Adapted Sigma 120-300 Sports, who's using one?

[AntonLargiader]

I like my EF300 IS and of course I would like it to zoom. Who wouldn't? The 100-300 would be fantastic but I'm not going to spend that kind of money on a hobby, so I've been looking (again) at the Sigma 120-300 Sports. Hard to imagine that this 3rd-gen lens is 12 years old at this point. Bryan does a pretty good job of describing the evolution of this lens on his great website. Overall the reviews are quite positive although I think someone mentioned that the substantial weight is quite far forward and I think it moves as you zoom. I am generally not a monopod user so part of what I want to establish is the hand holdability.

3390g vs 2550g for my 300 IS; that's a big difference. For comparison, the 300 IS ii is 2350g and the 100-300 is about 2600g.

Acknowledged downsides: Heavy, investing in old tech (still need EF/RF adapter, no Pan Assist, etc).

So, who's using one? Can you hand hold it? Is the AF quick and accurate for you? Do you ever use a TC with it? My use case is absolutely for action... field sports, mostly.

 

[Jan_K]

I like my EF300 IS and of course I would like it to zoom. Who wouldn't? The 100-300 would be fantastic but I'm not going to spend that kind of money on a hobby, so I've been looking (again) at the Sigma 120-300 Sports. Hard to imagine that this 3rd-gen lens is 12 years old at this point. Bryan does a pretty good job of describing the evolution of this lens on his great website. Overall the reviews are quite positive although I think someone mentioned that the substantial weight is quite far forward and I think it moves as you zoom. I am generally not a monopod user so part of what I want to establish is the hand holdability.

3390g vs 2550g for my 300 IS; that's a big difference. For comparison, the 300 IS ii is 2350g and the 100-300 is about 2600g.

Acknowledged downsides: Heavy, investing in old tech (still need EF/RF adapter, no Pan Assist, etc).

So, who's using one? Can you hand hold it? Is the AF quick and accurate for you? Do you ever use a TC with it? My use case is absolutely for action... field sports, mostly.

I have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sports version and used it a lot on my R5 for rugby photography. The ability to zoom and to get to 300mm f2.8 is very useful. I did shoot a lot handholding it, which was OK for me, but I preferred to have it on a monopod for my type of shooting. (Which is where I sat down at the end of the field on a 'fixed' location, so a monopod was convenient). When I walked the sideline with it, I prefer it handhold.

I'm not using it that much at the moment, since I have an (old) 400mm f2.8 which I use in combination with a 70-200 f2.8. I prefer the 400mm just because it gives me the (croppable) reach when the game is on the opposite end of the field. I try to get as many shots of 'my team's players' as possible, so for me still getting usable shots from across the field is worth it.

If I would settle for 'half' the field, I would be satisfied with the 120-300. If I was to shoot in heavy rain, making it harder to use a dual camera setup, I would prefer the 120-300 over the combo of the 400mm and 70-200mm. (With rain covers on, switching cameras is more cumbersome in my experience).

AF and image quality wise I was happy with the 120-300 as well. I feel like the 400 and 70-200 are a tad better with AF (although not objectivly measured), but the 120-300 gave me plenty of keepers.

I used it adapted on my R5 and it performed flawlessly and have 'green H+' on the R5 (i.e. full FPS mechanical shutter).

I have used the Sigma 1.4x on it, but never was really happy with the overall combo. To me images looked quite soft, towards the 300mm end of the zoom (where one would want the extended range). I had a 1.4x sold it, later bought another one to give it a try but than gave up again. I could get some nice image with it, but overall the keeper rate with the extender was significsantly lower with the 1.4x than without.

 

[AntonLargiader]

I used it adapted on my R5 and it performed flawlessly and have 'green H+' on the R5 (i.e. full FPS mechanical shutter).

Oh, I had completely forgotten about some lenses not supporting H+. Thanks! I get H+ out of my two main lenses right now - the 70-200 IS ii and the 300 IS - but I always shoot ES where I think (?) it is not an issue. I would absolutely need this lens to support 30 FPS ES, and I'd certainly want it to support maximum MS speeds on the R7.

 

[Jan_K]

Oh, I had completely forgotten about some lenses not supporting H+. Thanks! I get H+ out of my two main lenses right now - the 70-200 IS ii and the 300 IS - but I always shoot ES where I think (?) it is not an issue. I would absolutely need this lens to support 30 FPS ES, and I'd certainly want it to support maximum MS speeds on the R7.

In ES mode the limitation on FPS should not apply as far as I know. With my R5 I got 20 in ES mode (the max for R5). TOn the R5ii I got the 30 (since it offers higer ES FPS than the R5).

But as I mentioned, I did get the maximum shutter in mechanical mode with R5 (and R5ii), so I definitely expect it to get max FPS in electronic shutter on every R-series camera.
I have shot the Sigma on the R7 in the past as well and used mechanical shutter on the R7 (too much rolling shutter for my taste for sports). As far as I remember I got max FPS on the R7 in mechanical shutter mode. It has been a while since I sold my R7, so have to rely on memory and can't test it for you.

I have the Sigma dock and have used in on the 120-300, but I can't remember if I had to update the lens' firmware to get the green H+ on the R5.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

On the 120-300 2.8 what would you say the keeper rate is? Not necessarily what you produced as a final image, but what was in focus and sharp enough for delivery, composition aside?

 

[Jan_K]

On the 120-300 2.8 what would you say the keeper rate is? Not necessarily what you produced as a final image, but what was in focus and sharp enough for delivery, composition aside?

I find that hard to tell, since I do not check those numbers. I couldn't really tell them for my other lenses either. If I had to give best guess with conservatism I would say around 90% maybe.

I do a lot of sports (rugby mostly) and there are many things that can then impact the accurate focus of the photo. When shooting 300mm f2.8 depth of field can become quite small. So if there are multiple players and the focus point is just on the wrong player, that player is in focus, but the player I wanted in focus is not. Sometimes people cross the frame, throwing the focus of and then it needs time to re-focus (which for mirrorless can be challenging if there isn't much sharp so the focus algorithm is challenged.
Also if play is moved quickly and you have to completely reframe towards another direction it may take a bit to get the focus point on target again (I mostly shoot with a small cluster of focus points around the center point).

When a player breaks through and runs towards me with not that many other players around, I thing the hit rate is >95% . The same I feel applies when I was photographing a dog at the beach coming towards me.

Usually I shoot a lot (burst mode) and I cull my photos based on focus, composition, and peaks from a burst. I do not specifically count the number of non-keepers due to focus being off, let alone the focus being off due to camera-lens combination.

I definitely have had photos where the focus was off, where I would have expected the focus to hit. I expect that percentage missed to be a bit higher on the 120-300 versus lets say my RF 70-200 (original version). But I do not hestitate to use the lens due to chances of missing focus. I pick a lens based on what I feel is the most suitabel range of focul length on that occasion, because I trust enough on all of them to deliver sufficiently good results and keeper rates.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

So it's a fairly accurate and snappy lens.

 

[Jan_K]

So it's a fairly accurate and snappy lens.

To me it feels like that for sure. It will for sure give you plenty of keepers.

If you let me pick either a canon white 300mm f2.8 prime or the Sigma 120-300 "Sports" I would pick the Sigma. Probably a canon 300 is a bit better in focus and image quality, but the versatility of the zoom is more important than the other aspects, since the Sigma suffices for my needs.

With older versions of the Sigma, I would doubt, but not with respect to the "Sports" version.