Nikon 300mm VR used or new Sigma 120-300mm OS (2013 model)....what would you get?

if you had a choice between getting a used Nikon prime 300mm or sigma 120-300mm os which is to come out in a couple of weeks, which would you get and why. my personal concern from sigma is focus speed and sharpness as compared to Nikon counterpart. thanks

ps my first post on dpreview

busya said:

busya wrote:

if you had a choice between getting a used Nikon prime 300mm or sigma 120-300mm os which is to come out in a couple of weeks, which would you get and why. my personal concern from sigma is focus speed and sharpness as compared to Nikon counterpart. thanks

ps my first post on dpreview

Click to expand...

Welcome to dpr busya.



My suggestion would be to first tell everyone what Nikon camera body(s) you will be using and what your primary intended subjects will be. Then people can give you a much more informed opinion.



It's going to be hard for a zoom (even a f2.8) to beat a prime lens like the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR (in terms of AF speed and IQ). However, I expect the new Sigma to perform quite well. A zoom will give you much more flexibility. But, this all depends on your subjects - polar bears or hummingbirds?


Wayne

i would be using it on Nikon d4, and would like to shoot birds in flight, my child's dance competitions maybe explore a bit of wildlife. i currently own Nikon 70-200 vr II with tc20 III, but would like a bit longer reach. i know sigma's new version of the 120-300mm lens is not compatible with Nikon tc's, so i would need to get a tc for that lens.. any suggestions if i decide to go that route?

busya said:

busya wrote:

i would be using it on Nikon d4, and would like to shoot birds in flight, my child's dance competitions maybe explore a bit of wildlife. i currently own Nikon 70-200 vr II with tc20 III, but would like a bit longer reach. i know sigma's new version of the 120-300mm lens is not compatible with Nikon tc's, so i would need to get a tc for that lens.. any suggestions if i decide to go that route?

Click to expand...

Good to have the additional info. Based on that...



Any time that you can avoid TCs and have a budget to get the "right" focal length, it's good to do so. TCs will not only reduce the aperture, but will sometimes slow down the AF speed - not good for BIF. In addition, when the TC is on, you may need a different AF Fine Tune setting for the combo. Some lenses work very well with TCs. The Nikon 300 f4 and TC1.4 is just one example.



Perhaps you might consider the new Nikon AF-S 80-400 VR. It's getting a lot of very good feedback on this forum. There are several ongoing threads right now. Nikon also makes an AF-S 200-400 f4 VR-II.



If you need more than 400mm (which you may for BIF on a D4), then perhaps some other BIF shooters will post their suggestions for you.



Good luck with you lens decisions. You should be getting a lot more feedback on this forum.



Wayne

busya said:

busya wrote:

if you had a choice between getting a used Nikon prime 300mm or sigma 120-300mm os which is to come out in a couple of weeks, which would you get and why. my personal concern from sigma is focus speed and sharpness as compared to Nikon counterpart. thanks

ps my first post on dpreview

Click to expand...

I have a similar dilemma and sold the 70-200 VR and TC 14IIE. The Sigma TC are inexpensive and the new lens promises better af customization and focus limiter as well. Since the lens in new, the user reviews will be first coming from Sigma and Canon users. From past reports on the previous version of this lens, the lens seems to preform or be optimized more for the "F" mount than the Canon "EF" mount and therefore the user reports may be somewhat spurious.

I do not see what you gain from the 70-200 + TC20IIE that are not covered by the Sigma lens except portability. However, the Sigma lens does not appear demonstrably larger or heavier that the Nikon alternative. My work around for the short end was to add the 85 1.8g and the 24-85g VR. It remains to be seen whether the trade offs are worth the investment, I am not in a rush to be an early adopter this time and will wait to hear from other user's experiences. Also, Sigma has a reputation for optimistically pricing their latest releases to capitalize on early adopters zealotry, so I suspect it may be a quarter or more before the "street price" stabilizes (depending on supply, demand and currency exchange rates). This pattern has occurred with all the Sigma lenses I have followed, except the 180 f/2.8 HSM OS whose supply and demand remain extraordinarily low.

I expect that initially, this lens will be aggressively marketed and it may take some additional time for the prices to stabilize when supply exceeds demand. By that time, much more meaningful impressions will be available to make an informed decision. Unlike the Nikon counterparts, the resale value of third party offerings tend to be less predictable so recouping your original investment may also need to be factored when deciding how early to adopt. Sigma has recently employed the hallmarks of "quality and precision engineering," by advocating the perception that the country of origin (a lens entirely constructed in Japan) will provide the consumer the further assurance that there will be less sample variation, more rigorous quality control and that this "first world" construction will justify a price premium for their premium products. Based on the previous version of the unacceptable mechanical failure reporting by reputable lens rental statistical data, the marketing has not appreciably benefited from employing these safeguards, however.

