nikon 70-300 vs sigma 120 - 400

[evannorth]

<p>i was thinking of changing my nikon 70-300 ed vr for a sigma 120-400 os. the reason being, i would like a little more reach, plus, the tripod mount on the sigma seems like a good idea, (cannot fit one to the nikon). <br>

i was wondering how they compare re image quality at the long end. (my copy of the nikon is great at 300mm, f8-f11 in good light).<br>

also, i have heard that the sigma is not a true 400mm, particularly at near-medium distance. some say it is closer to 385mm for some strange reason.<br>

would it be worthwhile getting the sigma? most other 400mm lenses are either poor quality or way over my budget. (i will not consider a longer lens as portability is an issue).</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>Have the 70-300 and tried the Sigma. Image quality was pretty good but the weight of the lens killed it for me, almost 2-1/2 times the weight of the Nikkor. Image quality was pretty good, about the same as the Nikkor. OS worked well. One nice feature is is one they don't advertise, that being the shape of the mounting foot is the dovetail like the Arca Swiss mounts and an adapter isn't needed for that kind of tripod head.</p>

[cindygillespie]

<p>Evan.... I learned the hard way with lenses. I have tried Tamaron and Sigma both at different times with different lenses. I much prefer Nikkor / Nikon glass ... the clarity and performance exceeds 2nd market lenses every time . Just my opinion of course.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>I go for the nikon if i was you .I have tried tamaron and Sigma was not happy with them so I buy only .for my D700 & D800 </p>

[evannorth]

<p>thanks all. i forgot to mention i already own the 70-300vr and used to own the sigma 135-400. the lack of os and size/weight was a drawback so i got rid. sometimes i wondered if i did the right thing. i think i will stick with the nikon until i win the lottery and get the 500mm f2.8 vr and 1.7tc, (in my dreams)!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I don't think you can rule out all third party lenses based on experiences with a few. Some of them are duds, some are winners. E.g., if you didn't already own the Nikon 70-300 I'd be telling you the Tamron equivalent is just as good (or better) and less money, and some of the Sigma lenses like the 17-70 are also as good as the nearest Nikon and cost less.</p>

<p>That said, you'd have to try the Sigma lens for yourself and see whether you like it. From reviews it looks like it might not be as sharp as your 70-300 and might have a bit less center sharpness at 300mm but it does go longer. On balance it might not be worth the extra cost. Nikon also makes an 80-400mm but it's not going to impress at the long end.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I had the Nikon 70-300 VR and traded it in for the Sigma 120-400 OS. I had just gone through an upgrade of all my lenses, from a Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4 to a Tamron 17-50 VC, added the Sigma 50-150 OS and found it cut into the 70-300, so went to the longer focal length of the Sigma 120-400. My copy of the Nikon was great, sharp even out to 300. I also find the Sigma to be great, but definitely much heavier. Here are a couple of quick samples, both on a tripod.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>And this one.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>And another hand held.</p><div></div>

[evannorth]

<p>yes, the 120mm shots look pretty good, the 400mm shot is nothing special, but why wide open? looks like it may be no better than the 135-400. not that it was a bad lens, just mediocre at the long end. <br>

also, for the amount of use i would get at the long end i may give it a rethink and go for a second d7000 instead.<br>

thanks to all, evan.</p>

[tord_s_eriksson]

<p>I had the 120-400 which is excellent at the wide end, not that good in the long! Switched to 150-500 which was far better around 400, but quit a beast to carry around, so I sold them off, and reverted to V1 and AF-S 70-300 VR, a perfect combination, equaling a 200-800 lens, with VR, on my D600. That lens, although fairly modest in price, is a gem!</p>

<p>I usually use a modest fixed focal length on the D600, between 24-50, a 85/1.8 on my D3200, and the 70-300 on the V1. Thus equipped I'm ready for just anything, but it happens that I swap the lenses around - for birds in flight the V1 is not ideal, so then I sometimes put the 70-300 on the D3200, or on the D600.</p>

<p>Tamron's new 70-200/2.8, with VR, sounds something I might buy in the future, but no more cameras for a long while (I used to be a Pentax guy) - I have a lot to learn!</p>

[evannorth]

<p>i did give the v1 plus adapter and my 70-300vr.some thought, 810mm with vr sounds great. the mono/tripod mount on the adapter looks handy too.<br>

i suppose if i put an eye piece/loupe on the viewing screen to eliminate reflection it would make a decent spotting scope and camera. <br>

how many f stops would i lose? also, do you have any available images with this set up?</p>

[starshooter]

<p>I would not knock third party lenses per se. I made a pretty good living for many years using mostly third party lenses. I am now enlarging some of my images from the 1960s and 1970s to 16x20 for a gallery showing and I have one photo of the Beatles taken with a 105mm f2.5 Spiratone preset lens that is just a knockout. The photo was taken with the lens wide open.</p>