PetaPixel

Review: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is One Sexy Beast

sigma120.1013.DSC_4328

When Sigma announced a new version of the much loved 120-300 f/2.8 I immediately kicked myself for buying a much pricier 300mm Nikon about 6 months earlier. The reasons why may not be readily apparent, but we’ll get to that. First let’s discuss the aesthetics and specs.

sigma120.1013.DSC_5846

The weight of this thing is impressive, yes it’s heavy but it’s manageable even handheld. If you frequently shoot this handheld you’ll likely develop massive biceps and soon enough you’ll be that guy who skipped leg day.

Thanks to two steps of Optical Stabilization it really is capable of being shot support free, as long as your arms can handle at least. But it is doable.

I shot support free as much as I could muster and once I became accustomed to the mass it wasn’t something I gave a lot of thought to unless it would be for an extended period of time. For the record, everything in this review was shot hand held.

sigma120.1013.DSC_5853

The included hood feels like it could withstand an airmail trip to the bottom of the Grand Canyon. When it’s mounted the locking screw grips like a mother grasps her newborn, it will never come off. It does add roughly 5 inches to the overall length of the lens but that extra depth at the front might be appreciated when you’re shooting track side with debris coming your way.

sigma120.1013.DSC_5856

The front accepts a 105mm filter. Sigma’s own brand of UV filters run near the $100 mark but there is pricier protection available by way of B+W and Heliopan. The front element is pretty well protected by the long hood on the front but like a night out on the town I’d always roll with some protection if I were you.

sigma120.1013.DSC_4291

Keeping in line with all of Sigma’s new lenses, this beast is a sexy one. In fact let’s just agree to call it “The Sexy 123″ from now on. Slap a hood to the front and I dare you not to drool just a little. It’s aesthetically exquisite. It’ll bring all the boys to your yard and if that yard happens to be a 10 acre farm you’ll be able to use the Sigma 120-300mm to snap their portraits from a quarter mile out.

Working from the front to the back I can’t help but feel like declaring that this is one of the more eye pleasing lenses I’ve ever held. It’s matte black but there’s a hint of sheen about the body. The focus and zoom rings felt very comfortable in my left hand. The tripod foot is large with three holes to accommodate any style of plate you own and feels very, very firm in the hand: no rattles, shakes or shimmies to be found.

sigma120.1013.DSC_4266

Sigma puts this in the “Sports” category of their newly revamped lens line up and though I shoot a lot of sports, in my opinion it was a foregone conclusion that a $3599 “sports” lens is going to be absolutely golden for sports coverage.

sigma120.0913.DSC_1750

And it I was right.

The ability to zip from 120 to 300 was amazing for things like hockey and other indoor sports like basketball or volleyball. The standard lens for these affairs being the 70-200mm — commonly found to be a little too wide at 70 and not quite tight enough at 200 — was now a bench warmer to the Sigma 120-300.

sigma120.0913.DSC_1733-2

With that extra 100mm I was suddenly able to push tight without having to grab the second body with a fixed 300mm mounted. It was liberating and now I had a body I could commit to more artistic avenues like the fisheye or tilt/shift while the 120-300 ruled for normal action shots.

sigma120.0913.DSC_1750-2

The speed of focus tracking was snappy and no less should be expected. I locked focus on players as they sped past and had absolutely no problem maintaining focus as I snapped at 9 frames a second.

sigma120.0913.DSC_1685-2

300mm at 100% crop.

Oh and by the way, it’s sharp. No surprises and it’s probably not worth getting into it but shooting at f/2.8 without the available adjustments Sigma offer via it’s new dock tool, the 120-300 is incredibly sharp, even when attaching a teleconverter as you’ll see.

sigma120.0813.D31_5718

The two levels of OS mentioned earlier go a long way to helping diminish handshake that becomes especially apparent at 200mm and up, aiding in maintaining sharpness and compositional choices.

sigma120.0913.D31_0453

But it gets better. Sigma has done something amazing with this lens by providing not one but two user customizable settings to modify tracking, focusing speed, Optical Stabilization and even the focal range. So cool.

sigma120.1013.DSC_5827

The Sigma dock is small enough to toss in your bag and forget. Nimble and simple enough to modify in the field too.