This lens may be somewhat of a litmus test to ferret out whether the (S) designation is a meaningful marker that Sigma's marketing with ensure tighter tolerances and less sample variation or mechanical failure. Only time and respected field test reports from impartial sources will assist the potential purchaser in determining whether there is any truth to the marketing campaign. It is a beautiful lens that is priced far below any comparable OEM alternative. It will also be interesting to gauge whether Sigma has adequately assessed the demand for this lens. My suspicion is that they will grossly underestimate demand and this lens will be in short supply for a long time to come. It is too bad that they made such an underwhelming lens collar/tripod foot to match what otherwise looks fantastic. I am already missing my aftermarket detachable tripod foot and expect that I will have to improvise some kind of arca style tripod foot add on accessory unless Kirk or RRS plan on machining an aftermarket collar/foot that offers a viable alternative. Food for thought.

Thanks for your feedback. I do not plan on selling my nikon 70-200, it's a great lens and don't want to part with it. As fas as 80-400 goes, I have though about it but for variable aperture lens and 2700 price tag, I have excluded it from my options. I just think think that if sigma's new offering ought to be what they claim, it is a much better value. nikon 200-400 would be ideal, but portability and handholding concerns come to mind. So I'm leaning to exclude that option as well.

thanks for your input. I agree with everything you mentioned. I just don't think that sigma's offering in 120-300 mm can equal or outperform nikon 70-200. so considering the new lens from sigma would be primarily based on sigma performance at 300mm. Its extended zoom range from 120 to 300 will have some impact on my decision but not a primary one. My shorter range is covered pretty well: nikon 16-35 f4, nikon 24-70, and 3 primes: nikon 1.4d, sigma 85 1.4, and nikon 105 2.8 vr. My wish is to have an offering in 200-400 range that's both portable, light and superior optics. Nikon 200-400 seems like an obvious route, but I'm afraid because of size and weight, it will be sitting in the closet most of the time.

The 300/2.8 VR is one of the best exotics from Nikon that blows you off even when shot wide open. It is not even close to being in the same class as the Sigma 120-300. Why the Sigma, even the venerable and very popular in this forum, the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 II, does not hold candle to the Nikkor 300/2.8 VR.

busya said:

busya wrote:

... My wish is to have an offering in 200-400 range that's both portable, light and superior optics. Nikon 200-400 seems like an obvious route, but I'm afraid because of size and weight, it will be sitting in the closet most of the time.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that such a lens exists. If you want a focal length greater than 300mm with fast glass, then the size and weight are just part of the "package".



Perhaps you might consider getting a smaller sensor body and using your 70-200 f2.8 VR-II?

Consider the Nikon D7100 (until a D300s replacement exists). Also, it may be worth trying a Nikon V2 (with the adapter for Nikon SLR lenses) for even more "effective" focal length.


Wayne

I have the 120-300mm OS (not the "S" version), and use it on my D800. Here is a sample photo and it's 100% crop. No PP was done on this (just converting to Jpeg). I am extremely happy with it, and use it with a 1.4x and 2x (Sigma) extenders. The AF is extremely fast even with the converters. I unfortunately do not have a 300mm to compare with.

Herkaun said:

Herkaun wrote:

I have the 120-300mm OS (not the "S" version), and use it on my D800. Here is a sample photo and it's 100% crop. No PP was done on this (just converting to Jpeg). I am extremely happy with it, and use it with a 1.4x and 2x (Sigma) extenders. The AF is extremely fast even with the converters. I unfortunately do not have a 300mm to compare with.

Click to expand...

Nice images. Did you happen to consider the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR when deciding to purchase your sigma? If so, was it the size, weight or inflexibility of the prime that made you decide on the sigma? Or stated the other way, when you purchased your sigma, was the size and weight, price, IQ, or the flexibility of the zoom the overarching factor in selecting this lens?

Also, you indicated that the AF was fast. Did you compare it to the Nikon 300 in focus acquisition or tracking speed? I think I am going to have to rent them both before I buy. I want the size, weight and flexibility of the sigma, but I fear the risk of mechanical failure and residual value being effective deterrents. Certainly the IQ speaks for itself. Thanks for posting.

i would have to agree that my choice of the new sigma was partially based upon the release of their 35mm 1.4... But more importantly the choice was made due to budget constraints. I am not pro photographer and I do not make a living with the equipment I own... So for myself, it's either a used nikkor or an alternative sigma in that range. I will wait for the new sigma to come out first as I never preorder anything.

