Sigma 120-300 test shots

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 15, 2002

I'm not experienced at testing lenses, but I did take a few sample pictures under semi-controlled conditions. They were taken on a firm tripod using mirror lock-up and a remote release. They aren't the best, but they do show some of the capability of this lens. These are 100% crops. No editing at all, except to save as jpg. The concrete wall should be in focus.

This one is at 300mm, F2.8, ISO100, 1/200sec.

This one is at 300mm, F11, ISO100, 1/13sec.

Sorry I don't have better samples, but I haven't had time to really use it yet. I think both of these are acceptably sharp, though a little less sharp than, say..., my 50mm F1.4. I think with a touch of USM, the F11 sample would be exceptional, and the F2.8 version would be very useable.

I'm sure everyone will dissagree.

MAC · Dec 15, 2002

Hard to tell from these Jim, the f11 definitely sharper, but I've found taping comic newprint on wall and shooting and looking edge to edge at the print can tell a lot more about color and sharpness-- you could even shoot with your 70 -200 at f2.8 --using 200 on both lens as see the results. Also move the 300 back so you are at the same width on the paper as the 200 mm on the 70 -200 and shoot at f2.8 with 300 mm and see what you get -- F2.8 is the critical AV for sports lenses.

MAC

Jim Davidson said:
I'm not experienced at testing lenses, but I did take a few sample
pictures under semi-controlled conditions. They were taken on a
firm tripod using mirror lock-up and a remote release. They aren't
the best, but they do show some of the capability of this lens.
These are 100% crops. No editing at all, except to save as jpg. The
concrete wall should be in focus.

This one is at 300mm, F2.8, ISO100, 1/200sec.

This one is at 300mm, F11, ISO100, 1/13sec.

Sorry I don't have better samples, but I haven't had time to really
use it yet. I think both of these are acceptably sharp, though a
little less sharp than, say..., my 50mm F1.4. I think with a touch
of USM, the F11 sample would be exceptional, and the F2.8 version
would be very useable.

I'm sure everyone will dissagree.

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

VincentJ · Dec 16, 2002

Both samples look soft to me. However it is hard to tell without a side by side comparison with another lens such as the Canon 70-200L or something else in that range.

Jim Davidson said:
Sorry I don't have better samples, but I haven't had time to really
use it yet. I think both of these are acceptably sharp, though a
little less sharp than, say..., my 50mm F1.4. I think with a touch
of USM, the F11 sample would be exceptional, and the F2.8 version
would be very useable.

pnorbo · Dec 17, 2002

hey thanks for posting a pic! Ive been longing a lense like this for a long time...looks like I ll keep longing (or shorting with my 70-200 2.8). Yep the example looks soft and what is it like with a full frame sensor? questions questions questions

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 17, 2002

They area little soft, but such is the D60. These are 100% crops, unedited. I wish I had more time to take shots with this thing, but I work during the day and at this time of year in Ohio, that equates to every daylight hour. From what I've seen so far, I think this will be perfect for outdoor sports. I tried using it for hockey, but it's a wee bit large.

I posted this image last weekend. It is at ISO800 hand-held and I did some post processing, so take it for what it's worth:

I'll try to do more controlled tests this weekend, but I can't promise anything.

JimD

VincentJ said:
Both samples look soft to me. However it is hard to tell without a
side by side comparison with another lens such as the Canon 70-200L
or something else in that range.

Thomas Gardner · Dec 17, 2002

Jim Davidson said:
It is at ISO800 hand-held and I did some post processing,
so take it for what it's worth:

Maybe an SI cover or two, but not much more

People talk about using a lens in real world situations and to me, that's what this goalie shot was. How far away were you from the goalie? Why do I ask? Because you can pick up the webbing seperation of the jersey, in the front shoulder area. At fifty yards, I doubt anybody here could do that while eating a hot dog, yelling at the ref:-o Let the claims roll in

This shot, by itself, speaks loudly about the ability of the lens...... aaaand the photographer

Great shot!

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 17, 2002

Thomas Gardner said:
Jim Davidson said:

It is at ISO800 hand-held and I did some post processing,
so take it for what it's worth:

Click to expand...

Maybe an SI cover or two, but not much more

Oddly... SI photogrphers tell me that SI has, to date, resisted the change to digital. For football, I'm told, they still want there shooters to use film. Hockey, I have no idea.

Thomas Gardner said:
People talk about using a lens in real world situations and to me,
that's what this goalie shot was. How far away were you from the
goalie?

Mid rink, between the benches.

Thomas Gardner said:
Why do I ask? Because you can pick up the webbing
seperation of the jersey, in the front shoulder area. At fifty
yards, I doubt anybody here could do that while eating a hot dog,
yelling at the ref:-o Let the claims roll in

This shot, by itself, speaks loudly about the ability of the
lens...... aaaand the photographer Great shot!

Thanks! I've been using my 70-200 F2.8 for hockey, with the exception of this one game. Maybe I'll drag the 120-300 to the rink more often.

Here is some info on this photo:

Shutter speed: 1/500.00
F-stop: 2.8
ISO speed: 800
Focal length: 300.0000

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Click to expand...

JimD

mongyong · Dec 17, 2002

Hi Jim,

can I take this picture and place it at another site to show my friends?

Jim Davidson said:
Thomas Gardner said:

Jim Davidson said:

It is at ISO800 hand-held and I did some post processing,
so take it for what it's worth:

Click to expand...

Maybe an SI cover or two, but not much more

Click to expand...

Oddly... SI photogrphers tell me that SI has, to date, resisted the
change to digital. For football, I'm told, they still want there
shooters to use film. Hockey, I have no idea.

Jim Davidson91985 said:

People talk about using a lens in real world situations and to me,
that's what this goalie shot was. How far away were you from the
goalie?

