D500 with 120-300 f/2.8 -- any experience or opinion?

[Ruekon]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

 

[Morris0]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

There are 3 or 4 versions of this lens that have been very popular with sports shooters. The 2 more recent are terrific and take a TC well. I have friends that used them for wildlife and got good results.

Morris

 

[dacrema]

... there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX. ...

... What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

I had an older copy (maybe even film era) copy of the 120-300 f2.8 I purchased when I was using a D70. When I rented the lens from a local shop (it was in their used section) the guy said I would want to buy it. He didn't tell me that my wife would tell me to go buy it. At the time I was taking pictures of HS Crew and some autocross. I would rent the Nikkor 70-200 while saving up money to buy one. The third party 70-300 was just to light challenged to get good pictures at 300mm. D70 users will remember the CCD sensor was very light challenged. ISO 800 was about as much as you could push without a lot of post processing. The problem with the 70-200 was I was still far from the action at 200 mm. Later when I switched to the D300 the two made a wonderful sports camera and lens. Even without the modern focusing motors.

Because of the crop sensor on the D500 the lens is already at the equivalent of a 180-450mm. I purchased a Sigma 1.4 teleconverter for the lens but it did not pair nice with my copy. It is my understanding the converter works well with the newer version (l read that in this forum back around 2008 I think) on a D300.

If your intent is sports the D500 should be nice with the 120 - 300. However I am not sure the Sigma with a 1.4 teleconverter will be as sharp through the complete range as the 200-500. My old copy of the lens (with out a teleconverter) was wonderful on the D600 sensor. I know the newer edition has better technology in terms of lens coatings and the like. I think it can likely handle the pixel density of the D500 but would want to rent a copy before spending that kind of money.

Sorry for the long reply. I really liked the lens and miss it. It was almost like a friend.




D600 and 120-300. Hand held, I was only there once likely should have taken the time for a monopod or tripod.

 

[Kris in CT]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

I had the OS version before the sport about 5 years ago. It was my first "expensive" big lens. Here is a gallery to give you an idea of the 120-300 with and without TC mostly on a D7100 if I recall correctly.. It was only my 2nd year of photography so some of them are rough by my standards today... https://flic.kr/s/aHsjLi5qJa

I much prefer my 300 F2.8 DII as it is sharper and lighter. I don't use VR when I shoot and I also don't need zoom.

 

[TommyK]

I have this combo and I love it! I shoot a lot of rugby and the equivalent 450mm from the crop sensor is really great for this. Also, the ability to zoom means I don’t miss the shot when they score a try at the end I’m standing. Here is one of my recent galleries using this setup;

https://www.sportdxb.com/Pro-Rugby/Hong-Kong-7s-2018/

Highly recommended

 

[cosmicnode]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

I had the original version of this lens used on a D200 and D2x and it was stunning. very good with the 1.4X but not good with the 2X convertor. I really wish I still had it. I would prefer it to the 70-200 F2.8 for sports, it's heavy same weight as my 200-400 f4





















--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 

[tdwesbo]

I shot a college football game with one on my D3. It was the last generation model. Focus was fast and accurate and the zoom range on FX was perfect for a football field. On DX you would have a touch more reach would would be nice.

It’s really a great lens and is priced pretty well.

 

[mikephotos23]

I’m not the OP but do appreciate the feedback and samples, some very fine samples I should add. I’m considering adding this lens to my arsenal as there are times the 400 2.8 is just too long and the 70-200 too short, this would fill in nicely and the zoom for field sports, a plus. I was considering the Nikon 300 2.8 but the zoom flexibility when taking a break from the 400 sounds good. I’ll be watching this thread for more photos, keep me coming.

Mike

 

[S I]

I got a used 120-300 sports a few months ago and used it with my D500. The focus feels a bit slower and less accurate than what I am used to with my 70-200 and 150-600 C, but that obviously is subjective. Image quality is quite good, even with the new 1.4 TC. (I occasionally use the old 2.0 TC with it, subjectively I would say the 150-600 edges it out a bit in terms of quality, but packing a TC takes a lot less room than an extra lens so I will use it in a pinch.)

Here is a shot of a tiger through blooming flowers, wide open: Tiger

I have a few other examples on flickr, and some in combination with a shiny new D850.

E: Can't get the image to embed, so linked it.

 

[Ruekon]

Thank you for your overwhelming feedback and the impressive samples! The large number of different uses underline the flexibility of this lens. Looks like a hidden champion: the perfect lens for outdoor sports and for impressive bokeh. Along with tele converter also well suited for birding -- with 1.4x TC reaching 560mm f/4, i.e. all focus points of the D500 should still be in full operation.

I think I found my new object of desire!

(But seeing your samples, I do also think that I should first work on my shooting ability before deserving this lens.)