Thanks Chad.

I am primarily a zoom lens shooter, for the flexibility of framing that it provides. This stems from my days as a D2H shooter. Not much room for cropping there. I bought the lens when I had a D2X, and only now, with the D800, am I starting to move into the use of prime lenses.

The decision was based on 3 factors: price, flexibility and IQ. The Nikon 200-400mm was way out of my price range, so I had to look some ware else. I was looking at the old Sigma 100-300 F4 or a 300mm F4 with a 1.4X. Then I saw the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 and with the 1.4X it would basically give me a 200-400mm F4.

Next was the IQ issue. There were some complains from people on the web, but people that have no problems hardly ever post, so my thought was that is 10 people complain there must be about 500 not complaining (D800 issues?). I decided to take the plunge based on the positive reviews that I could find. So based on the price/flexibility/IQ, I am a happy camper.

I have not extensively tested the AF and tracking, but when I did the REDBULL Crashed Ice event. I was not let down by the AF. I have not tried my hand at BIF’s yet (next challenge), but I did post some pics of the RBCI event here and the racers just seem to pop into focus:


Hope this helps.

Hermie.

I used the original 120-300 f2.8, before buying a 200-400 f4. I needed the extra reach , most of my shots are over 200mm. My lens was very sharp and being a zoom very versatile


This with a 1.4 converter fitted




Insert caption here. If you do not edit this text it will be automatically rem






Alex Zanardi Indycar champion and Paralympic gold medalist.











--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

Are these shots taken with sigma or nikon? They look pretty sharp. Thanks for samples

300 way too short for bifs on FX, especially at 16MP. t.c.s cut sharpness.

busya said:

busya wrote:

if you had a choice between getting a used Nikon prime 300mm or sigma 120-300mm os which is to come out in a couple of weeks, which would you get and why. my personal concern from sigma is focus speed and sharpness as compared to Nikon counterpart. thanks

ps my first post on dpreview

Click to expand...

I have the older Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS. The new lens has a focus limiter, can be attached to Sigma's new USB lens dock, and has a different finish, but optically it is the same design as the old one. The new 120-300 version probably a bit faster AF (I think all of the programmable-AF HSM motors are newer designs than the non-programmable ones), and it looks like a more durable design, but the optical performance should be about the same since the lens element diagram is the same. So, I would read some reviews of the old one if I were you, even if you're considering the new one.

With lenses, you get what you pay for, but there are diminishing returns. The old 120-300 OS right now is $2500 (damn it, I paid $3200 for it not six months ago :-x ). So it is an absolute screamingly good deal right now. The new one will probably cost $3200-3500.

A new Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR II is $5800. Wait what. The Nikon costs 2.3x more? Is the Nikon going to give you better image quality and faster autofocus? Yes, especially better corners on full-frame cameras. But is it 2.3x better image quality and autofocus? Heck no. And it doesn't zoom like the Sigma - which zooms with TCs or not. With the Sigma, as long as you use Sigma TC's, you can stack them and even AF with stacked TCs if you use live view.

(Some old dudes in yellowstone were amazed away when I busted out my 120-300 f/2.8 and proceeded to stack two 2.0TCs on it to take a look at a grizzly bear that was about a half mile away. They had their 800mm + 2x TC on full frame, I had my 300mm + 4x TC on APS-C )

Anyway, for me, the 120-300 OS was a no-brainer (even at $3200 :-x ) because I have APS-C cameras, so the corner performance is not an issue for me. If I put this on my Nikon D7000 + 2x Sigma TC, I get out to a 300 x 1.5 x 2 = 900mm equivalent angle of view, with a minimum aperture of f/5.6. Stop it down to f/8, and it is sharp enough for very, very clean 16x24 wildlife prints, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper than most of the alternative ways to get to 600mm f/5.6. Fantastic for me. Maybe not for you.

So look at some reviews. Look at some comparisons. Look at the comparison tool here, which includes TC results. There are a lot of reviews out there of both lenses.

I sold my 120-300 soon after I got a 300vr1

the 300vr blows away the siggy at 2.8, they get closer as you stop them down

the 300vr takes all 3 tc-s, 1.4 & 1.7 almost invisibly

the sig was not as good with a 1.4tc