Battle of the Super Telephotos!

[Markw]

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.

I agree with you after FINALLY finding the MTF charts. Sigma makes is amazingly easy since the lenses posted are their current models. Nikon is another story. Older lenses, with many different variations of the same model makes it hard to find MTF charts. I'm still not 100% sure it's the right lens. The website I snatched it from said it was, though.

Mark

 

[penfolderoldo]

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.

Hmmm... i've never been a massive fan of charts n stuff personally, too many variables, however I have to agree with Derrel that going by the included charts the Sigma 300 prime falls short of the Sigma zoom and considerably short of the Nikon. Making it sound like I ended up with a lucky copy after all... I think Over's suggestion of renting a couple, maybe the Nikon and the 120 - 300, would probably be the best thing, cos it's a hell of a lot of cash to blow on the wrong thing!

 

[Markw]

To clear up the charts, the only thing that's really THAT much worse on the Sigma than the Nikkor 300/2.8 is the resolution (blades of hairs, feathers, etc) of vertical lines from midway to the edge of the lens, wide open. Other than that, I would still say the charts between the two are comparable for all intents and purposes. Any difference between the two could EASILY be fixed in photoshop, but I doubt anyone would see a difference in everyday use, if they never saw the charts.

The Nikkor 200-400/4.0 would be my dream. I'd take that over any of these lenses, but is about double the cost (or more than double the cost) of any of them.

Mark

 

[penfolderoldo]

The Nikkor 200-400/4.0 would be my dream. I'd take that over any of these lenses, but is about double the cost (or more than double the cost) of any of them.

Mark

Well if that's your ideal then you could do worse than go for the sigma 120 - 300 and a 1.4x converter

 

[Markw]

I've added the Nikkor 200-400/4.0 to the list above, just for S&G. The sharpness is something to be marveled with. But, you lose horizontal resolution at the "wide" end (a little vertical as well), and vertical resolution at the tele end. I'm confident that neither of which will be a burden on any image taken with the lens, ever, though.

Mark

 

[Derrel]

One odd thing about the 200-400 VR lens that Thom Hogan noticed after shooting it for well over a full year (more like almost 2 years) was that it was VERY sharp at closer ranges, such as 80 meters and inside that distance. I cannot do justice to his review of the 200-400 here, but one of his analogies was like, "With the 400/2.8 you can see the bear's fur as bear FUR, even at 100 meters distant, and can clearly discern individual hairs, but with the 200-400, that is not the case." He pointed out that at "normal" and "close" distances, the 200-400 was impeccably sharp, and the images looked fantastic, but that as a long-range telephoto, the lens is a notch below the prime Nikkors. Again, look at the Sigma prime's MTF charts and pay close attention to the frequency....do not compare MTF 20 versus 30...the Nikkor is *significantly* better...sure, you can goose the sharpening in post...and bring the Sigma up to an un-sharpened Nikkor image...yet still, the Nikkor offers what I would call substantially better image quality. Look again...I think you ought to read the Hogan review of the 200-400 VR and re-evaluate the "ever,never" aspect...IMHO, the 200-400 was designed as an arena/field sports lens, NOT a wildlife lens; it's gained a lot of popularity for endzone-stationed photographers covering American football and major league soccer under professional-level arena lighting.


Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G Lens Review by Thom Hogan


What do you want the lens for? How important is focusing speed and focusing SURENESS??? Focusing speed, and sureness, reliability, dependability of focus, in both ONE-shot and tracking...that's where the Nikon and Canon 300/2.8's really shine...I don't want to knock Sigma unfairly, but every review I have read indicated they are " a notch below " the big-maker 300/2.8's. The new Sigma 120-300 I have not heard much about except from M.R. at TLL, and he praised its optics. A good example in focusing would be say,the Nikkor 300/4 AF-S versus the 300/2.8 AF-S Mark II: I own both lenses. The f/4 model will occasionally FAIL to focus on track and field uniforms that are bland, or in poor light, using center-point AF; the 300 AF-S II model is world's better. That's kind of one of the things you need to hear from an actual user who's going to use the lens for a purpose similar to yours...the way I see it, for news/sports/event coverage, the ZOOM capability is a big plus. Advantage Sigma. For use with a converter, the advantage is probably going to be with the VERY-newest Nikon aspherical converters, paired with the "newest" Nikon VR-II model primes and zooms. For pure focusing speed, accuracy, and reliability, over say a three-hour football game, my bet is that the best-focusing lens would be with the 300/2.8 Nikkor over any zoom or any Sigma.

