Nikon 300mm F/4 AF-s vs. Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 OS

Markw · Jan 17, 2012

Hello everyone! I currently own the NIkon 300mm F/4.0 AF-s version. I've been looking at the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 OS for quite a while now. It looks like a superb lens. Now, keep in mind, I am asking about the OS version of the lens. This is supposed to have a new, better design than the one seen in the non-OS model, and the photos are said to be much better than the previous version. I've had a look at the MTF charts, and, The Nikkor is decidedly better. But, since the Sigma is tested at F/2.8, and the Nikkor at F/4, I would expect this to be the case. The difference between the two, on the charts, is almost negligible anyway. The main difference I'm seeing in the chart is resolution. The Nikon is better, hands down. Especially at the corners. I've looked through hundreds of sample photos, and compare them to the shots I've got out of my 300/4. Honestly, alot of them seem very close and, besides the Sigma having (SLIGHT) green bokeh fringing and the Nikkor having (SLIGHT) magenta bokeh fringing, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.

Unfortunately, like many of Sigma's higher-priced lenses, there are VERY few good reviews out there on the lens. It's a bit hard to really research its performance because of this.

So, I turn to my lovely friends here to ask your opinion. If any of you own the lens, please chime in. If anyone has rented it, please chime in. If you think you have anything to add to the discussion, please chime in. But,please don't tell me to rent the lens. I understand that's an option. Trust me, I'm fully aware that it's a $200+ option.

Thanks in advance!
Mark

gsgary · Jan 17, 2012

I thought you were saving for a big trip, the old version is not a true 300mm and have been known to come apart near where the mount is, not sure about new one

Markw · Jan 17, 2012

I didn't plan on buying one anytime soon. I just like to have my prospective eggs in a basket for when I want them.

Thanks,
Mark

480sparky · Jan 17, 2012

Sorry, I can't help you. I'm not lovely.

Overread · Jan 17, 2012

From memory I don't think we have many 120-300mm OS users on TPF so there are few to really get an impression from. I have been doing some other research and found the following collections of samples and opinions which might help:

Sigma unveils 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS - Page 119 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

120-300mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Canon 300mm II & Sigma 120-300mm OS - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS -VS- Canon 300mm f2.8 primes - Canon Digital Photography Forums

All I can say if it can stand up to the 70-200mm MII and perform well with a 2*TC then at f2.8 and half the price its worth it cost and performance wise against options like 300mm f2.8 primes (yes the primes are better, but not quite double the price better - plus with big savings means more chance to get out and shoot)

Derrel · Jan 17, 2012

Take a look at this MTF chart, and tell me what you thin k about the performance at the short end...
Sigma unveils 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS - Page 61 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Anyway...the new 120-300 weighs about 6.5 pounds. That makes using it quite a commitment. That basically means "monopod use". JUst something to think about. The 300/4 AF-S is easy to use and carry hand-held...not quite the same thing with the 6.7 to 7 pound lenses.

I looked at some web samples in the long thread above...the lens performance level looks good enough for sports action photos, at least judging by the two dozen or so sample photos I looked at. However, I do want to say, I did not see sample photos that look as superb as those from say, the Nikon 200 f/2 or 300/2.8 AF-S lenses...and in fact, some of the soccer shots look a tad bit less-than-great.

For print publication on newsprint, I would have no issues with the 120-300, based on what I have seen today. I have not really looked diligently however; it's possible that there are some really great sample pics out there. But the way I see it, the short end of the lens is what will make it useful as a sports/event lens. A zoom lens with that range is pretty handy for focal length changes on the fly.

Markw · Jan 17, 2012

Message in RED.

Overread said:
From memory I don't think we have many 120-300mm OS users on TPF so there are few to really get an impression from. I have been doing some other research and found the following collections of samples and opinions which might help:

Sigma unveils 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS - Page 119 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

120-300mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Canon 300mm II & Sigma 120-300mm OS - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS -VS- Canon 300mm f2.8 primes - Canon Digital Photography Forums

All I can say if it can stand up to the 70-200mm MII and perform well with a 2*TC then at f2.8 and half the price its worth it cost and performance wise against options like 300mm f2.8 primes (yes the primes are better, but not quite double the price better - plus with big savings means more chance to get out and shoot)

Wonderful reply, like always, my friend.

I'll have a look at the links.

As for standing up to the 70-200/2.8II, I don't think it really does. See the MTFs below. Although, it is said to use very well with the 2x TC. See the MTFs below.

Derrel said:
Take a look at this MTF chart, and tell me what you thin k about the performance at the short end...
Sigma unveils 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS - Page 61 - Canon Digital Photography Forums Honestly, it's better than my 80-200/2.8D now. It may be as perfect as the 70-200/2.8, but it's quite alot better than my 80-200/2.8, and gives the extra reach I'll need.

Anyway...the new 120-300 weighs about 6.5 pounds. That makes using it quite a commitment. That basically means "monopod use". JUst something to think about. The 300/4 AF-S is easy to use and carry hand-held...not quite the same thing with the 6.7 to 7 pound lenses. Yeah. This is the only drawback for me. But, for the sake of image quality, it may be worth it.

I looked at some web samples in the long thread above...the lens performance level looks good enough for sports action photos, at least judging by the two dozen or so sample photos I looked at. However, I do want to say, I did not see sample photos that look as superb as those from say, the Nikon 200 f/2 or 300/2.8 AF-S lenses... Well, I suppose not. It's quite a bit less money than either of the lenses, third-party, and a zoom. and in fact, some of the soccer shots look a tad bit less-than-great. I'll have a look at them. Thanks.

For print publication on newsprint, I would have no issues with the 120-300, based on what I have seen today. I have not really looked diligently however; it's possible that there are some really great sample pics out there. But the way I see it, the short end of the lens is what will make it useful as a sports/event lens. A zoom lens with that range is pretty handy for focal length changes on the fly. I was thinking the same thing. I'll be picking up an FX camera in the next year, and I think this focal length will be perfect for me. My most used lenses now are the 80-200/2.8D (perfect focal length equivalent on DX) and 300/4 AF-s (+11-16 Tokina and 180/3.5 Macro). This lens would make for a great substitute for the first two with a 1.4TC. I'm not sure 100%, but the 6lbs it weighs may be less than the other two combined.