the cost of a little bokeh, if as an amateur you are shooting for fun then you can afford to go for your f2.8 killer shots, when you are getting paid to deliver (as I was there) then you can't afford to take the chance of missing the shot. The second reason is that many (most) sponsors want to see their signage in the shot and although they don't expect it to be pin sharp they do expect it to be recognisable. That's very different to shooting for fun or for the media.

Bird photography ? Well that is my passion and if you can't afford a US$6,000+ lens (or your marriage wouldn't survive the purchase !) then the Sigma has shown in this thread that it is a fantastic birding lens, whether at 300/2.8, 420/4 or 600/5.6. As I think I mentioned above, I'm taking this lens out more (for birding) than my 500mm.

Fuzbal wrote in post #15787147
Mhm Your sport isnt well-hit;/ Maby the last one have sharpnes there where it should be (or sigma just isnt sharp :P). And it all was at f8??

Compare Your shots with the last one from bobbyz. Do You see the difference? No offence but i must chose perfect AF and sharpness in my 70-200II or lottery in Sigma with better range. Ehh its difficult

I think that perhaps you're making too many assumptions here and not basing your conclusions on facts.

Firstly look at the subject in my shots - is the actual subject in the sharpest (whatever level that is) plane of focus ? I think you'll find he is.

You are also assuming that our respective PP has not influenced the finished article, and that we have uploaded the same size files. Neither do you know how big the crop is of any of these shots.

Finally you are comparing the Sigma 500/4.5 to the Canon 300/2.8 and there is only one winner in the sharpness stakes there (but still you have made a decision based at looking at only one shot on an internet forum). I thought though that you were looking at servo performance and not how sharp a respective lens is. My mistake.

I think it is important to distinguish between a sharp/soft lens, sharp/soft focus and freeze/blur/shake. In my opinion the lens is sharp, optically speaking, but it relies on far more than just the lens to make sure that it is well focused and shot with appropriate settings so you need to separate out performance by lens, camera and photographer. That's why making judgements based on challenging shooting conditions and settings are not straightforward.

With respect to lens IQ, here is a 100% crop from a raw file showing sharpening at Lightroom defaults and then with a little extra tweak. For a fast zoom I have no complaints about IQ.

EDIT : Added another shot, this time a little more dynamic, with the same before/after sharpening 100% crop.

I need sharp lanse with good AF. I compare your fotos with bobbyz but i dont judge sharpess but if they are hit. It does not matter if its crop or not when AF did not hit where should (unless you celowałeś the guy for 2 plan ...)

Its my old Pentax K-r + sigma 70-200/2.8 EX (non OS), first steps in sport ;]

Frogfish_Shanghai wrote in post #15787094
Sorry but I don't understand your reasoning here at all ... do you want to explain ? It seems to me that you have already made up your mind not to buy it and now want to denigrate a lens you have zero experience with.

Of course there are better lenses out there if you want to pay US$6,000 (Nikon) to US$7,000 (Canon) instead of US$2,000 - 2,200 for the current Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS version.

Where do you find 120-300mm OS for $2000-$2200? I haven't seen any used one and lowest I seen for brand new was $2800 something as updated OS model with focus limiter is coming soon.

Also you can get used 300mm f2.8 IS for $3600-$3700 or so. Of course $1000 more but no need to spend $3000-$4000 more for the IS Ver II.

Fuzbal wrote in post #15785925
@Frogfish_Shanghai You convinces me that the sigma has problems with servo;/ If 120-300 have similar AF it sucks.

Sounds like you have already made up your mind but I disagree with you about the AF issues. I shoot several hundred sports photos a week and I don't have any issues that I didn't cause. Here are some samples that I promise are as sharp as any other zoom on the market. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the sigma is right there with it.

1.

Theron, you using it on your 5dmk3?

bobbyz wrote in post #15787611
Theron, you using it on your 5dmk3?

Yes for about 80% of the time due to the dark afternoons right now. I do believe the shot of the pitcher was with the 7D. I use the 7D for the day games to get the crop factor but stick with the 5D on evening and night games.