Click to expand...

Mid rink, between the benches.

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Why do I ask? Because you can pick up the webbing
seperation of the jersey, in the front shoulder area. At fifty
yards, I doubt anybody here could do that while eating a hot dog,
yelling at the ref:-o Let the claims roll in

This shot, by itself, speaks loudly about the ability of the
lens...... aaaand the photographer Great shot!

Click to expand...

Thanks! I've been using my 70-200 F2.8 for hockey, with the
exception of this one game. Maybe I'll drag the 120-300 to the rink
more often.

Here is some info on this photo:

Shutter speed: 1/500.00
F-stop: 2.8
ISO speed: 800
Focal length: 300.0000

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JimD

--
The best is yet to be.

Doug Walker · Dec 17, 2002

mongyong said:
Hi Jim,

can I take this picture and place it at another site to show my
friends?

--
Doug Walker
Check my profile for equipment list.

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 17, 2002

mongyong said:
Hi Jim,

can I take this picture and place it at another site to show my
friends?

Sure, as long as it's non-profit. Attribute it to "Jim Davidson for the-Ozone.net".

mongyong said:
mongyong said:

mongyong said:

mongyong said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JimD

mongyong · Dec 17, 2002

Thank you. I only wanted to show them the capabilities of this lens. We at Singapore are waiting anxiously for this lens.

Jim Davidson said:
mongyong said:

Hi Jim,

can I take this picture and place it at another site to show my
friends?

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as it's non-profit. Attribute it to "Jim Davidson for
the-Ozone.net".

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Jim Davidson91985 said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JimD

--
The best is yet to be.

crobey · Dec 20, 2002

looks good to me. I look forward to more samples.

chris

pnorbo · Dec 21, 2002

I to look forward to more samples at 2.8 who will do a full review at 120, 200 and 300 @ 2.8

crobey said:
looks good to me. I look forward to more samples.

chris

bernd1234 · Dec 21, 2002

Hi Jim

How does it feel weight wise?
I would think it is a heavy lense.

This lense is basicly exactly what i was looking for, regarding range and f-stop, but it shure is espensive, so i was wondering if it feels like a monster lense, or if it is nicely balanced.

greetings

bernd

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 21, 2002

bernd1234 said:
Hi Jim
How does it feel weight wise?
I would think it is a heavy lense.

Well... It's heavy. It weighs about the same as the Canon 300 F2.8. I've decided to hand-hold it during the Fiesta Bowl(finally got confirmation of my credentials today!). I'll report my findings after that game. I took some more test shots today, since we actually had a little sun for a change. I'll be posting them soon.

bernd1234 said:
This lense is basicly exactly what i was looking for, regarding
range and f-stop, but it shure is espensive, so i was wondering if
it feels like a monster lense, or if it is nicely balanced.

It is heavy, but I think it will work perfectly for my needs.

bernd1234 said:
greetings

bernd

JimD

pnorbo · Dec 21, 2002

quick question Jim; does it have strap brackets like the canon 300 2.8 so you can hang it off your shoulder?

Jim Davidson said:
bernd1234 said:

Hi Jim
How does it feel weight wise?
I would think it is a heavy lense.

Click to expand...

Well... It's heavy. It weighs about the same as the Canon 300 F2.8.
I've decided to hand-hold it during the Fiesta Bowl(finally got
confirmation of my credentials today!). I'll report my findings
after that game. I took some more test shots today, since we
actually had a little sun for a change. I'll be posting them soon.

Jim Davidson91985 said:

This lense is basicly exactly what i was looking for, regarding
range and f-stop, but it shure is espensive, so i was wondering if
it feels like a monster lense, or if it is nicely balanced.

Click to expand...

It is heavy, but I think it will work perfectly for my needs.

Jim Davidson91985 said:

greetings

bernd

Click to expand...

JimD

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 22, 2002

pnorbo said:
quick question Jim; does it have strap brackets like the canon 300
2.8 so you can hang it off your shoulder?

Strap bracket? I'm not familiar with that. It has a tripod mount collar. I don't think there's anything else on it that I would call a strap bracket.

Have you seen my new samples? I posted them last night, so I think they slipped to the second page without a lot of people seeing them:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4014570

JimD

DavidP #28649 · Dec 22, 2002

If it had IS, I could dream about buying it, working out, and hand-holding that baby.

Jim Davidson said:
Well... It's heavy. It weighs about the same as the Canon 300 F2.8.
I've decided to hand-hold it during the Fiesta Bowl(finally got
confirmation of my credentials today!). I'll report my findings
after that game. I took some more test shots today, since we
actually had a little sun for a change. I'll be posting them soon.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Jim Davidson91985 · Dec 22, 2002

DavidP said:
If it had IS, I could dream about buying it, working out, and
hand-holding that baby.

For my use, it doesn't need IS. I'll be shooting at 1/500 sec or faster. Shutter speeds at which IS does not help. For your use, shooting stage shows, I image you would be using much slower shutter speeds. I understand the need for IS in that setting.

JimD

Jason Stoller · Dec 23, 2002

David I have the lens and I can tell you I would love it if it had IS. This sucker is heavy and you are really going to need to use a monopod with it. I have had mine about two weeks now but I was out of town and really did not have time to post test shots. I plan on shoot some tommorow and getting them up on the web. Of course I know they will not be as good as what you could do.

Jason

DavidP said:
Jim Davidson said:

Well... It's heavy. It weighs about the same as the Canon 300 F2.8.
I've decided to hand-hold it during the Fiesta Bowl(finally got
confirmation of my credentials today!). I'll report my findings
after that game. I took some more test shots today, since we
actually had a little sun for a change. I'll be posting them soon.

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

Sigma 120-300 test shots

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

crobey

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts