Nikon 200-400 f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8 vs Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

[robertbanks]

<p>I need a bit more reach for my runway fashion shots and am considering the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. </p>

<p>Here's my situation:</p>

<p>My most used lens is my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII which gives me great results, but on long catwalks on my D3s I would need to crop too much to fill the frame with the model when they are at the far end of the catwalk, and that would not be acceptable for my magazine clients. I often have to shoot the models at the far end so that the shot looks more central than it really is because I'm not lucky/important enough to be on the centerline of the catwalk (yet!).</p>

<p>On previous occasions I have hired a 300mm f/2.8 and a 200-400mm f/4 for these situations.</p>

<p>I loved the 300, amazingly sharp results, but the lack of flexibility was a little restrictive for getting shots further down the runway. </p>

<p>I found the 200-400 a bit awkward to use - very big for the restricted space you get at the large fashion shows, and invariably I'm up a 3-step or 5-step ladder too. It was my first time using it, but I was slightly disappointed by the results I got in terms of sharpness and I had increased the ISO in order to get a faster shutter speed so they were also noisier than the images from the other lenses (they still got published though ;).</p>

<p>The 200mm end is still a bit long for the closer shots, but 400mm is the ideal length for the far-end shots, however 300mm cropped can also work, so I've been looking at the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. But what I don't know is how it compares to the 200-400 or the 70-200 in terms of image quality. I'm hoping it might be somewhere in the middle or closer to the 70-200, in which case I would probably go for it. If it does not compare favourably I will probably go for the 300mm and live with the restriction for the superior results.</p>

<p>So, can anyone advise on what sort of results I might expect from the Sigma? I have actually found somewhere that I can rent one from for next fashion week, but maybe someone can preempt me wasting my time/money?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>(of course what I really need is a 18mp-ish D4 ;-)</p>

<div></div>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>That shot looks great. Have you considered a teleconverter on the 70-200, assuming there's enough light and/or you can raise the ISO to compensate for the light loss without driving up your noise levels too much. Haven't used the Sigma but one thing I would look at in addition to sharpness is AF speed compared to the Nikon lenses.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Have you considered the D7000? That will give you a relatively inexpensive 300mm FOV with your current lens.</p>

[edchambers]

<p>I am going to go with both Craig and Elliot. I use both a D700 FULL FRAME and, a D300s CROP SENSOR as a back up and an essential 1.5 teleconverter. If I need more reach, I use a 1.7 teleconverter. Have you considered these options? This way you get to keep your glass and have plan A B and C options with zoom choices and options depending on your circumstance du jour. Happy Shooting! :-) I hope this helps.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 to shoot sports and have had zero problems with the AF not being fast enough to track moving subgects. My lens is good at f/2.8 and stellar from 3.2 on.<br>

I find the lens to have very good color and contrast and it is very well built.<br>

In full disclosure I must say that I have the older version of the 100-300 and not the newer one with VR<br>

Shot this with the 120-300 f/3.5<br>

<a href="

[thomas_lozinski]

<p>I have been using the 120-300 OS and really have been getting great results. Even at f2.8 it is sharp, focuses fast, has a really nice feel to it too. The only thing time I do not really like the results is when I put a 2x teleconverter on. Also, one minor drawback (more of an annoyance) is that the zoom changes inadvertenly just through handling of the lens. . . I want to be all the way zoomed in and afterward see I was shooting at 250mm because I turned the zoom probably while picking it up/putting it down.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I use both the Nikon 200-400 and the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 DG. The 120-300 images are sharp and have really nice bokeh which can be desirable when shooting people. The 200-400 is really great for shooting flying birds and close-ups. </p>

[robertbanks]

<p>Thanks for the responses, guys.<br>

<br /><br />Michael, good to hear of the Sigma's AF response. I used to own a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (earlier model) and actually think it may have been faster focusing than my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR1, but then I did have an unfortunate accident with the Nikon one week after buying it and maybe it was not properly fixed (hence traded in for the VR2).<br>

<br /><br />Craig/Ed - I do have a 1.4 teleconverter, but I've only used it once. Admittedly it was at a badly lit amateur fashion show but I've been put off using it again after what it did to my 70-200's IQ, and I just don't want to compromise. In any case, even if I used a teleconverter I would still have to buy/rent another lens to keep on the spare body (another D3s), but I guess in this case it could be another 70-200 which is at least cheaper than the other options (the spare body has to be ready to shoot immediately without swapping lenses in case of failure of the primary, even stooping down to pick up the spare camera can lose me a whole look if the show is fast). Maybe I will try the converter again though - the 1.4 gets me close to my goal and I can borrow a 1.7 from a friend.<br>

<br /><br />Elliot - I did look at the D7000 when it came out. But it just does not have the pro features I've got used to. For example battery life - admittedly I do over shoot but I can end up with almost 1000 images after a 20min show, and then its running to the next venue to shoot again, on the busiest days 9 shows a day. With my D3s I only need to swap batteries once per day in practice (I generally alternate between the 2 cameras). I end up with about 35k shots after 6 days.<br>