So lets say every baseball game you’re anticipating a play at home plate. You know that home plate is about 100-125 feet from your shooting position. You could set a custom distance for auto focus to trap within. When there is a runner on third and a chance of a play at home, quickly flip the switch with your left supporting hand and compose on home plate with no fear that your lens will suddenly decide it’s a good time to go hunting to minimum focus distance.

sigma120.1013.DSC_5842

The software couldn’t be simpler either and it’s quite nice to see they’ve done such a great job on this. The only thing that could make it better would be the ability to make these changes with the dock via an Android or iPhone, leaving the laptop at home while on the job.

The fact you can customize this to your own hearts content is amazing and something every sports photographer is going to love.

sigma120.0913.DSC_3449

Shot with Sigma’s 1.4x teleconverter attached and hand held.

sigma120.0913.DSC_3449-2

The 100% crop of the above photo. Keeping in mind this was the 120-300 plus Sigma’s 1.4 teleconverter.

“Hey that’s not sports, that’s a dog and he’s not even moving!” you’re shouting at your computer screen right now in rage.

You’re right, it isn’t.

When this Sigma showed up on my doorstep I’d decided that while there is a shiny S adorning the lens barrel, it doesn’t have to be strictly for sports. So I was determined to use it for things other then pure sports and fast action subjects.

sigma120.0813.DSC_0711

For portraiture it is just dreamy. What some might not be obvious to some is that on a full frame camera the wide end of this 120-300 happens to start smack dab in the middle of “portrait zone” (85mm to 150mm). It’s close enough to the tight end of my 24-70, that after bridging the gap with a fast 85mm I didn’t even bother to bring my 70-200 anymore, I just didn’t need it.

sigma120.0813.D31_2090-Edit

So that is sports and portraiture ticked off the list. What about landscape? Yep. It does that too.

sigma120.0813.DSC_0906

We spent a few days hiking Gros Morne National Park on Canada’s east coast. Usually when I hike I tend to flip flop from one extreme to the other: bring everything I own or bring the most minimal kit I can manage.

sigma120.0813.bigma-4

As I’ve already alluded to, the 120-300 has rid me of the 70-200 and certainly it’s freed me of the similarly sized fixed focal length telephoto in Nikon livery that weighs not much less.

Already by dropping the 70-200+300mm combo in favor of just the Sigma 120-300mm I’ve shed almost a pound in the difference and gained some much needed space in my pack.

And the crazy part is that optically I feel I’m better off.

sigma120.0813.DSC_0320

Vignetting becomes a little apparent after 200mm, even stopped down to f/5.6. It’s nothing that can’t be squashed in post and isn’t something that should turn you away from a purchase. If you’re anything like me and everyone else on Instagram you’re adding a hint of vignetting to half your photos anyway.

sigma120.0813.DSC_0274

While there is a little flaring it’s important to note that I was pointed directly at the setting sun for this photo. It couldn’t of been a more inappropriate and expected composition to provoke flaring on this lens, minor as it were.

Conclusion

First and foremost is the convenience factor of the focal range. As mentioned above it’s glorious to go from the 70-200 to 120-300. The 120-300mm is joyfully practical on a level that’s not quite comparable to any other lens I own.

But let’s try.

You know how your 14-24 is so great you never say “I wish this was a 14-35″… wait, err… well, I may have said that once, or twice. Well, you know how you’re shooting a wedding, full rack on the 24-70 and you think “am I ever happy this does not go to 85mm, what an absolute pain that would be”… I know I say that every time. Right?

sigma120.1013.DSC_4300

OK so maybe it isn’t comparable.

The thing is, I own a 300mm and it’s Nikon’s lightest f/2.8 300mm AF they have ever made. It doesn’t have VR, but that’s OK by me. I’d rather be able to handhold it along the sideboards all night during a hockey game then not. The various forms of lens stabilization all add weight and I made a decision to avoid the weight, in the interest of my back. But what can be annoying is the inability to zoom, even just a little.

Being backed into a fixed focal length corner at that range is tough. In fantasy land if Nikon made a 200-300 f/2.8 I’d be all over it. With a fixed 300mm you’re committed to being super tight on every shot, swapping lenses or grabbing the other body when or just after something has happened perhaps missing it. It becomes a trade off, weight vs. range and Sigma’s done an amazing job of tempting me to fully switch my featherweight 300mm to this heavyweight 120-300mm.