One thing is for sure: used lenses in this class cost a lot less than new, and the Hong Kong price of $2,400 or so...hmmm..what does Tri-State sell the 120-300 for? They are a good gray market retailer.

 

[Markw]

One odd thing about the 200-400 VR lens that Thom Hogan noticed after shooting it for well over a full year (more like almost 2 years) was that it was VERY sharp at closer ranges, such as 80 meters and inside that distance. I cannot do justice to his review of the 200-400 here, but one of his analogies was like, "With the 400/2.8 you can see the bear's fur as bear FUR, even at 100 meters distant, and can clearly discern individual hairs, but with the 200-400, that is not the case." He pointed out that at "normal" and "close" distances, the 200-400 was impeccably sharp, and the images looked fantastic, but that as a long-range telephoto, the lens is a notch below the prime Nikkors. Again, look at the Sigma prime's MTF charts and pay close attention to the frequency....do not compare MTF 20 versus 30 Ahhh. I see how this could cause a misconception, but both the Nikon and Sigma MTF charts measure accutance at 10l/mm, and resolution at 30l/mm....the Nikkor is *significantly* better...sure, you can goose the sharpening in post...and bring the Sigma up to an un-sharpened Nikkor image...yet still, the Nikkor offers what I would call substantially better image quality. Look again...I think you ought to read the Hogan review of the 200-400 VR and re-evaluate the "ever,never" aspect Will do. Thanks for posting it! :thumbsup:...IMHO, the 200-400 was designed as an arena/field sports lens, NOT a wildlife lens ; it's gained a lot of popularity for endzone-stationed photographers covering American football and major league soccer under professional-level arena lighting.


Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G Lens Review by Thom Hogan


What do you want the lens for? Idealistically, I'd like it to be primarily a wildlife lens. But, that being said, I am kind of counting on it being able to cover any sports games (outdoors, daytime mostly) I may want to shoot. How important is focusing speed and focusing SURENESS??? Obviously they're both crucially important. But I'd say focusing sureness is more important for me. I rarely miss a shot with my 80-200/2.8 and D300s due to tracking issues. If the focus speed matches that, which, any lens with a AF-S/HSM should, or even surpass, then I will be happy. Focusing speed, and sureness, reliability, dependability of focus, in both ONE-shot and tracking...that's where the Nikon and Canon 300/2.8's really shine...I don't want to knock Sigma unfairly, but every review I have read indicated they are " a notch below " the big-maker 300/2.8's Fair enough.. The new Sigma 120-300 I have not heard much about except from M.R. at TLL, and he praised its optics. A good example in focusing would be say,the Nikkor 300/4 AF-S versus the 300/2.8 AF-S Mark II: I own both lenses. The f/4 model will occasionally FAIL to focus on track and field uniforms that are bland, or in poor light, using center-point AF; the 300 AF-S II model is world's better. Good to know, as I will probably be picking up a 300/4 AF-S to hold me over before getting one of these bad boys. That's kind of one of the things you need to hear from an actual user who's going to use the lens for a purpose similar to yours...the way I see it, for news/sports/event coverage, the ZOOM capability is a big plus. Advantage Sigma. For use with a converter, the advantage is probably going to be with the VERY-newest Nikon aspherical converters, paired with the "newest" Nikon VR-II model primes and zooms This is simply not an option. . For pure focusing speed, accuracy, and reliability, over say a three-hour football game, my bet is that the best-focusing lens would be with the 300/2.8 Nikkor over any zoom or any Sigma.

One thing is for sure: used lenses in this class cost a lot less than new, and the Hong Kong price of $2,400 or so...hmmm..what does Tri-State sell the 120-300 for? They are a good gray market retailer. They have the non-OS version listed at $2,999, and the OS version at $3,199. Same as everyplace else.

Reply in ​RED
Derrel, thank you for all of your help. I love reading your replies. I appreciate your insight. Same goes for everyone here thus far! :mrgreen:

I will look more into the 200-400, but I really doubt it's going to be an option.

Mark

 

[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

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.

No problem i'm glad you like it