Battle of the Super Telephotos!

[Markw]

Hello everyone! I'm looking to get a high-speed super telephoto sometime in the next year. There's many options all around the same price, all with their own perks. I'll post links to the ones I'm talking about here, and I'd love your opinions on pros/cons of each over the other.

*All used prices, mind you.*

Tamron 300mm F/2.8 LD IF - $2400
Tamron AF 300mm F2.8 LD (IF) Lens for Nikon - NEW | eBay
($3700 new: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofo...2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319830065&sr=1-2)

Nikon 300mm F/2.8 ED AF (non-AFS, non-VR) - $2400
NIKON ED AF 300mm f2.8D lens | eBay


Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM - $2450
The MTF chart for this one looks amazing for a 2.5x telezoom, or really any zoom. It's phenomenal, really.
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF For Nikon+1 Year Warranty | eBay
($3200 new: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-120-300...?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319830148&sr=1-15)

Nikon 300mm F/2.8 ED IF AF-S (non-VR) - $3100
Nikon AF-S 300mm F/2.8 afs 300 2.8 with hood HK-26 Exc | eBay

Sigma 300mm F/2.8 EX DG HSM APO - $3400
SIGMA 300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Lens for Nikon 195306 | eBay
New: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-300mm-F...?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319830148&sr=1-12

Nikon 200-400mm F/4.0 ED AF-S VR N - ~$5600
http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-Nikon-...era_Lenses&hash=item48425b39e2#ht_2128wt_1180
($6300 new: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-400...3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319830148&sr=1-3)

All of these lenses have very similar IQ if you go by the MTF. Even the 120-300. They all look like phenomenal lenses. So, I'd like your input on them! :mrgreen:

Mark

 

[Overread16 4]

I might be mixing it up but I'd always read that Sigmas original 120-300mm was as good/better than their own 300mm prime - and that he new OS rather beats out the original by a noticeable gain.

That's about all I can say really - never had an eye for those Nikon things

 

[Markw]

Yepp. The 120-300 OS is much better than their original 120-300. Not sure if that's true about the 300/2.8. I'm working on pulling the MTF charts for all these as we speak. :thumbsup:

Mark

 

[Markw]

MTF Charts that I could find have been added to the original post.

Mark

 

[Derrel]

Michael Reichmann reviewed the new 120-300 OS and called it an "OUTSTANDING" lens, which is high praise from a man like him. He really,really loved using it on the new Sigma D-SLR he reviewed a month or two back on The Luminous Landscape. The focal length flexibility sure sounds good with the 120-300, for things like sideline/court sports especially. The earlier 120-300 Sigma had a very poor reputation for quality control, according to both Lensrentals.com, AND dozens and dozens of users, including professional sports shooters on Sportsshooter.com---focus issues, as well as mechanical problems/breakdowns. In all fairness, the lens USED TO retail for $1799 gray market/$2199 with USA warranty, then the price was elevated. I would imagine that the 6- and 7- years ago price of $1799 was one reason the Q.C. was so poor, but the lens might also have been one on the many zoom designs that simply do not stay in good alignment under heavy or hard use or shipping, as with the Lensrentals. Nikon's "old" 50-300 f/4.5 zoom had the reputation of being easily knocked out of good alignment, so it's not just a Sigma thing. I have heard the Sigma pre-OS version was more like a 270 on the long end than 300--that could probably be verified for the "new" lens if you can find a test from a sophisticated-enough tester.

I would NOT pay $2,400 for a NON-AFS Nikkor 300/2.8...no way....too much money, too slow of a focusing system, too old for that amount of money.

I think the lens you really want is the LAST AF-S model, the 300mm f/2.8 AFS-II, which is the one made right before the VR model...it is the lightest (by one full pound) , and focuses the closest. The barrel is magnesium, so it's about a pound lighter than the $3,100 one shown in your post. The $3,100 lens looks to have been used a LOT...look at the brassing on the lens mount..it has been mounted and unmounted a zillion times. Still, if you wish to pay $3,000 or so, I would NOT buy the Sigma prime for $3,400 in the presence of the 120-300 or the 300 AFS- Mark I.

 

[Markw]

All of the ones posted will be long gone before I take the plunge. I just posted them to give an idea of the used prices of some of the lenses. The 120-300OS is looking better and better, especially given it's performance against any of the 300/2.8 primes.

Mark

 

[penfolderoldo]

No idea about the Nikons as i'm a Canon shooter, but I use the Sigma 300 2.8 EX DG HSM and I can say it's a fantastic piece of glass, in my experience it can match the Canon version all day long, tho $3400 is WAY too much for a used one - that's the cost NEW over here! you should be looking at around the $2400 mark i'd say. One of the other sports snappers I know uses the 120 - 300 OS, and he says it's light years ahead of the original version, which he had before ("f***ing ****e" was how he actually described it!).