 

[tdwesbo]

Keep in mind it is a big log of a lens. You'll look like you're getting ready to repair a battleship when you show up with this thing. It also gets heavier as you use it

 

[MareishMedia]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

This is a favorite lens of sports photographers particularly my sport of equestrian and especially the newest sports version. One of the reasons I have a hard time finding a decent used one to buy. Ha ha. Yes it’s heavy but anything with this kind of reach is going to be heavy. Not something I would put a TC on since that always softens the images but to each their own.

I do wish there were other options in this zoom range. I have to believe that it is possible to get a better image than with this lens but no competition.

 

[Rich Rosen]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

I’m a little late to the party, but I can’t help giving my 2 cents about this lens. For examples, a number sports photos in my dPreview gallery, have been taken with my 120-300 2.8 Sport (latest model). Also on my Flickr website, all of my lacrosse pictures, have been taken with the Sigma and the D500. When I first got it, I was somewhat of a novice shooting sports, so I appreciated its ability to zoom. But at this point shooting sports, the zoom is no longer as important as it once was. I use 300mm a very good percentage of the time. So like Kris in Ct, said, I don’t really have a need for a zoom. But I keep the Sigma, because I still find it to be a great lens. It’s a sharp lens. It Auto focuses pretty fast, keeping a player running towards you in focus...with the D500. I’ve also used it with the D810 where my keeper rate with that camera was lower. With both cameras, however, the lens performed admirably. Minuses: it’s heavy. 71/2 lbs. I need to use a monopod with it, when shooting sports. When rotating the rig from horizontal to vertical, my lens in its tripod foot is not smooth. Using its VR (called OS) is noticeable when it cuts in. It isn’t as smooth as Nikon’s. Fortunately, I shoot at shutter speeds that doesn’t require stabilization. Positives: there several settings for both AF and Stabilzation. With the Sigma docking station, you can fine tune focus several focal lengths. It takes time...a lot of time. However it’s better than Nikon’s one focal length tune. Both it’s focusing ring and zoom have a smooth action. However the ring zooms in opposite direction of Nikon lenses. Not a big deal once you get used to it. It’s a very reliable performer. Is Nikon 300 2.8 prime sharper than the Sigma 120-300 2.8? Never used the Nikon ( I should rent it for comparison), but most primes are sharper than most zooms. But the last time I checked prices between the two lenses, the Nikon was about $1200 more than the Sigma. You have to decide whether that price difference is worth there difference in image quality. Kris feels it is. I’m not sure.

 

[Kris in CT]

There are many discussion threads about the Nikon 200-500, 70-300 or SigTam 100-400, 150-600. But there is hardly any talk about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. This lens offers an equivalent of 180-450 f/4 for DX -- up to 630 f/5.6 with 1.4x teleconverter -- similar to the latest and greatest Nikon tele lens when used with FX.

A recent thread (D500 & "playing with light" FX style) motivates the usefulness of large apertures in a tele lens.

What do you think about a 120-300 f/2.8 for the D500?

I’m a little late to the party, but I can’t help giving my 2 cents about this lens. For examples, a number sports photos in my dPreview gallery, have been taken with my 120-300 2.8 Sport (latest model). Also on my Flickr website, all of my lacrosse pictures, have been taken with the Sigma and the D500. When I first got it, I was somewhat of a novice shooting sports, so I appreciated its ability to zoom. But at this point shooting sports, the zoom is no longer as important as it once was. I use 300mm a very good percentage of the time. So like Kris in Ct, said, I don’t really have a need for a zoom. But I keep the Sigma, because I still find it to be a great lens. It’s a sharp lens. It Auto focuses pretty fast, keeping a player running towards you in focus...with the D500. I’ve also used it with the D810 where my keeper rate with that camera was lower. With both cameras, however, the lens performed admirably. Minuses: it’s heavy. 71/2 lbs. I need to use a monopod with it, when shooting sports. When rotating the rig from horizontal to vertical, my lens in its tripod foot is not smooth. Using its VR (called OS) is noticeable when it cuts in. It isn’t as smooth as Nikon’s. Fortunately, I shoot at shutter speeds that doesn’t require stabilization. Positives: there several settings for both AF and Stabilzation. With the Sigma docking station, you can fine tune focus several focal lengths. It takes time...a lot of time. However it’s better than Nikon’s one focal length tune. Both it’s focusing ring and zoom have a smooth action. However the ring zooms in opposite direction of Nikon lenses. Not a big deal once you get used to it. It’s a very reliable performer. Is Nikon 300 2.8 prime sharper than the Sigma 120-300 2.8? Never used the Nikon ( I should rent it for comparison), but most primes are sharper than most zooms. But the last time I checked prices between the two lenses, the Nikon was about $1200 more than the Sigma. You have to decide whether that price difference is worth there difference in image quality. Kris feels it is. I’m not sure.

 

[Rich Rosen]

My Sport has not had any reliability issues. I haven’t really researched stats on its reliability, because it has worked so well.