AF-S 300mm vs Sigma 120-300mm

Hawkins

I need a long but not so expensive lens for birding and wildlife shooting. So which is better, Nikon AF-S 300mm f4 or Signma 120-300mm f2.8, in terms of Image Quality and Auto-Focusing.

Simo70

I own the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED and I use it with a D300s. It's a great lens, very sharp at f4 although I found it to be at its best around f8. Focus with D300s is very fast. I am not familiar with the Sigma and having a 2.8 lens is a plus but I can tell you that the nikkor 300mm f4 works very well for birding although I wish it had a VR system. Also prime lenses are usually sharper than zooms. I have seen articles about the AF VR Zoom-NIKKOR
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. It seems to be a good lens but I haven't had the chance to play with it. Hope this helps.

jonh68

If you get the Sigma, go with a 1.4 TC as well. I have the Sigma 120-300 and with a TC, it starts to get sharp at f5. I would pick the Sigma over the Nikon because of the 2.8 and you can step into f4 with the Sigma.

The Nikon 300, from what I understand takes TC's pretty good too. It would be lighter and easier to handle.

This series of backyard birds was shot with and without a TC on the Sigma 120-300.

http://jonh68.smugmug.com/Animals/32910-Robertsdale-Birds/11667849_F9E6v#823005602_CfaHM

Mitchell

I know two folks who ultimately sold their Sigma 120-300mm lens because they were just not sharp enough wide open or at the long end. Not much point in that lens if that is the case with every copy.

I would vote for the Nikkor 300mm, f4 AF-s. A sharp prime wide open and a fast focusing lens.

angevin1

Mitchell wrote: »

I know two folks who ultimately sold their Sigma 120-300mm lens because they were just not sharp enough wide open or at the long end. Not much point in that lens if that is the case with every copy.

I would vote for the Nikkor 300mm, f4 AF-s. A sharp prime wide open and a fast focusing lens.

I second Mitchells Opinion here....cav: I have the non-S verison and it does take 1.4 TC well, scooching you way on out there. Wide open it gets the shot but not all of the detailed fluff..Stopped down, Nice!

Below Wide open with Kenko 1.4TC


Below 150% crop, no TC @ 50 ft.

jonh68

Mitchell wrote: »

I know two folks who ultimately sold their Sigma 120-300mm lens because they were just not sharp enough wide open or at the long end. Not much point in that lens if that is the case with every copy.

I would vote for the Nikkor 300mm, f4 AF-s. A sharp prime wide open and a fast focusing lens.

It isn't the case with every lens. Mine was soft at 2.8 but someone suggested some AF fine tuning for my d300 and d700. It became significantly sharper.

I would get the Nikon 300f4 for a lightweight wildlife lens. I would get the Sigma for a more versatile lens. In good light, you are not going to be shooting wide open on either lens anyway as DOF can make parts of wildlife soft anyway. When evening sets in, the 2.8 can be handy to get shots the f4 couldn't.

That said, I wish I had both. However, I have the 70-300 VR which is a great lightweight wildlife lens. I am holding out for a possible 80-400 VR update with afs.

Lightsearcher

I know this is a very old thread but I am in the situation that I have a Nikon 300mmf4 and I just found a Sigma 300mm f2.8 HSM APO SG EX for only $1550 and I'm very tempted for the price and the 2.8 aperture of it.

Anyone here can give me some info about the Sigma?

Thank you.

Marcelo

jonh68

Lightsearcher wrote: »

I know this is a very old thread but I am in the situation that I have a Nikon 300mmf4 and I just found a Sigma 300mm f2.8 HSM APO SG EX for only $1550 and I'm very tempted for the price and the 2.8 aperture of it.

Anyone here can give me some info about the Sigma?

Thank you.

Marcelo

I don't have the Sigma 300 2.8, but research I have done says most think the 120-300 is sharper than the Sigma prime.

Icebear

jonh68 wrote: »

I don't have the Sigma 300 2.8, but research I have done says most think the 120-300 is sharper than the Sigma prime.

I can tell you that my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is as sharp as my Nikkor 300 f/2.8 was (and focuses faster) so I sold the Nikkor. The Sigma is so much more versatile.

EphTwoEight

I'm on the second Sigma 'S' havent had a lot of time with it, but I can tell you doing a table top test in my kitchen, the Sigma was much sharper at 200mm 2.8 then my Nikon 70-200 @200 2.8.
Also the versatility of that zoom is nice. But I also got to use a Nikkor 300 2.8 and it was so nice and tack sharp. My problem has been the fact that the body kept loosing communication with the lens, two different lenses. Need to mess with the USB dock for it now and fine tune it.