| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Anyone used the sigma 120-300 f2.8 with the D3s?
Ed Chan, Photographer
 |
San Diego | CA | US | Posted: 11:25 PM on 03.07.11 |
->> Hi All!
Anyone used the Siggy 120-300 f2.8 with the D3s? I'm curious how well the AF works in low light.
Thanks if anyone can provide some guidance! |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 8:44 AM on 03.08.11 |
| ->> I'm sure you'll get varied answers, but I used to use the 120-300 with my D3 (not D3s) and I say it struggled in poor light. Now I'm comparing that to the Nikkor 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. I was never too impressed with my 120-300. The range was perfect for many things, but I never was happy with the sharpness. With that said I've seen some shooters that use put out wonderful stuff using it, so it is capable, but AF is certainly not as the above mentioned lens. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 9:20 AM on 03.08.11 |
->> I have used the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for night HS field sports for eight years ... mine is the original version with the aperture ring (remember those things?) ... the current version is supposed to be a little better with AF ... I have used it with D1H, D2H, D100, D200 and now the D300 ...
I will whole heartedly agree the AF is not on par with the the most recent Nikon offerings ... but mine has been a solid performer ... not to mention, with the D300, D700 and D3 ... you have the ability to fine tune focus ... I love the lens especially for soccer when the action moves in close, you can still get head-to-toe coverage without switching to a second body ...
If you can't afford a Nikon 300 /2.8 ... Others will disagree as there seems to be a love it or hate it feeling about the lens, I think the Sigma is a cost-effective compromise ... YMMV ... |
|
Michael Chang, Photographer
|
Robertsdale | AL | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 03.08.11 |
->> I use it with a D3s and a Sigma 1.4tc.
It definately performs well in low light. Definately worse than a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8, but that's expected.
Here's a recent shot with it in low light (toward the end I had to go up to 12,800 ISO!)
http://www.michaelchangphotography.com/Sports/Daphne-Girls-Soccer |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 5:44 PM on 03.08.11 |
->> Michael:
How much post-processing did you have to do? |
|
Michael Chang, Photographer
|
Robertsdale | AL | USA | Posted: 5:48 PM on 03.08.11 |
->> Since I began shooting sports, I shoot jpg to minimize post-processing.
However, the lights I shot in cycled so bad I had to spend a considerable amount of time getting the white balance correct.
Other than that, I just cropped and sharpened a little bit more. |
|
Gregory Greene, Photographer
|
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 8:56 PM on 03.08.11 |
->> I'm really hoping that the new version with OS and weather
seals gets good reviews for AF and sharpness. With Canon
pricing their super telephotos beyond reach it would be an
awfully nice option to have at "only" $3200. Heck I don't
even need edge to edge sharpness as I'll be shooting with
a 1.3x crop body but accurate fast AF is a must. |
|
Ed Chan, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | US | Posted: 5:55 PM on 03.10.11 |
->> Thanks for the assistance guys! Appreciate the input.
- Ed |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|