I would also be wary of the lower number of cross-type focus points, and the lower fps (my third back-up camera is a D3x and I used it once as an experiment and it slowed me down too much, I could probably adapt my shooting style but I like to have the option if a show gets congested and as I get more tired, its insurance ;). Also shutter life: my D3s's are about 1 year old and 1y 4m old respectively and have shutter counts of 85k and 115k already.<br>

I am quite harsh on my kit in the heat of the battle, I do wonder if the D7000 body could cope with all the knocks. I've even had one of my D3s's go weird on me once, I think I pushed it too hard and it was fine after a rest :).<br /><br /><br>

Anyway, I think I have an outline plan for next season:<br /><br /><br>

- Try my 1.4 converter again with the 70-200, and also borrow a 1.7 converter. <br>

- Rent the Sigma too since I think its worth a look and I need 2 long lenses anyway.<br>

<br /><br />Depending on how this kit works out I might just be getting another 70-200 and maybe a 1.7 tele, or the Sigma, or the 300 f/2.8 (which I secretly want to buy anyway for other uses :).<br>

<br />Cheers,<br>

Rob</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

If the D7000 doesn't work for you, then why not a D300s? You can get a refurbished unit for around $1300, which (as

others have said) is much cheaper and lighter than any of the lenses you mentioned. The D300s has pro features and (as

far as I know) the same 51-point focus system as the FX pro cameras. It's spec'd for a high shutter life, and can go at 8

fps. I think borrowing to test out is worth it before dropping the money on the new lens. And if you think the D300s is old

news, you can always wait for its replacement. I have a D300s now and I'm looking to get a used D700 within the next

year for the low light event stuff I want to do, and switching from FX to DX (along with purchasing a 1.7x) is how I plan to

get more reach.

[edchambers]

<p>Ken, <br />You have described exactly the system I use. Please note to obtain the faster 8 FPS you will need the optional battery pack. Having two top of line FX and DX cameras does wonders for optional choices and maximizing opportunities on the fly.</p>

[kenneth_cortland]

<p>Hello Ed,</p>

<p>For sure...I actually have the MB-D10 battery pack and love it. It balances the weight of the heavy lenses very well, and the fps rate is wonderful. So if the OP goes the D300s route and wants the 8 fps, he'll have to spend the extra $225 for the grip. But for the runway events he's working on, I think the fps without the grip is good. I shoot some fashion shows (although not the high-end events for magazines like Rob) in RAW+Basic and can get 15 shots off and at a very high rate before the buffer gets full.</p>

<p>I'm really looking forward to the setup once I get the D700. My only issue now is whenever I get a D700, I'll have to get the 24-70 and sell the 17-55 DX lens I have (which is remarkable)! </p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>When he gets the grip, he'll also want to spend the extra 34usd for at least one BL-3 cap so he can use his current EN-EL4 batteries in it.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>I highly recommend getting the 200-400 for use with a long catwalk, the AF and IQ IMHO by far trumps that of a 70-200 with TC ( no experience with the VRII version), let alone a Sigma 120-300 (judging on pictures I saw shot with that lens from the same show, although with a Canon body)</p>

<p>Don't let the maximum aperture of f4 scare you away, with the high ISO capacities of the D3S even shooting under non optimal conditions is still very well possible</p>

<p>This is what I did with a D3 (yep the old one) and a 200-400 VR I (yep, another oldie) under ideal light<br /> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20110629_amfi<br /> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20110610_fashion_clash</p>

<p>with not so ideal light<br /> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20110617_kabk_den_haag</p>

<p>and just plain bad light (very artistic, but constantly varying between very strongly lit, heavy backlit and heavily underlit)<br /> http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20110618_academie_antwerpen</p>

<p>(some were also shot with a 2.8/80-200 AFD, the second version of that venerable old lens, on a D3)</p>

<p><br /> I didn't use the VR of the 200-400 as it's kind of broken down on my lens due to a long period shooting surf with it in the pouring rain combined with heavy salt sea water spray without a rain cover. As I don't really need it I haven't taken the trouble yet to get it fixed (probably corossion on an electronic part of the VR)</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>I've never shot runway fashion, but a lot of sports and concerts and in my opinion the Sigma 120-300 isn't up to the quality of Nikons 200 and 300mm offerings (don't know the 200-400VR).<br>

My old AF 300/2.8 (screwdriver-AF) was sharper than the Sigma, and field-of-view and „brightness” (actual light-transmission) suggest the assumption that the Sigma is rather a 3.2/285mm at the long end. <br>

With and especially without TC14E my 200/2VR is also a good bit sharper than the Sigma.<br>

The 120-300mm range is very useful, though.</p>

[karen_von_knobloch]

