Sigma 120-300 OS vs Nikon 70-200/2.8 I + 300/4 AF-S

[Markw]

I bet that title looks like some other tongue to the non-photographer.

I know this is a bit of an oddball comparison, and I'm sure I know what the answer is going to be. But, I figured I'd ask anyway. If you had the choice between the two, which would you choose, and why? I find myself using my 300/4 way more than my 80-200/2.8, and the 120-300/OS is just as good as either of the aforementioned as far in terms of sharpness (at 2.8 at that!).

What say you?
Mark

 

[analog.universe]

That Siggy always looked really appealing to me.. Besides, 300mm 2.8 is a really specific look, that you can't get from a 300mm 4.0.

 

[Markw]

Wow. The more shots I look through taken with the lens, the more I REALLY just want to nix my two lenses and pick this one up. 70-200/2.8 Nikkor is cheap enough to just rent when needed. This is incredibly impressive. Especially with the 4 stop OS! That's going to be fantastic to help counter the 6.4lb weight. :er:

Mark

EDIT: (Not to mention with the D800s AF, a 2x TC would be no problem. )

 

[Judobreaker]

This is actually a choice I've been considering to make for a while now.
I'm going to pick up a new lens around the end of april and it's either going to be the Nikon 70-200 or the Sigma 120-300.
I'm strongly leaning towards the Sigma at this point so I expect it's going to be that one.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno Mark...I own the 70-200 Mk I and the 300/4 AF-S...the Mark I version is optimized for APS-C sensor use, delivering very high sharprness over the smaller, 29mm image circle of a DX sensor...but the falloff's bad on FX...still, the lens has superb bokeh for a zoom...one of the finest zooms for bokeh rendering IMHO. The 300/4 AF-S is light enough,small enough, and focuses fast enough to not be a PITA all of the time. The 300/4 AF-S also focuses VERY close for a 300mm lens--making it sort of a lightweight field telephoto and also a pseudo-macro-type lens when an extension tube or 1.4x TC is added. It also performs quite well with the TC-14e-II for distance work, making a nice 420mm f/5.6.

The thing with the 6.4 to 7 pound lenses, like the 200/2, 120-300/2.8,and the lightweight 300/2.8 Mark-II with magnesium barrel--is that they are so damned BIG,and draw so much attention that unless you're working an event, or doing a major shoot, they are just a huge, huge PITA to carry, drive around with, stow,etc... For events and major shoots, the 6-7 pound f/2.8 big glass lenses are okay. BUT...for days when you want to travel light and not draw a lot of attention, gawkers, kibbutzers, etc, the 300/2.8-type front objectives are out of the question. I use the 300/4 AF-S many more times per year than the 300/2.8 these days; five years ago, covering track and sports events, the 300/2.8 got a lot more use.

My policy is not to sell lenses to finance other lenses--it is to accumulate lenses by saving up money then BUYING a lens at a good price...in the long run, this allows you to build your lens system so that you have all the lenses you'll ever want or need. Renting a 70-200??? I cannot, simply, can NOT IMAGINE being without one at ALL times. If you think you need the newer Mark II model for the 36MP camera, then okay,let it go. OF COURSE, this is just my point of view. You've got the best perspective on your gear set and expected resale prices,etc.etc.

 

[Markw]

Thanks, Derrel. I didn't realize that the original 70-200 was intended for crop sensors. But, in all honesty, the only thing I EVER use my 80-200 for anymore is event gigs. On the other hand, though, I use my 300/4 at least every other day. Maybe more at times. The only other alternative to the 6.5lb Sigma with OS is the 6-7lb Nikkor with VR, at twice the price, with no zoom capability (albeit much better resolving power and damn-near perfect sharpness). Besides, carrying around the 3.4lb 70-200 and 3.2lb 300/4 is the same as carrying around the 6.5lb 120-300 in terms of bag weight (although, like you touch on, you wouldn't carry both lenses at the same time, in your hands).

Your philosophy of building a lens repertoire is one to be admired. But, for now at least, I am on a need-to-have-basis.

As for going without a 70-200, like I said, my 80-200 really hasn't been used alot by any stretch of the imagination in the past year or so. It's something I've gotten used to, but, it's not something I have fully decided I would be okay to go without. I'm just not sure. That's why I posted the thread.

Thank you for your input. Insightful, as always.
Mark

EDIT: Remember, I would really only be going without a 71-119 lens. I'm sure this range gets used quite frequently, just not too much by me.. (Just trying to rationalize. )

 

[Overread]

120-300mm OS next to 70-200mm f2.8
The difference in size and weight between the two is very very big. The 70-200mm is very much a lens nearly anyone can use for a day handheld without too much trouble. You'll be fatiguied by the end, but with some experience most will be able to get a days work out of it.
The 120-300mm however is much heavier and bigger. Its the kind of lens that you bring your monopod with at the very least. Weight is much bigger and whilst some will be able to grow used to it and handhold for longer and longer it will take you that much longer to grow used to the weight (and still you'll be wanting that monopod by the end of the day).

Personally whilst they cover (esp with TCs) very similar ranges they are very different lenses. Further the sigma can go as far as 600mm (wide open performance is not stella but decent, f7.1/f8 is more usable and in line with what one would expect of other big zoom lenses and using 2*TCs).