Nikon AF-S 300 f4 vs sigma 120-300 f2.8 NO os (1 Viewer)

[jjaw]

Hello.
Apologies if there is already a thread covering this, but I couldn't see anything quite like this with a search.

I shoot a nikon d7000 and have been wanting to upgrade my 70-300 f4-5.6G (the very first G-generations, as far as I know) for something a little better for a while.

The things that have really caught my eye are the nikon 300 f/4 AF-S (for ca. £700, but new) and the sigma 120-300 f2.8 (the non OS version, for ca £1000 used).

For the nikon I have read nothing but praise regarding the sharpness, only issue seems to be the tripod collar PLUS it is a lot cheaper, so much so that I could possibly get a TC 14II with it, for the same price as the Sig.

The sigma, well it is f2.8.... I have heard the OS version has amazing optics, but I frankly cannot splash out another ~£300 for it, but I am not sure what the word on the optics of this lens is.

Assuming weight is not an issue (I don't mind carrying, and if necessary 'learning' to handhold the heavier sigma/or I'll be using a tripod anyway), I was wondering if anyone can give me any advice on how the two lenses fair against each other and give me some good advice where to put my money between the two.

Thanks! =)

JJAW

 

[opticoholic]

jjaw,
I cannot tell you anything about the Sigma, but I have the 300 f/4 AF-S and I've been very pleased with it. If you're mostly shooting birds, you would almost never use the short end of the Sigma zoom. The 300 AF-S is a proven performer and I think it's a great value. I think before long this lens will be replaced by something much more expensive but probably not that much better in optical quality. If you get it, consider getting the Kirk collar: http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_300mm_f4_AFS.html I also got a Kirk monopod head and security strap and I like both.

--Dave

 

[mark richards]

I had both these lenses, also with D7000, the sigma is a beast of a lens, for tripod or monopod only, a very heavy lens...I decided on the 300mm afs much more portable a very sharp lens,I think that the collar problem was with the very first lenses, mine is the original
one and i have no problems with it, about four years old now, auto focuses with both 1.4 or
1.7 converters , not so fast with the 1.7 converter.....the sigma was great with 1.4 or 2x
converter, if you decide on the sigma, then try before you buy..some do no perform very well, think its down to quality control by sigma....good luck..

 

[jjaw]

jjaw,
I cannot tell you anything about the Sigma, but I have the 300 f/4 AF-S and I've been very pleased with it. If you're mostly shooting birds, you would almost never use the short end of the Sigma zoom. The 300 AF-S is a proven performer and I think it's a great value. I think before long this lens will be replaced by something much more expensive but probably not that much better in optical quality. If you get it, consider getting the Kirk collar: http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_300mm_f4_AFS.html I also got a Kirk monopod head and security strap and I like both.

--Dave

I had both these lenses, also with D7000, the sigma is a beast of a lens, for tripod or monopod only, a very heavy lens...I decided on the 300mm afs much more portable a very sharp lens,I think that the collar problem was with the very first lenses, mine is the original
one and i have no problems with it, about four years old now, auto focuses with both 1.4 or
1.7 converters , not so fast with the 1.7 converter.....the sigma was great with 1.4 or 2x
converter, if you decide on the sigma, then try before you buy..some do no perform very well, think its down to quality control by sigma....good luck..

Thanks for the replies.
What really attracts me about the sigma is the 2.8 and the possibility to add a 2*tc and still retain all af ability.
That being said you say the 300/4 still autofocuses with the 1.7*

I have actually been contacted by someone who has the 120-300 and has offered me to try it, and who would be prepared to sell if I like it, so I'll go and have a look at that one soon and make up my mind :t:

 

[RMWD]

Mark,
the 300mm f4 is very light and slim by comparison to the Sigma. Both have excellent IQ and the Sigma has the zoom facility. Weight/size versus zoom range. Your choice.

One other factor is that the nikkor will be compatible with the Nikon V1 and is very good , but not sure about the Sigma.

 

[mpe]

While the Sigma is for sure a great lens optically thanks to its f/2.8 aperture I would suggest to look at another aspect which is minimum focal distance. The sigma can focus only from 2.5m at 300mm. The Nikon can do 1.5m. That could make a huge difference when shooting small birds.

 

[apbarr]

Mark,
the 300mm f4 is very light and slim by comparison to the Sigma. Both have excellent IQ and the Sigma has the zoom facility. Weight/size versus zoom range. Your choice.

One other factor is that the nikkor will be compatible with the Nikon V1 and is very good , but not sure about the Sigma.

The Sigma is compatible with the V1 even with the 2x Sigma converter attached, great for close up video and the zoom comes into it's own when used for video work.
The choice really comes down to a lighter weight lens which gives a 500mm f6.3/7.2 with the 1.7x converter or a much heavier 240-600mm f5.6 with the 2x converter. There won't be much of a price difference when converters are included.

 

[mark richards]

The Sigma is compatible with the V1 even with the 2x Sigma converter attached, great for close up video and the zoom comes into it's own when used for video work.
The choice really comes down to a lighter weight lens which gives a 500mm f6.3/7.2 with the 1.7x converter or a much heavier 240-600mm f5.6 with the 2x converter. There won't be much of a price difference when converters are included.

yep!! does work on V1 tried it, but didn't think that the quality was has good as the nikon 300mm AFS...mark

 

[jjaw]

Great discussion and cheers for the continuous info!
Met Alex (apbarr) yesterday, as he offered to sell me his 120-300. Picked up on the offer after handling it and quite liking it so far.
Only unlucky not to have seen much either at loch leven on the way home or on the river don today. But persistence is key as they say!

Mpe you mention min. focus distance, and hat one I agree on. But one always has to make some sacrifices when choosing one of multiple lenses.
I figured that, worst case, I can add an extension tube. I know I lose light and the ability to focus to infinity, but ultimately I wouldn't want to be focusing at infinity.
The weight isn't an issue for me as I usually have a tripod on me anyway and have become accustomed to carrying it all the time. Otherwise I find I can hand hold it, currently not for more than an hour of continuous shooting I reckon, but that is just a reason to spend more time exercising when I am not out and about or otherwise engaged.


Going to see if I can get some shots of the aberdeen beach sanderlings tomorrow