Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2015 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?

  
 
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Curious which one of these you all would pick for sports shooting- football and baseball mostly.


Nov 09, 2015 at 08:50 PM
Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. No question.


Kent in SD



Nov 09, 2015 at 09:17 PM
Charles Loy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Nikon 300 f2.8, no question


Nov 09, 2015 at 09:28 PM
Lauchlan Toal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Hard to say. At 300mm, the Nikon is the better lens. Slightly sharper, better AF, takes TCs better. But it lacks the beautiful flexibility that the 120-300 affords you. So it really comes down to shooting style. (Yep, don't you have how every lens question is answered by the nebulous idea of "shooting style"? )

For baseball I'd go for the 300 prime hands down. If they're night games, I might even go for the 400mm f2.8 D, since baseball needs a lot of reach. But for football, I'd go for the Sigma. (This is assuming you use one lens and one body - if you have multiple bodies I'll discuss other options in a minute.) With football you often have players running towards you, and being able to zoom out to 120mm and capture the touchdown while you're in the end zone is invaluable. It also just gives you a lot more framing choices in general, unlike in baseball where you're often at 300mm and still cropping. Though I have much more experience shooting football than baseball, so others would be better suited to discussing baseball.

If you have two bodies, you might be better off with a 70-200 f2.8 on one and a 300mm (or 400mm) on the other. More cumbersome, but gives you similar flexibility to the Sigma while giving the prime IQ at long range.

A few other things to keep in mind are the size of the lenses, and the cost. The Sigma is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikon, and you will feel this if you're hand-holding for a couple hours. Yet it's also less expensive, and your wallet will feel this a great deal as well.

Personally, I'd pick the Sigma. It's a beautiful lens that's truly versatile, even if it may fall slightly short of the top-end primes when it comes to IQ and AF. Emphasis on slightly. However, if you find yourself reach-limited at 300mm and end up using teleconverters more often than not, you might appreciate how well a prime lens takes them. So ultimately, I'd go for the 120-300 if you need under 300mm more than you need over 300mm, and the 300 prime if vice versa.



Nov 09, 2015 at 09:29 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Lauchlan Toal wrote:
Hard to say. At 300mm, the Nikon is the better lens. Slightly sharper, better AF, takes TCs better. But it lacks the beautiful flexibility that the 120-300 affords you. So it really comes down to shooting style. (Yep, don't you have how every lens question is answered by the nebulous idea of "shooting style"? )

For baseball I'd go for the 300 prime hands down. If they're night games, I might even go for the 400mm f2.8 D, since baseball needs a lot of reach. But for football, I'd go for the Sigma. (This is assuming you use one lens
...Show more

I would use one lens and one body. I have a 70-200 2.8 that I use currently. My son is centerfielder and catcher/pitcher so I could se adding a 400mm one day. Still though, football is his love. Those are the shots I want to be perfect. The other photographers on the field talk about missing great shots bc too close to them and they shoot with a 300mm ...I don't wanna be that person. I love the facial expressions and the reach and the laying out for TDs (son is a receiver) so I can't miss the shots in the red zone. Those are my favorites for true expressions. I have a Nikon D3300 now so I clearly need to ditch that camera. I can't afford a new big lens AND TWO bodies so I gotta pick one body and one lens for the moment. I was automatically assuming I would buy a 300mm and found one locally used for 2800 BUT then this forum kinda turned me onto the Sigma 120-300 which I never even knew existed. The more I read, and know my specific style, the more I am intrigued by it... and I could get a used one for 2800 (maybe less)



Nov 09, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Lauchlan Toal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


amandagillen wrote:
I would use one lens and one body. I have a 70-200 2.8 that I use currently. My son is centerfielder and catcher/pitcher so I could se adding a 400mm one day. Still though, football is his love. Those are the shots I want to be perfect. The other photographers on the field talk about missing great shots bc too close to them and they shoot with a 300mm ...I don't wanna be that person. I love the facial expressions and the reach and the laying out for TDs (son is a receiver) so I can't miss the shots in
...Show more

Sounds like the Sigma might be your best bet. In terms of maximizing your chances of getting the shot in football, the zoom range is going to get you more photos than the slightly faster AF of the Nikon. Definitely get the dock for it as well if you pick the Sport version, since it lets you calibrate the AF to incredible precision. Probably your best bet is to get a new camera first though - whether you pick a D610, D800, or D750, the 70-200 will really sing on it. And when you add a 300mm lens you're set.



Nov 09, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


amandagillen wrote:
I would use one lens and one body. I have a 70-200 2.8 that I use currently. My son is centerfielder and catcher/pitcher so I could se adding a 400mm one day. Still though, football is his love. Those are the shots I want to be perfect. The other photographers on the field talk about missing great shots bc too close to them and they shoot with a 300mm ...I don't wanna be that person. I love the facial expressions and the reach and the laying out for TDs (son is a receiver) so I can't miss the shots in
...Show more

Having owned both lenses (still own the 300/2.8 VRII with TCs for birds) I'd say you will be very happy with either, both are great lenses. As has been mentioned if using TCs for sport then the 300 prime is better (though the Sigma with Sigma's own x1.4 or 2.0 TCs is also very good but AF slower).