Which wasn’t unexpected. What the boys and girls at Sigma have been doing lately — reinventing their entire line up of glass and maintaining their price points while doing so — has been amazing, especially for budget photographers, and these days who isn’t a budget photographer?

sigma120.1013.DSC_4308

I gave Sigma’s new Art Series 35mm f/1.4 a little bit of flack for a squeak issue no doubt caused by shipping, but I own that lens now and it flew right to the top of my very short list of favorite lenses. This says a lot for someone who years ago wouldn’t buy a Sigma lens to save his life, avoiding them like a cat fighting a bathtub.

Like their new 35mm, the 120-300 is exceptional in every way and though Sigma tells us it’s in their Sports lineup, I’m more inclined to put it in the Superb line.


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • Its not a RUMOR!!

    This is exactly what I need!! Just got to find the $$$$!!!

  • http://www.sin3rgy-creative.com/ David Liang

    Wow, Sigma and Tamron have really been stepping up their game lately. Very intriguing lens.

  • superduckz

    My thoughts exactly.

  • baconeater

    Is there more than one version of this lens?

  • kero

    YEAH JUST DO FANCY LOW DOF PHOTO TO A LENS YAYYY!! SFTU I WILL GO SONY .. A7!

  • David Arthur

    Yes there is! The older version is bigger and heavier!

  • David Arthur

    My office has both of these and they have performed well for me. I’ve shot mostly sports with them. It is pretty good sized though. I went on an away game with the basketball team and left this lens behind anticipating running around all day. I will be using it for the first time at a basketball game tomorrow. I doubt I’ll be disappointed!

  • Tyler Magee

    What do you think of tokina? I find it that the dont make to many lenses but the lenses they have are amazing

  • BigDaddyJ

    Incredibly insightful and well spoken, sir.

  • I am just a guest

    Please Sigma make a nice 80-400mm lens,So canon will step up to update the ancient 100-400..

  • Martin Nilsson

    Android should support the dock in theory, someone just needs to port the software. Sort of the way they did with DSLR controller. And as you said, that would be pretty awesome to have with your Sigma lenses and dock =D

  • kkkkkk5

    the problem with simga these days are not the optics and image quality… it´s the AF.
    i bet nikon and canon lenses beat sigma in accuracy. at least that´s my experience.

  • 43

    damn chinese…. can´t spell….

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/monteraz/ Monteraz

    I have shot a wedding with the Sigma 70-200 2,8 and I can assure it was as accurate as any Nikon.

  • harumph

    No complaints with my Sigma 35mm 1.4. It was spot on right out of the box, no adjustments necessary. Maybe I just lucked out, but I’ve had to make minor adjustments for all my Nikon fixed focal length lenses.

  • David Arthur

    Actually I hated it for basketball. Was too heavy for me to handhold and quickly move with the ball. 120 is too much when they are on my end of the court. Maybe I’m not use to it, especially while using it with a monopod while sitting. But I went with a nikon 70-200 and stuck with that. Awesome lens, works great for me at soccer, even at night, but not what I want for basketball.

  • Zos Xavius

    I love tokina. Their lenses are all mostly superb optically.

  • faloc

    wonder if that beast is weatherproofed? Sigma always seem to miss that!

  • astagg

    it is

  • collinnyo145

    my Aunty Brooke recently got a
    nearly new black Subaru Impreza WRX STI by working parttime off of a macbook…
    check out this site J­a­m­2­0­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Aiden

    How well does the autofocus perform with a 2x converter on it? Can you track birds with it?

  • Aiden

    I’d have to agree with you. My Sigma lenses are great optically but only give me about 1 out of 4 in focus shots every time.

  • Whayne

    Too bad Sigma decided to add over 300g to the weight with the massively heavy new hood. Hopefully someone will release a lightweight version. This lens is heavier than my 500 f/4 mk II. I had actually hoped they would reduce weight from the previous version, not increase it by 11%.

  • Whayne

    The older OS version is lighter and noticeably so. We’ve gone from 2.9kg to 3.2kg, all thanks to a full metal hood. Carbon fibre would have been greatly preferred.

  • David Arthur

    Maybe I got them mixed up. But one of them is definitely bigger.

  • jack gemayel

    How much is it do you know?

  • Terry

    Again the question: How well does the autofocus perform with a 2x converter on it? Can you track birds with it? Thanks

  • Som

    Good Question! Want to hear the answer to that….

  • Eugene Powers

    No, they are exactly the same in size. Different weight. Same optics. But new one is highly customizable.