<p>I use the 70 to 200mm VRll religiously with the latest 2X teleconvertor on my D300S...yes it does make the minimum F5.6 but does very well for me with my nature photography. The Nikon TC-20E lll was meant to work with the 70 to 200 VRll. I would rent it and give it a try with your lens.</p>

<h1></h1>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Can you work with two bodies/lens or simply not practical? Can you rent the 120-300 and see for yourself? </p>

[andy_chubb]

<p>Rob,<br>

hi - my question would be: if you get the 120-300 lens, what are you going to do with the 70-200? I've a D700 and use the 70-200 a lot for sport. I'd love a 300 2.8 but can only afford to rent one when needed. It is fab for sports and gets you close into the action at athletics etc and I swap over to the 70-200 (physically as I only have 1 good low-light body) when needed. If you have got 2 bodies and enough cash, I wouldn't hesitate on getting a 300 to go with the 70-200 and swap over when needed. The 120-300 looks an attractive option but a) is it as good; b) what to do with the 70-200? Let us know how you get on - I still can't afford the 300 2.8 but the sigma is only half the price so if it performs well enough.......[for my own needs I can see me getting a decent DX body at some point to put my 70-200 on and so stop the need to rent the 300 - I only have a D80 as a back-up and it just doens't work for a lot of the indoor stuff I do, living in the sunny north of England =:~)]<br>

rgds<br>

andyc</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

I think your observation about the high quality of the 300/2.8 images solves the problem. Use two bodies, one with 70-200

and the other with 300/2.8. I think the problem with the 200-400 may be related to hand holding a very long and front heavy lens while on a ladder (if I understood correctly). Go for high quality and impress your clients :-)

 

Two D3s's and a D3X? Drool.

[robertbanks]

<p>more suggestions coming in...thanks all for taking the time. I'm reading them all with interest.</p>

<p>Paul K - superb images. Leads me to think my inexperience with the 200-400 may have been (as I suspected) the problem (although its still monster to use;)</p>

<p>BTW the lenses are not hand-held, they are on monopods, and no its not possible to use 2 bodies for the same walk - there is just no time to swap. The second body is if the first fails.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Rob </p>

 

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Nothing to help the OP but I just wanted to say that this is a really interesting thread.... I've been checking it all day as it progresses....</p>

<p>I also got to say that I really like Ilkka's closing statement... :)</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Out of interest, if you crop your images why won't the clients accept them? Is it a real concern about quality, or are they just counting pixels? If the latter you could try one of the fancy 'fractal' enlargement programs that would let you crop and then rescale back up to full size so the client wouldn't notice.</p>

[paul_g9]

<blockquote>

<p>Elliot - I did look at the D7000 when it came out. But it just does not have the pro features I've got used to. For example battery life - admittedly I do over shoot but I can end up with almost 1000 images after a 20min show, and then its running to the next venue to shoot again, on the busiest days 9 shows a day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Concerning the battery life in a D7000, I get easily over 1,500 shots with a LOT of chimping on a single charge. I've managed to push it over 2,000 once. So with a grip and spare battery you're looking at well over 3,500 shots and maybe as high as 4,000. </p>

<p>I'd say the biggest downside of a D7000 for you would probably be the buffer size. In raw it starts to slow down around 11-12 shots which sounds too limiting for you.</p>

 

[thomas_lozinski]

<p>I've assembled a small gallery of shots taken with the sigma 120-300 OS here:<br>

<br />Those are all shot on a D7000. I agree that the battery life on the D7000 should be sufficient for anything, you can always toss an extra battery in your bag/pocket if you're paranoid. Regarding the buffer size, it is small, but those UHS 1 cards that it can use really take care of that problem, you can write to them at 45mb/s giving you about 2fps after the buffer fills up (raw.) If you're shooting jpg it shouldn't be a problem at all.</p>

[robertbanks]

<p>Ed - re pixels - I think they have just got used to them being a certain size, but I guess they base it on being able to print a full page from one image if required (but I'm sure they would ask for TIFFs in that case). Some (like Vogue) have a spec they give you. Actually I would rather not crop at all, mainly to save time, since I shoot all day and then have to pick/edit/export/upload my way through a few thousand images all night to deliver the images by that evening or the next day. Although I might have an assistant next season to help with this :), don't think there is time to run the images through an up-sizer! Lightroom just about manages to keep up. Although a lot of images end up on websites I only make 2 sets available to clients, one 72dpi and one 300dpi, but both the same size, as large as possible, and I let the clients resize to suit, again to save time (well, vogue.co.uk get special treatment because its good to have your work on their site ;)</p>

<p>Rene - glad you're enjoying the thread! ;) 2 D3s's and a D3x is quite modest on the pro fashion scene really when you see some of the kit being brandished around ;)</p>

[photom]

<p>Get a 36MP Canon or Nikon when it comes out. Then crop the 70-200 as needed.</p>

<p>Now do you know why they are talking about the advantage of a 36MP camera?</p>