Sigma 100-300 f/4: Way better than I expected it to be.

[Hooligan Dan]

I just got this lens in the mail today and it outperformed my expectations. Since getting my D3s my older 80-200 just wasn't cutting it with sports on larger fields(HS football), but I can't afford to go drop another 5 grand on the Nikon 300mm 2.8. So researched the Nikon 300mm f/4, Sigma 300 f/2.8, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and the 100-300mm f/4.

Obviously I landed with the 100-300. My main reasons being the size(I hate using monopods because it makes getting out of the way quickly much harder) and the added zoom if action started getting to close to shoot at 300mm.

This things is much sharper than my Nikon 80-200(which I plan to replace in the next 2-3 months), quieter, and focuses a lot quicker.

And the price couldn't be beat. I got it from Allen's Camera(should sound familiar with anyone who knows froknowsphoto.com) for $899.

I always regretted my Sigma purchases in my early days and that led me to buying only Nikon, but in this one case I'm beyond happy with Sigma.

 

[Derrel]

It's a pretty handy lens, made even handier with the DX crop option the pro Nikon bodies offer. It's good for baseball, track and field, lots of things. I wish Nikon would make its own version of a 100-300 f/4 constant aperture lens.

 

[Markw]

Care to do a photo-off between the 100-300/4 and 80-200/2.8? I have been looking into the 100-300 as well, and I own the 80-200/2.8. It would be nice to know directly from someone who owns both.

Mark

 

[shaunly]

Care to do a photo-off between the 100-300/4 and 80-200/2.8? I have been looking into the 100-300 as well, and I own the 80-200/2.8. It would be nice to know directly from someone who owns both.

Mark

x2 please. I just picked up the 80-200 myself and will probably get a 1.4X. I was looking at that Sigma too but decided to stick with Nikon. Now I'm really curious if I should sell this lens for that Sigma. A direct comparison would be great!

 

[icassell]

I have had the 100-300 f/4 for a couple of years (bought it on e-bay for about $500). I love the lens. The range is great and the IQ is also quite good as long as it isn't wide open. I have now had Canon's 400mm f/5.6L for a few months. Although the Canon is noticably sharper than the Sigma with a 1.4X, the Sigma still does an excellent job and has the versatility of the zoom. I now use the Sigma for sports and the Canon for wildlife. I only wish they had put OS on the lens (but I don't have that on my Canon either).