 

[Markw]

The price for the 300/2.8 Sigma is the new price. I didn't notice when I posted the link. I don't quite get the second omitted word, either. :blushing:

Mark

 

[penfolderoldo]

The price for the 300/2.8 Sigma is the new price. I didn't notice when I posted the link. I don't quite get the second omitted word, either. :blushing:

Mark

Ah I see, kinda makes more sense that way! the snapper in question's a gruff old-school press pro from Glasgow, so imagine "site" but with an "h" after the "s" then i'm sure you'll get the idea! Glaswegian for 'not very good'...:lmao:

 

[analog.universe]

Everything I've read about that 120-300 OS is great. I've not heard it compared to Nikkors, but I did see a comparison with the Canon 300mm 2.8 IS prime. The conclusion was essentially that the Sigma gives you 300 2.8 nearly as well as the Canon, but it also zooms out to 120 and does that quite well also, and it's almost half the price of the Canon. The only reason I would go for a 300 prime over that Sigma zoom was if weight was a huge concern, or if you're going to teleconvert AND pixel peep.

 

[gsgary]

No idea about the Nikons as i'm a Canon shooter, but I use the Sigma 300 2.8 EX DG HSM and I can say it's a fantastic piece of glass, in my experience it can match the Canon version all day long, tho $3400 is WAY too much for a used one - that's the cost NEW over here! you should be looking at around the $2400 mark i'd say. One of the other sports snappers I know uses the 120 - 300 OS, and he says it's light years ahead of the original version, which he had before ("f***ing ****e" was how he actually described it!).

No it can't, i have tried one against mine and mine is a 1995 model that is pin sharp

 

[Markw]

Have you used both the Canon and the Sigma versions?

Mark

 

[Overread16 4]

Mark - whilst the sigma 300mm might be a decent performer everything I've read of it is that its not a stella performer. It works, but it is the lesser option (that isn't to say that Sigma can't make good long glass I've seen some rather outstanding result from their 500-800mm against a canon 500mm f4 and they've also their 200-500mm f2.8 - the only f2.8 500mm on the market - not to mention their 120-300mm OS).

Personally I'd think that if you want to use 1.4 and 2*TCs on a 300mm (its not a bad idea - lighter, smaller and cheaper than a pure 600mm) then I'd be aiming for the best 300mm prime I could afford. If you just want 300mm or maybe 420mm (1.4TC) then the 120-300mm would come into the running.
Also remember you've the 200-400mm as an option for nikon as well.

In the end you might even want to rent some of these lenses once you work the number down to a few; their costs are high enough that a few good days rent with a couple of them shouldn't impact the costs too significantly (unless you can find locals with copies to try or a big store - since most smaller shops are not going to get a copy in to try out only on something highvalue and harder to sell).

 

[Derrel]

Mark, I cannot agree that all these lenses are "close" in performance, now that the MTF charts have been posted...look at the edge performance of the Sigma 300 versus the Nikkor....the Sigma's edge performance sucks...the Nikkor kicks its A$$, and is better, from center to edge...significantly. Anyway, the advantages of a multi-focal length lens like the 120-300/2.8 Sigma would make the zoom (I hear the original 120-300 was not 100% parfocal,and required re-focusing as the lens was zoomed) more advantageous for many types of events.

To me, a stabilized 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom sounds like a great lens for track and field and football.

 

[penfolderoldo]

No idea about the Nikons as i'm a Canon shooter, but I use the Sigma 300 2.8 EX DG HSM and I can say it's a fantastic piece of glass, in my experience it can match the Canon version all day long, tho $3400 is WAY too much for a used one - that's the cost NEW over here! you should be looking at around the $2400 mark i'd say. One of the other sports snappers I know uses the 120 - 300 OS, and he says it's light years ahead of the original version, which he had before ("f***ing ****e" was how he actually described it!).

No it can't, i have tried one against mine and mine is a 1995 model that is pin sharp

I had a 1998 Canon which was, like yours, pin sharp, but got nicked. Only 300 prime I could get that day was the sigma (had an evening match to cover) so thought i'd use that till the insurance came thru then take the hit when selling it in favour of a new Canon. That was 3 years ago, and the sigma is as sharp as my old Canon. Maybe I was lucky with picking up a decent model, and there may well be areas where it's not as good, but across the sports, news etc i've used it on it's been excellent. By the way Gary, cheers for all the info on the mk II, you were spot on.