By football I take it you mean American Football ? For your son (you don't mention his age) I guess that means half size pitches ? If that's the case and you're not cropping much then you can get a great condition and low shutter count D300s for ca. US$500, that's a 12MP camera (same as the pro D3s) but excellent AF and 7 fps, both critical to your needs. It was the leading APS-C sports camera of it's day and a 5 star performer.
Add the Sigma and you have an effective 180-450/2.8 lens. Keep your 3300 for your 70-200 (eff. 105-300) for when they get real close. That's going to save you money over a 300/2.8 but still give you great IQ and now you have two cameras to cover every eventuality.



Nov 10, 2015 at 12:04 AM
JMDobson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


I have owned a 300 prime, the newest sigma and the 400. For football right now, I use the sigma and a 400, both on a full frame sensor. I shoot mostly from the endzone or up to the 25 yard line, to give you a reference. I shoot with the 400 until they are in the redzone, and then switch to the "short lens". Being able to rack out to 120mm is fantastic, and 300 can capture images at the 30 yard line just fine. I used to use a 70-200 for this role, but I found that the arc of coverage I missed from 200mm to 400mm was too great.

I vote you buy the sigma, and then go from there. It's not too heavy to shoot for a game, but a monopod would help a lot. It helps they are also at a nice price right now.



Nov 10, 2015 at 12:17 AM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Frogfish wrote:
Having owned both lenses (still own the 300/2.8 VRII with TCs for birds) I'd say you will be very happy with either, both are great lenses. As has been mentioned if using TCs for sport then the 300 prime is better (though the Sigma with Sigma's own x1.4 or 2.0 TCs is also very good but AF slower).

By football I take it you mean American Football ? For your son (you don't mention his age) I guess that means half size pitches ? If that's the case and you're not cropping much then you can get a great condition and
...Show more

When you say that the Sigma with their TC AF is slower, would if be slower than my D3300 with my 70-200 2.8 is currently? Just curious? Also, my son is in high school. The football field lighting is usually horrible unless we are inside the 20s. The end zones are pitch black on our home fields. I never had an issue with this when he played freshman/JV but he is playing varsity now too and I quickly realized before next football season when he starts his sophomore year, I will most definitely need to upgrade. Having said that. I don't really *want* to carry 2 bodies and larger lenses with me..... I actually do love my D3300 and have just had it for under a year, its just not performing in the dark like I want it to. Im gonna upgrade that as well. Do you think i will definitely need the Sigma TC with the 120-300 lens as well? Are the D300s great in lower light? I was leaning more toward a D750 or D700 used or D800. Still new at this : )



Nov 10, 2015 at 06:54 AM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


JMDobson wrote:
I have owned a 300 prime, the newest sigma and the 400. For football right now, I use the sigma and a 400, both on a full frame sensor. I shoot mostly from the endzone or up to the 25 yard line, to give you a reference. I shoot with the 400 until they are in the redzone, and then switch to the "short lens". Being able to rack out to 120mm is fantastic, and 300 can capture images at the 30 yard line just fine. I used to use a 70-200 for this role, but I found that the
...Show more

Do you ever use a TC for the Sigma and if so, does it change the performance a lot? Im going from using a D3300 with a 70-200 so Im used to carrying that lens all around for hours and hours without any issues. Is the switch to holding a Sigma drastic? What type of monopod do you recommend? Our end zones are so dark and really all the way up to the 20 has horrible lighting. If I switch a a full frame with the Sigma 120-300 will I still need something more to capture everything on the football field? Which cameras do you recommend?



Nov 10, 2015 at 07:02 AM
Charles Loy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


There is a Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Lens for Nikon on the sale forum, $2500.
Selling because he shoots football and bought a 400 f2.8 which he suggests is a better choice.

When I shot football 20 years ago, I was given a station I could use (example: the 20 to 40 yard line only) and I used 400 2.8 on a body and a 70-200 f2.8 on another. Worked well for me.



Nov 10, 2015 at 07:13 AM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


D300 no good for high ISO (compared to modern bodies) and only 12mp.

If you're only going 1 body and need to zoom out go with the 120-300 and D800 or D750, that way you have some extra MP if you need to crop when the 300 end isn't long enough.

btw - I shoot basketball with a D7000+17-55 and D800+80-200, 1/800s, f/2.8, ISO1600 but it's national level in well lit 5000 capacity indoor stadium.
I used to shoot my kids soccer with D700+70-200+1.7TC but only during the day, night matches too dark.

Andy



Nov 10, 2015 at 08:31 AM
Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


amandagillen wrote:
When you say that the Sigma with their TC AF is slower, would if be slower than my D3300 with my 70-200 2.8 is currently? Just curious?



