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.