Reading mode: Light Dark

Can someone give me the load down truth on this lens?

Go to last post
S

speedemon

Active member
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Location
Stockton, USA, CA, US
Does anyone have the true load down facts on this Sigma APO 100-300mm F4 EX DG HSM lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3273&navigator=3

I have looked around for a quality lens that covers this range and I kept looking at the NIKON AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED and this Sigma. I like the fact that the Sigma is a fixed aperture and a faster lens, but then I hear Sigma lens are junk and stay away. So has anyone used these two lens and how do they really compare, how is the true quality on this Sigma lens and is it worth buying?

Thanks
 
I suggest you have a look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

And may be even here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/220/cat/31

This is supposed to be one of Sigmas finest, it's rating at Fred Miranda confirms this: 9.5/10

I think those two lenses you are compairing are apple and oranges. The weight of the Sigma is twice the weight of the Nikkor 70-300VR. You gain a stop of speed at the long end, but you lose stabilization. I would think the 70-200/2.8+1.4 is more compairable. The 70-300 is really a nice lightweight zoom that you can carry around. It is not considered pro glass, but it is quite sharp especially at the short end:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=315&sort=7&cat=28&page=2

I used to own a Sigma zoom, the 10-20/4-5.6 and was quite happy with both build and picture quality.

You might even get more answers from a post in the Nikon SLR lens talk forum.

Happy holidays! From Oslo, Norway. We just recived a foot and a half of snow the last 30 hours...
 
Actually Sigma lenses are far from junk. As with any other manufacturer, there are stars and there are duds. I have owned several Sigma lenses through the years and found that their EX line with HSM are pretty darn good.

Anyway, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is one of their best and has been received very well...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&cat=37&page=3
speedemon said:
Does anyone have the true load down facts on this Sigma APO 100-300mm F4 EX DG HSM lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3273&navigator=3

I have looked around for a quality lens that covers this range and I kept looking at the NIKON AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED and this Sigma. I like the fact that the Sigma is a fixed aperture and a faster lens, but then I hear Sigma lens are junk and stay away. So has anyone used these two lens and how do they really compare, how is the true quality on this Sigma lens and is it worth buying?

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
The Sigma costs more than twice the Nikon and I suppose the price difference is not just for the constant f/4, but also the quality. I am pretty sure it is better than the Nikon 70-300, but I would be very disappointed if I bought it and it would not be good enough due to the price.

The lens is not on my list due to the heavy weight. It weights almost 1.5kg which in my opinion is too much for my needs, so I will go for the Nikon 70-300VRII. However, if I would not have this desire to limit the bag weight I would not hesitate to go for this lens.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
Thanks for the feedback so far. Currently I have a NIKKOR #1986 AF Zoom 80-200mm f/2.8D ED. The best scenario would be if I can put a NIKON Converter on that, but I was told I can’t since it’s not the 80-200mm AF-S lens. If it was the 80-200mm AF-S then I wouldn’t have a problem.

There are a few options I can go with to obtain about 300+ I would like to have:

1.Sell the my current NIKKOR #1986 AF Zoom- 80-200mm f/2.8D ED and buy a NIKKOR AF-S VR Zoom 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED and add a converter – which is the expensive way to go.

2.Get the Sigma APO 100-300mm F4 EX DG HSM

3.Or go for a Tamron SP AF200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD which I will have to look into as I have not done ant research on this as this is the most cost-effective but the slowest lens which I can make use as it will give me up to 500mm

Does anyone know anything about the Tamron SP AF200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD lens?

Thanks
 
I used this lens for a season for baseball, its a fine lens. Heavy, but very nice. I currently use the 80-200 f/2.8 with a cheapo tamron 1.4x TC and find the results as good or better. Take the TC off and the 80-200 is better in all aspects at least my copy and imo.

--

 
You have a beauty of a lens in the 80-200 2.8. While the Nikon converters won't work with it, I recall forum users having good results using 3rd party converters (the Kenko 1.4 is the one I recall). With a 1.4 converter, you've got a 112-280 4.0 lens. I think you can have the Kenko cheap.
--
Bryan
 
I’m very reluctant on aftermarket converters as I tried the Tamron SP AF2X Pro Teleconverter on my Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 and the image was soft. I wasn’t pleased with the quality of any images as I wasn’t able to get it sharp image out of that converter. After having it for a couple of weeks I sold it off on e-bay. I hear that the KENKO and TAMRON are the same converters although I have not used a KENKO one yet.
 
