trenchmonkey wrote:
Thanks, Bob...that'll be the day The only lens I ever loved a 2x on was the 200 f2 VR (with a tweak to the
AF fine tune on FX) Hate losing at least 2 stops on f2.8 glass so the Sigma 1.4 will be my limit for BIF this Fall
with the 120-300. Appreciate the 'chime'
Monkey, I thought you had 400/23.8 VR? if so why do you use the Sigma+1.4tc=f4 instead of f2.8 of the nikon at 400mm?
Bob
The 400 2.8 is like impossible to hand hold and carry around all day unless ur in super good shape lol...You can carry around the 120-300 OS on a black rapid thingy all day and be none the worse for wear. It's easy to hand hold, and i'm not in very good shape. I never tripod mine even w/the 2x. I probably should I'm sure my results would be better ^_^. It's decently heavy, and needs a black rapid style strap, but the barrel isn't too fat (it's easier to hand hold, for sure, than a 200mm f2/), and the weight is balanced so even an out of shape weakling like me can hike around w/it. Try that with 400 2.8! :-0
woos wrote:
The 400 2.8 is like impossible to hand hold and carry around all day unless ur in super good shape lol...You can carry around the 120-300 OS on a black rapid thingy all day and be none the worse for wear. It's easy to hand hold, and i'm not in very good shape. I never tripod mine even w/the 2x. I probably should I'm sure my results would be better ^_^. It's decently heavy, and needs a black rapid style strap, but the barrel isn't too fat (it's easier to hand hold, for sure, than a 200mm f2/), and the weight is balanced so even an out of shape weakling like me can hike around w/it. Try that with 400 2.8! :-0...Show more →
I have to put both on tripod any way, so for IQ, I would take 400/2.8 any time
bob
Monkey, I thought you had 400/23.8 VR? if so why do you use the Sigma+1.4tc=f4 instead of f2.8 of the nikon at 400mm?
Bob
No, Bob...we'd never be havin' this conversation if the 400 f2.8 VR was in my possession
It's very well built (hard to believe it's a Sigma) AF and zoom are well dampened and smooth. It feels as heavy (because it is) as the 300 VR2 but better balanced because the weight is more evenly distributed. Hood is OK but I question how well it will hold up to abuse but it should be cheaper to replace then the 300's hood. I'm impressed because I don't feel like I'm giving up any quality to the Nikon from outward appearances. Tripod foot is good, I like the rubberey/plastic coating but I did put a plate on it so as not to scarf up the foot in case I want to return it. The lens rotates smoothly in the ring and the clamping knob allows for fine tuning the resistance nicely.
The OS seems to be good, it spools down later the the 300 VR2 but seems as fast or maybe even faster to lock down the image. I didn't try the panning feature yet so we'll see how effective that is.
AF: this sucker could use a limiter. AF speed is good when the object isn't too far from focus but a bit slow when going from close to infinity or vice versa. The 1.4 didn't seem to change the AF speed but I've only tried it in full daylight so we'll see. It does lock down nicely and didn't hunt or jitter as it get's close to attaining focus. This was in both AF-S and AF-C.
IQ: so far I think it's great, amazingly good for the price (excellent with the 1.4 as well)
Vignetting: Yep, quite a bit.
Bokeh: I haven't shot enough to tell, seems alright.
Anyway some random shots. Looking forward to Will's conclusion since he will work it over a lot harder then I will. I like it so far. I think this could be a nice alternative to the 200-400 if it performs in low light with the 1.4X on board.
Thanks for posting some results, Rich. I missed more than I care to admit workin' the rodeo practice session
last evening. The sun burst thru letting me grab this @300mm, but in lesser light we struggled. (Shot with D7K)
Here's a 100% crop with the Sigma 2x on. D800, F/8, 600mm, ISO 800. Handheld, but shutter speed was decent, 1/640 I think. Very lightly sharpened. Processed in Raw Therapee, cuz I'm playing with the new experimental build, lol--think I used a tiny bit too little chroma NR and a tiny bit too much luma NR...meh, whatever. =p
trenchmonkey wrote:
Thanks for posting some results, Rich. I missed more than I care to admit workin' the rodeo practice session
last evening. The sun burst thru letting me grab this @300mm, but in lesser light we struggled. (Shot with D7K)
Interesting, I suspect lowlight may be the achilles heel of this lens for serious action, there is just so much more glass on the 300 f2.8 prime. I wonder if the Sigma is an honest f2.8 (like the 200-400 isn't a true f4) it's metering around a 1/3rd stop slower then the 300 VR2 with identical scenes.
I'm going to shoot the Red Bull grand prix at Laguna Seca and have a good serious BIF session (with birds ) and see then how I feel about the Sigma's AF. I suspect this thing can't hang with the 300 VR2 in extreme shooting conditions but I think it could be a "poor man's" 200-400 with the 1.4 onboard and compare favorably there. I don't really need a $5K+ 300mm prime lens anyway, I don't make money with this stuff so I'll happily settle for almost as good!
brunobarolo wrote:
Hi Will, are you done with your evaluation? With and without 1.4 extender? Regarding AF and image quality? Wide open and stopped down?
Any further experiences would be most welcome!
Thanks for taking the time!
Hi Bruno sent you a PM. For anyone else following this thread...we've parted ways. AF couldn't keep up in
mixed rodeo lighting. In focus captures a dismal 75% so I switched to the 300 f4 midway thru the competition
and nailed the next 220 shots.
Was worth a try, eh?! I'm very demanding, so if considering the 120-300 OS...please understand that YMMV.
The only lens I ever loved a 2x on was the 200 f2 VR (with a tweak to the