Would probably be close. The real problem is with TC you lose 1 stop of shutter speed. That puts you back about where you'd be with a D7200.


Kent in SD



Nov 10, 2015 at 08:41 AM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Two23 wrote:
Would probably be close. The real problem is with TC you lose 1 stop of shutter speed. That puts you back about where you'd be with a D7200.

Kent in SD


I don't want to go backwards so the TC is prob not route to go. You think a 300mm length w a D750 or D800 would be enough for football if Im on the 30 yardline? Im with D3300 and 70-200 now and its not enough at times.



Nov 10, 2015 at 10:43 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Honestly, for sports (I shoot football) the 120-300 f/2.8 would be the bomb ... that said, I bought the Nikon 300 f/2.8. The reason being that at the time, only the older 120-300 was available and it has a history of calibration and maintenance issues. I didn't want to deal with that.

I have no data about the reliability/stability of the new 120-300 but I'm very happy with my 300 f/2.8 and have no desire to change ... but, if anything happens to my 300 f/2.8 I would have to give the 120-300 a real good look as a replacement.



Nov 10, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Trevorma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


I used the older NON OS version of the 120-300 on a D700. I loved it. The flexibility was great and I had ZERO complaints about IQ or AF speed. I even used a 1.4x TC on it with no real complaints.

Then I made the mistake of borrowing a buddies 300mm 2.8 VRI........ that thing locked focus in no time, tracked well, nailed everything. See I didn't know what I was missing until I tried the 300 prime.

Since that day I have rented both the Sport and non-sport version of the 120-300. Still no real complaints. Worked great on my D800e. Sharp, fast ect...... but then I got a great deal on a 300mm 2.8 VRI and again..... that prime is a monster!!!

Borrow or rent both and try them for yourself. I had the 120-300 and didn't know any better. I loved it, never put it down. Then saw what I was missing and have NEVER looked back



Nov 10, 2015 at 12:16 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Trevorma wrote:
I used the older NON OS version of the 120-300 on a D700. I loved it. The flexibility was great and I had ZERO complaints about IQ or AF speed. I even used a 1.4x TC on it with no real complaints.

Then I made the mistake of borrowing a buddies 300mm 2.8 VRI........ that thing locked focus in no time, tracked well, nailed everything. See I didn't know what I was missing until I tried the 300 prime.

Since that day I have rented both the Sport and non-sport version of the 120-300. Still no real complaints. Worked great on my
...Show more

Very helpful. I have the opportunity to buy a 300 2.8 AF-S II NO VR for 2800$. Its a local known photographer so a source I trust. Issue is if I want it, I need to decide now. I can wait and shop around if I go with the Sigma 120-300 bc I don't "need" it till July, although I would totally use it for baseball if I had it now. With my son being a receiver, I don't want to lose the close shots of him laying out for passes near the end zone. Thats my dilemma. Would I miss that with a fixed 300?



Nov 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Trevorma wrote:
I used the older NON OS version of the 120-300 on a D700. I loved it. The flexibility was great and I had ZERO complaints about IQ or AF speed. I even used a 1.4x TC on it with no real complaints.

Then I made the mistake of borrowing a buddies 300mm 2.8 VRI........ that thing locked focus in no time, tracked well, nailed everything. See I didn't know what I was missing until I tried the 300 prime.

Since that day I have rented both the Sport and non-sport version of the 120-300. Still no real complaints. Worked great on my
...Show more

Also, our local rental store has the older 120-300 but not the new. How didd are they? I would love to compare it to the 300 I shot today but don't want to do it if theres a big diff.



Nov 10, 2015 at 12:47 PM
amandagillen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


Andre Labonte wrote:
Honestly, for sports (I shoot football) the 120-300 f/2.8 would be the bomb ... that said, I bought the Nikon 300 f/2.8. The reason being that at the time, only the older 120-300 was available and it has a history of calibration and maintenance issues. I didn't want to deal with that.

I have no data about the reliability/stability of the new 120-300 but I'm very happy with my 300 f/2.8 and have no desire to change ... but, if anything happens to my 300 f/2.8 I would have to give the 120-300 a real good look as a replacement.


Do you feel like you miss shots in the red zone bc of the larger 300 size? With my son being a receiver, that is my main concern. I don't want to miss the end zone shots. Thats the reason I started looking at the 120-300 bc of flexibility.



Nov 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM
Next39
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Nikon 300mm 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8?


I think what you're using, the 70-200, is good for the red zone, and perfect for the end zone. As for using a 300 2.8 in the red zone and in the end zone, it can be completely hit or miss. It all depends where you are and where the play happens - they could be right on top of you or completely away from you. I would keep your 70-200 and pick up that 300 2.8 AFS-II (which BTW is a very light lens for a 300 2.8, no monopod needed), and sometime in the next 6 months, pick up another body. You have to have a spare anyway.


Nov 10, 2015 at 01:24 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.