Check out the Nikon 70-300 vr model. It is not quite as fast as the Sigma, but the vr makes up for it in situations where subject motion is not a big factor.
 
speedemon said:
I like the fact that the Sigma is a fixed aperture and a faster lens, but then I hear Sigma lens are junk and stay away.
Click to expand...
SOME Sigma lenses are junk and that's why I tend to stay away from Sigma as well, but the 100-300 is one of the few Sigma lenses I can recommend. I've had it in both Canon and Nikon mount and I was pleased with the image and build quality. Here's an example:



Full size: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/3111048513_dc16301c64_o.jpg

The only reason I don't have it anymore is that I wanted a larger aperture than f/4 on my D300, so I bought a 70-200VR. It's one of those lenses Nikon should have made.

Jarno
--

˙ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ pɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ ʇןıʇ noʎ uǝɥʍ ʎuunɟ sʞooן ʇı
 
RAL said:
Check out the Nikon 70-300 vr model. It is not quite as fast as the Sigma, but the vr makes up for it in situations where subject motion is not a big factor.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't read my posting. As I said, I kept looking at the NIKON AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED and this Sigma. I like the fact that the Sigma is a fixed aperture and a faster lens!
 
--The 100-300 4.0 HSM is a very good lens and one of Sigma's finest.

I used this lens for several years and it performed extremely well on my Fuji S2 and Nikon D70. Eventually I sold it in favor of the Sigma 300 2.8.

Optically and mechanically it is excellent. Hand holding this lens is difficult due to its weight.

joer56
http://www.pbase.com/joer
 
speedemon said:
I’m very reluctant on aftermarket converters as I tried the Tamron SP AF2X Pro Teleconverter on my Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 and the image was soft. I wasn’t pleased with the quality of any images as I wasn’t able to get it sharp image out of that converter. After having it for a couple of weeks I sold it off on e-bay. I hear that the KENKO and TAMRON are the same converters although I have not used a KENKO one yet.
Click to expand...
The tamron 2x converter isnt very good, and most 2x converters arent for that matter.... however the kenko and the tamron 1.4x converters (which yes are the same...) are not bad at all. The 80-200 f/2.8 with this converter focuses as fast if not faster, is as sharp, is lighter, and is built worlds better. Thats with the TC on... take it off for the 80-200 range and its just not even close, there are times at least for what I shoot that f4 just wont cut it, and then I have f2.8... The Sigma doesnt have that.

The sigma is a nice lens, however I think you have as good of a solution as it already in your bag, or at least in your bag and $100ish bucks. Buy the TC used off ebay if it dont work as good sell it or try the Kenko.

--

 
Can't comment on the Sigma, but I can say the Nikon 70-300 vr works very well for the air shows I shoot, for magazine's no complaints yet.
 
I did, and I suggested that you consider the reasoning that even though the Nikon was slightly slower at 5.6, the vr would gain that plus more back in many instances.
 
JoeR said:
Hand holding this lens is difficult due to its weight.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? It's 30 grams lighter than the 70-200 VR I and I don't hear anyone complaining about hand holding that lens. It's lighter than my D300 or D700 with attached grip. And compared to my 200-400, the 100-300 is a featherweight. I certainly never had a problem hand holding it, I found the lens to be well balanced and easy to use.

Jarno
--

˙ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ pɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ ʇןıʇ noʎ uǝɥʍ ʎuunɟ sʞooן ʇı
 
RAL said:
I did, and I suggested that you consider the reasoning that even though the Nikon was slightly slower at 5.6, the vr would gain that plus more back in many instances.
Click to expand...
Except that VR does precisely zero for moving subjects. I'll take aperture over VR anytime unless I'm very sure I'll be shooting a static subject.

When comparing the two lenses at Photozone I see that there is very little difference at the wide end, but once you start zooming the Sigma pulls ahead of the Nikon in resolution and aperture. The Sigma has the added benefit of accepting teleconverters so you can go to 420mm (1.4x) or even 510mm (1.7x) and still have AF in good light. IMHO that makes the 100-300 the more versatile lens.

Jarno
--

˙ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ pɐǝɥ ɹnoʎ ʇןıʇ noʎ uǝɥʍ ʎuunɟ sʞooן ʇı
 
I fully agree about the subject motion part that's why I said

"It is not quite as fast as the Sigma, but the vr makes up for it in situations where subject motion is not a big factor" in my post above.

But I do find that subject motion is not a big problem with lots of things. Normal slow movement is handled well by some pretty slow shutter speeds. On fast paced sports and the like is where fast shutter speeds shine. If that's what you do then the faster the better.
 
Surprisingly Sigma is the only one in this market range. It’s too bad Nikon hasn’t put anything in this market with this range in a constant aperture.

I’m really looking over my options. Yea I may try the Kenko 1.4 converter just to see what it can do. Also I’m looking into selling my Nikon 80-200mm and buying a 70-200 AF-S with a 1.4 converter, or maybe Nikon 300mm F/4 and last the Sigma 100-300 F/4. Lots of thinking to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top