Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII or Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM?

[Spesh]

Hi guys,

I really need some help choosing between these two lenses. I've read review after review and both lenses get good write ups. Obviously the VRII is the standard tele of this focal length for every pro, but the Sigma does seem very appealing.

I shoot a lot of waterskiing from the bank of the lake, so the extra reach of the Sigma would be handy. But then again I know that the focus speed and sharpness of the Nikon (which are both very important to me) are the best in this class.

I would love to hear some opinions from board members on this.

Cheers.

 

[Overread]

How close can you get now? From what I've read you'll want 5-600mm for shooting something like water sports of that nature - and that would mean the only option of the two is the Sigma with a 2*TC. It won't be the fastest at 600mm but it will do a good job if stopped down to around f7.1 and is significantly cheaper than many other current market options to get to that range.

That said you might have luck getting an older, but still quality 300mm f2.8 and a 2*TC.

 

[Patrice]

I know that the focus speed and sharpness of the Nikon (which are both very important to me) are the best in this class.


Cheers.

You've sort of answered your own question there. Team it up with the latest Nikon TC and you should be good, although still a bit short in focal length. A decent crop body (ex, D7000), or a high pixel count FX (ex, D800 and crop), will give you a bit of an advantage concerning field of view.

 

[Judobreaker]

I had the same problem a while back. I mainly shoot wildlife so I wanted extra reach and went for the Sigma.
Sure the Nikon is extremely sharp and focusses fast but we're talking about 100mm standard extra reach and a possible 200mm extra reach with teleconverters. That's a lot.
I really love the lens and do not regret my choice.

That being said I'll have to warn you about this lens though.
Yes it is sharp, has a good reach, is cheap for this kind of lens and produces very good pictures...
There's a drawback though. This lens is HUGE!
Really, I mean it.
It weighs about 3kg, that is twice as much as the Nikon!
I still do not regret my choice at all, it's a good workout actually. Just make sure you know you're going to be carrying around a lot of weight if you choose this one. ^^

 

[Overread]

Here's a 70-200mm f2.8 next to a 120-300mm f2.8

As Judo says they are very different lenses for very different uses. The above I own and even though they overlap a lot they are very different lenses to actually use. The 70-200mm you can use all day without too much worry, yes you'll know you've used it, but it won't cripple the average person.
The 120-300mm you'll take a monopod with you (or at tripod if you're stationary for extended periods). It's much heavier and bigger and in many situations it can simply be too big and heavy to be practical. It also fatigues you a lot faster so having some support helps. Even though you will build yourself up with using it more often its still a very serious weight.


If you need the range in a zoom lens then the 120-300mm is the lens to go for no question. For its price its the best option there is in a zoom lens - the only superior would be the Nikon 200-400mm (which costs a fair bit more to get hold of). If you don't need the range though then the 70-200mm is an ideal option. Indeed if you only need around 400mm then I would go for the 70-200mm + 2*TC option. If you need more though then the 120-300mm is the beast you want.

Like I said if you can get a second hand older 300mm f2.8 you can get the same reach for a bit less and for a higher quality; however you lack the zoom on that lens (that might or might not be important to you).

 

[Spesh]

Thank you very much for the responses.

The lakes that I shoot from are actually relatively narrow. The longest focal length I have had use for is just shy of 400mm, so the 70-200 with TC would cover this. Only problem being, I then lose the f2.8 aperture which can be extremely useful as shutter speeds need to be so fast.

I'm quite a big guy, so the weight is not a concern for me at all. Neither is physical size, as I'm looking for a lens for a specific purpose as opposed to a "walkaround".

If I were to buy the Sigma, I would settle for the 300mm reach and would not use a TC, whereas with the Nikon, I definitely would require a TC to achieve the length. So I guess it really comes down to which of these two would yield the best results....The Sigma with 300mm and constant f2.8 or the Nikon + TC with 400mm and f4. I don't know how sharp or fast the Nikon is to AF with the TC. Fast AF is obviously very important with such a high speed sport.

Overread, how would you rate the AF speed and accuracy of each lens?

Arrrghhh, it's such a dilemma.

 

[Overread]

AF speed is a nightmare to compare (though not half as bad as trying to compare anti-shake modes!)

I've honestly never really used the two lenses side by side for any serious shooting (If I go out I generally take only the one most suited to what I'm shooting). As a gut feeling the 70-200mm bare without any TC is the faster - however the 120-300mm is no slouch. With a 1.4TC in the mix on the 70-200mm I think it would be a close thing on the AF front. That said the AF in the camera body will also be a trying factor as well.

The 120-300mm is extensively used for sports and action - even if the AF isn't the most lightning fast for those focal lengths it can do the job, especially bare without a TC (I tend to end up using it more often with a 2*TC where any lenses AF takes a nosedive to some extent).


Edit - your in Surrey - if you can get up to the big London shops or are lucky you might find a local shop which has the lenses in stock which you can try out (I tried up the north of the UK and sadly found that no-where could get the 120-300mm in stock for demo, only for purchase; sadly highend lenses are rare to hold for any shop that isn't very big and those which do tend to stick to the big Canon and Nikon brand ones which they know for certain they will sell at some point)

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Shoot a high MP FX body (D800 most likely) in DX crop mode with the 70-200 and the TC-20 III. That'll get you the equivalent of 600mm at 5.6 with the optics of the Nikon, which as you said are noticeably better. That setup would also provide you a ton of flexibility as it would only take about 15-20 seconds to remove the TC and switch back to full res mode.

Of course, all this is moot if you can't afford it. You're looking at about $5500 investment if you don't already have any of the gear. The other caveat is that the D800's FPS isn't the best for shooting action like waterskiing.

 

[brian_f2.8]

I have used the Sigma 120-300 and thought that it was a great lens. It really is, hands down. You get 300mm at f2.8 which is nice for a very low cost. I figured that the 70-200 is too big to walk around with all the time. Use the 24-70 or 24-120 as an every day lens, then use the Sigma for sports. So in a nutshell the 70-200 is not for me and my needs. The 120-300 is great for sports and action. Use something more practical for every day shooting.