Your insite on these please:Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8

[mike w]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I cant find it if it has.

 

I would like to upgrade to some faster lenses for nature photography, birds and

the like I'm not a pro but I am serous about my pictures.

 

I'm looking to get a 300 2.8 but first I'd like to here some opinions on these

two. Also using them with 1.4 and 2x teleconverters

 

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF HSM

 

NIKON 300mm 2.8 D lens, AF-S

 

I'm also considering a 400 2.8 in the future. with the teleconverters as well.

My thinking is 2.8 with the tele's will be more versatile than a 500 or 600 f4.

 

Thanks for your help with my ramblings

Mike

 

oh yea I use a D-100 for now will upgrade that later too.

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

OK I have been raving about the 120-300 for a while so here is my take on it, I'm a sports photographer not a bird guy so my take is from another angle but this may help.

 

This is one of only two Sigmas I currently own the other is a 10-20.

 

Pros:

 

1/ Build is excellent

 

2/ HSM is really quick on D2H & X and pretty good on the D200.

 

3/ Image quality is first rate

 

4/ Team it with the Sigma APO 1.4 and it works really well, haven't tried it with any other convertors or the 2x.

 

5/ You can hand hold but not for too long, I've been pretty sick so I only use it with a mono now until I get my stregth back.

 

6/ Sharp at 2.8 but really nice from f4

 

7/ Price, I think it goes for around $2200us I paid nearly $4000AU for mine. You won't find a cheaper 300 2.8.

 

8/ IT'S A 300 2.8 THAT YOU CAN ZOOM there is nothing really in this class to compare against, baring maybe the 200-400 nikor(no comparison right).

 

9/ bokeh is nice and silky

 

Cons

 

1/ make sure you get the DG version or you'll be handing over another $150 or so to get the ts41 foot as the older one is hopeless. (too close)

 

2/ No rear drop in filter which means mega bucks buying 105mm filters I think the Sigma UV starts at about $150 and the big brands are even more.

 

3/ I don't think it's a true 300 more like 285 but thats ok with me given I can zoom, I'll live with it.

 

4/ Some samples seem to have front or back focus issues, mine doesn't and the guy from Sigma said it's just a recalibration if it did.

 

5/ It's a big lens and you need to have a good technique to get the best out of it.

 

6/ The hood is well made and fits nicely but could be a bit longer, although i have not had any flare issues.

 

7/ Stick VR into this and it would be perfect.

 

I use this lens for pretty much all sports including Soccer, Hockey, MX and the like and for sports it's pretty darn good.

 

I don't shot wildlife or birds but I guess it'd be just as good, reading here though most bird guys tend to go for the big primes.

 

I don't often use my 70-200 nikor any more, even though I'd never part with it, as the 120-300 covers my distance requirements better and I tend to hang 28-70 off my second body. I do however use the 70-200 more for hockey as we don't have glass down here and sometimes you need to duck pretty quickly, the 120-300 is too heavey for that also when I need VR.

 

Overall image quality is on par with the 70-200 and just slightly behind the 300 prime but not enough to worry my customers it definately produces pro images and I won't be parting with this lens anytime soon. Unless a VR or Nikor version comes out thats better.

 

Hope that helps email me if you need any other specifics.

 

Regards

Mark

[david_duffy1]

I have used this lens to shoot bald eagles and some sports (mainly soccer, baseball and hockey) for about 2 years now, first using an F100 and D100 and now using a D200 only. I made the mistake of getting a 2x teleconverter. Don't! The 2x hunts like you wouldn't believe. I've heard the 1.4 is pretty good.

 

As Mark has pointed out it is a really good lens. It is the only non-Nikon lens I own. Overall I love it but if I had $5K I'd get the 200-400 in a heartbeat.

 

My ONLY complaint about it is that you have to turn in the opposite direction of Nikon lenses in order to zoom. It takes a while to get used to. This can be problematic with sports but with bald eagles I'm always shooting at 300mm anyway so it doesn't matter.

 

Bottom line: I love this lens and don't regret for a second buying it.

 

I don't have any eagle or sports shots online right now but feel free to e-mail me if you'd like a sample.

 

David

[mike w]

Thanks Guys,

I'm seriously considering the Sigma and your input has me leaning in that direction even more than before.

 

Mike

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

See if you can rent one from somewhere, I think once you try it you'll like it.