Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX vs Nikon AF Nikkor 300mm f2.8 AF-I EX

[pierre_levasseur]

<p>Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX vs Nikon AF Nikkor 300mm f2.8 AF-I EX.<br>

I've got a deal for the first one of these for 1400$ and the second for 2000$. Wich is the best value at that price?<br>

I'll usethe lense with teleconverter 1.4x and 2.0x.<br>

thanks</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have the Sigma. I can say that $1400 is a good price. The Sigma is built like a tank. My copy is sharp and has great color. AF is fast and accurate. Its a big heavy lens. I do not use it with any TC's. I use it to shoot sports and have had zero problems with it in almost three years of use.<br>

The big thing it has over the Nikkor is that it zooms.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>I have the nikon AF 300 2.8 and i love it very sharp lens,yes it is big and heavy, I will not buy sigma</p>

[chris_duim]

<p>I'll be very interested to see the response to your question, as I had posted one query prior on any feedback regarding the Sigma lens you are considering. To say the least, it was a mixed reaction and judging by the volume of the response to the my question before, the Sigma seems to have very few photographers who had tried it before.<br>

i still have not purchased the Sigma, as I had reservations about quality issues for Sigma in general. THe one experience I had with a Sigma (18-200 with OS) for my Nikon cropped sensor camera before had me experiencing back focus issues and communication problems with the camera. But my interest in the 120-300 continues as it looks to be a good lens for the focal length range I use, not to mention the not so pleasant prospect of lugging along a heavy Nikkor 300/2.8 prime attached to an already heavy D3s.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Nikkor 300/2.8 is considered one of the best gems in the Nikon collection. $1400 is less than 1/3rd the new price - get it. Sigma lenses are sometimes ok optically, but tend to fall down in build quality. If you need a zoom in this range, the Nikkor 200-400 is the one save up for.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>My Sigma 50-150 is a great lens, my Tokina 12-24 is a great lens, my Tamron 17-50 VR is a great lens, I have no problem what-so-ever going third party. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 HSM or 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 OS HSM (for the reach and stabilization) is on my list for the future.</p>

<p>(Edward, the Nikon he lists at $2000.)</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>the nikkor lens the OP is talking about is an AF-I version -- quite old at this point, and availability of parts for repairs is questionable. optically i'm sure it's just fine, while the sigma is a bit more chancy. still, i'd be more inclined to try the latter -- provided, of course, that i could return it if performance wasn't up to par.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>This was shot with the "sometimes ok optically" Sigma on a D300 with a PN11.<br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4446771702_30bf8ac3c2_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4446771702_30bf8ac3c2_o.jpg</a><br>

This was shot on a D700 with that same lens at a ISO of 12800.<br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/4209626121_423c229519_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/4209626121_423c229519_o.jpg</a><br>

I find it funny how people who have never used a lens can make comments about it. Sounds kind of like KR</p>

[samoksner]

<blockquote>

<p>This was shot with the "sometimes ok optically" Sigma on a D300 with a PN11.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4446771702_30bf8ac3c2_o.jpg" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4446771702_30bf8ac3c2_o.jpg</a><br />This was shot on a D700 with that same lens at a ISO of 12800.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/4209626121_423c229519_o.jpg" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/4209626121_423c229519_o.jpg</a><br />I find it funny how people who have never used a lens can make comments about it. Sounds kind of like KR</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you Michael for staying relevant to the OP's question and providing him for material that would help him in his decision. For my part, I will link to some images taken with the lens in question. <a href="http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Sigma%20Zooms/Sigma%20120-300mm%20f2.8%20EX%20DG%20HSM/">http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Sigma%20Zooms/Sigma%20120-300mm%20f2.8%20EX%20DG%20HSM/</a></p>

<p>While I can't say which is a better lens, I have often read that the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is as sharp as anybody could ever want at f2.8 at 300mm. As sharp as the Nikkor 300 2.8? maybe not, but it is sharper then the Sigma 300 f2.8 which I have used extensively. And that says a lot. Neither lens have VR, neither lens have blazingly fast AF-S, both have very good, fast AF. Both are very well built, and both are heavy enough. The sigma zooms out as well. That's it. The low price is a bonus. </p>

<p>I would take the Sigma anyday over the Nikon, but like I said, I do not have first hand experience, I'm just considering these based on specifications, reviews that I've read and images that I've seen.</p>

 

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

<p>Here is a bit of a review i wrote a while back.<br>

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.<br>

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

Pros:<br>

1/ Build is excellent<br>

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

3/ Image quality is first rate<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

6/ Sharp at 2.8 but really nice from f4<br>

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

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).<br>

9/ bokeh is nice and silky<br>

Cons<br>

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)<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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

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

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

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

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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

Regards Mark</p>

[chuanxiao_li1]

<p>I have the Sigma 120-300mm/Nikon 600mm AF-S stacked/Sync together since 2006 and taken bird picture at High Island every nesting period at weekend.<br>

This URL for the Stack<br>

http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00SVkQ</p>

<p>Sigma 120-300mm @ F2.8 is useless (3 time shipped to NY for F2.8 tuning). see this URL for my test:<br>

http://www.hcphoto.org/Cameras120300.jpg</p>

<p><> magazine mislead-ed my purchase. see my comparison for 300mm from magazine.<br>

http://www.hcphoto.org/POP300mm.JPG</p>

<p>Pro:<br>

1. F2.8 is much brighter than F4<br>

2. HSM fast<br>

3. Zoom is better than Primary<br>

4 Sharp at F8<br>

Cons:<br>

1. F2.8 useless<br>

2. Mechanical (turning from portrait to landscape) not smooth comparing to Nikon 600mm<br>

3. For the sharpness, scarifying the color. the image has no detail comparing to Nikon 600mm for sync images</p>

<p>Conclusion:<br>

Buy Nikon</p>

<p>(I am waiting for Nikon 100~500mm VR III, then sell my 120-300mm @ eBay)</p>

<p> </p>

[pier luigi chinellato]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have owned a sigma 120-300mm for 2 years and cannot recomend it more. I have now sustitute it with a 200-400mm but in respect I would loved to keep it. See some of my images to check taken with the sigma to confirm. Is it good built and solid. It is very sharp (please note that many people do not use proper long lens technique). I have used from time to time a 300mm Nikon and altought it is sharper at 2.8 at f4 the leses are equal. So the difference is on thezoon side. I actiually prefer a zoom. My pictures are taken in wild enviroment and not in zoo, therefore you need to accept the unexpected and in this sense a zoom would give the best flexibility.<br>

Hope it helps<br>

Pier</p>