Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS

Thats what im talking about! I just wanted to see something like that. So AF should be good enough ;] I made the decision - im will go to see it and test it, if everything will be ok (it must harmonize with my 7d ) i will exchange my 70-200 for sigma.

Fuzbal wrote in post #15787731
Thats what im talking about! I just wanted to see something like that. So AF should be good enough ;] I made the decision - im will go to see it and test it, if everything will be ok (it must harmonize with my 7d ) i will exchange my 70-200 for sigma.

Do post some shots when you get it. I might have to wait 6 more months before I get the funds.

Fuzbal wrote in post #15787304
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 ;]

Its crop (i dont remeber how much) but it was well-hit on f2.8 or 3.2. I need to be sure that the 120-300 can give me somthing like:

Its from my 7d + 70-200II. Im not afraid about sharpness of sigma (its very good for me) but AF is my only problem. It can be good enough but it can suck;/

As I keep saying those rugby shots were taken with the Sigma 500mm (and at 6-10MP jpgs before cropping, because media outlets and sponsors don't want their togs giving them a 1,000 x 30-45mb RAW files each !) and also as I said the 120-300 has even better AF, in my personal opinion.

I shot the rugby the year before (2011) too and that time with 2 x Pentax K5 and with the superb DA*300 and Sigma 50-150. The keeper rate was much lower (due to OOF shots from the AF of the camera and lens - 300 - not keeping up) than with the D800 and 500mm. I'm sure the Sigma 120-300 and 5DIII would blow the Pentax's performance away - as it should.

Your 70-200 is simply far too short for rugby, baseball, American football, football (soccer) on a full sized pitch (maybe for non-pro school events it would work). The pros use 400/2.8 most of the time.

When you are shooting to the far end/side of the pitch you are now dependant on your camera's AF, as well as the speed of the lens' AF. Anything except single point and the camera is not going to read your mind to pick out exactly who you want from a bunch of players (rugby, american football) whereas football (soccer) and baseball are much easier with usually not more than 2 players involved in the action most of the time (except for corners in soccer perhaps).

IMHO the 120-300 OS version more than meets sharpness criteria and it's AF performance on cameras of the level of a 5DIII or D800 is a lot more than adequate. YMMV.

bobbyz wrote in post #15787324
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.

Surprisingly enough Shanghai though I've no doubt that price can be found pretty much anywhere in Asia now (I bought mine 2 months' ago) as retailers are reducing stock prior to the new version's arrival. The downside for us is we don't get the excellent Sigma guarantee offered in the USA and Europe.

I've seem places offering the Sigma 120-300 OS in Canada for around $2299.00 last week
while they had it on sale. And that came with the 10 Year Canadian Waranty. And I'm sure
there will be more, before or just after the new version hits the stores.

Maybe Adorama or B&H will buy up the last of the stock, and break the $2000.00 point
Who knows. We can always toss a Penny into the Wishing Well. Well, except in Canada
where the government has abolished the penny and disrespected our currency.

--Evan

Following my low keeper rate trying to shoot my running/trotting dog, here are some "sports" shots from last year. As you can probably tell from the timing and composition I don't shoot tennis very often. All are at f/2.8. They were shot raw and Lightroom edits are limited to crop/straighten and some slight tweaks to levels. EXIF is included and the focal length range used varies all the way from 120-300mm.

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Frogfish_Shanghai wrote in post #15788665
Your 70-200 is simply far too short for rugby, baseball, American football, football (soccer) on a full sized pitch (maybe for non-pro school events it would work). The pros use 400/2.8 most of the time.

I dont have d800 or 5d3... You saw what can i do with 70-200, its bad? Many newspapers and websites hasnt no problem to buy it. Im not from NY where everything must be 101% perfect (stereotype ) Its Poland and we dont like baseball or american football (there are few teams but its baby steps, maybe in a few years these games will be more popular than now) we selling only football and volleyball and politics ofc ;] And its only 70-200... and for many it can be enought but i need somthing more, too much of the action is executed (in the middle of pich and further) but still 70-200 you can do you work;] 120-300 should make my work will be easier and i dont need to do as much crop as now. If i have 400/2.8 i should have 70-200 too on sec body but its to much $$$ so im looking for something good and universal in reasonable price and there is sigma ;]

Just dont think im only system lanses maniak, right now i have got 2 sigmas.

Fuzbal wrote in post #15789257
I dont have d800 or 5d3... You saw what can i do with 70-200, its bad? Many newspapers and websites hasnt no problem to buy it. Im not from NY where everything must be 101% perfect (stereotype ) Its Poland and we dont like baseball or american football (there are few teams but its baby steps, maybe in a few years these games will be more popular than now) we selling only football and volleyball and politics ofc ;] And its only 70-200... and for many it can be enought but i need somthing more, too much of the action is executed (in the middle of pich and further) but still 70-200 you can do you work;] 120-300 should make my work will be easier and i dont need to do as much crop as now. If i have 400/2.8 i should have 70-200 too on sec body but its to much $$$ so im looking for something good and universal in reasonable price and there is sigma ;]

Just dont think im only system lanses maniak, right now i have got 2 sigmas.

Nothing wrong with your work at all ! Just that, as we both agree, a 70-200 is too short for full size football pitches but it's perfect as your close up lens on a FF camera, though just a little too long on an APS-C (I used to use a 50-150 for action close to me).

I think you will love the Sigma 120-300 but don't shoot me if I'm wrong !

A few pics from today. All 2x tc.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​621117394/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​620017881/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​620018087/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​620018001/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​621117170/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​621117220/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​620018079/

Rodg2ers wrote in post #15792073
The Canon 28-135mm IS lens does simular too.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Hope that's a joke !
-------

Lovely set Gabe - excellent light again.

Gadzooks Gabe! Awesome!

What kind of effect does the 2x have on your lens? Obviously NOT sharpness.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #15792115
Gadzooks Gabe! Awesome!

What kind of effect does the 2x have on your lens? Obviously NOT sharpness.

Thanks!

It does reduce the sharpness a bit, it is visible at 100%. But after cropping, processing and resizing to the web, the relative softness goes away.
The lens is sharper with the 1.4x and even sharper without an tc. It all makes sense

Frogfish_Shanghai wrote in post #15792111
Hope that's a joke !
-------

Lovely set Gabe - excellent light again.

Thanks.

And don't mind this other guy... His posts don't make much sense to me (I've checked all 8 of them)

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #15792115
Gadzooks Gabe! Awesome!

What kind of effect does the 2x have on your lens? Obviously NOT sharpness.

When I initially tried the x2 I wasn't getting the results I'd hoped for (that is carbon copies of Gabe's shots !) however last time out it seemed much better. I think that (as with any x2) you really need good light to get the most from it.

I also have a small issue with the fit of the x2 on my D800. There is a little play when mounted and this will stop the AF from functioning if is slips the wrong way (a simple rotation of the lens or camera gets it working again but it can be a pain if I've not noticed prior to a shot).

Excellent work as always Gabe