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       end
  

Archive 2017 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF

  
 
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


I am planning a trip next year and I am very curious about the Sigma.
I know that is is heavy but I think it is right at the limit of what I would tolerate.
For a safari trip, I will have one camera with 500/4 already but want another camera
that will cover rougly 100-300mm range. I already have 70-200 and 300/4 but ideally
I don't really want to change lenses during game drive as it can be very dusty.
So I think about the Sigma as a possible one lens solution. 80-400 would be another possibility
but it is a relatively slow lens and ideally I would like to stay with f4 or faster lens.
So I wonder if anybody has ever compared these lenses.
From photographylife site, it was mentioned that 120-300 performance was relatively
poor at f2.8 but improved quickly at f4 and optimally at f5.6 while Nasim praised 70-200/2.8e FL pretty much right from wide open. However, if I look at his Imatest chart, if anything, at the same
focal lenght, Sigma seems to be slight better than 70-200/2.8e FL and quite a bit better at f4 and above. At 300mm, it also seems a bit better than 300/4e PF right from F4 onward. So at least for center sharpness, Sigma does not give up anything against the Nikon pair from what I could tell.
However, I have no idea how good is its AF especially in low light situation. Nasim did mention that its balance is rather poor but I think shooting from a car with bean bag will not be a big issue.
There is a possibility that I might be able to burrow a demo unit from Sigma here to try but not 100% sure yet but just wonder if anybody has any experience with this lens and whether you would prefer the Nikon pair better choice or not.



Sep 03, 2017 at 05:47 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


You may want to check out this link: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html
I recently returned from a trip with Brad (the author) and he is pretty high on the Sigma Sport series. He has been doing some comparisons between the Sigmas and equivalent Nikkors.

I currently have the 200-400mm f/VR and am considering the Sigma as a replacement in the future, as I could use the extra 2 stops of VR and extra stop of light @ 300mm. It seems that the lens is quite sharp across its range and does well with teleconverters.

regards,
bruce



Sep 03, 2017 at 07:18 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Thanks Bruce for the link. Looks like for what I need, 120-300 seems to fit the bill the best for one lens solution.


Sep 04, 2017 at 05:11 PM
OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


I agree...
I am very intrigued by this lens as well and think it will pair nicely with a 500mm f/4.

bruce



Sep 04, 2017 at 05:47 PM
GOVA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


I have non S 120-300 and find it excellent. No complaints of any sort in terms of IQ and focus speed.

F/2.8 works very well with my copy, I've used it with 2X TC from Sigma and have pretty good pictures at 600mm with full AF. I've used it with D800 and now with D810.

Now, as much as I like it, it would not be my choice lens for any sort of travel. It is large and heavy and there is no way around this. It will do when you lean this against car window, but if this is the case why not go for 150-600mm range?




Sep 05, 2017 at 07:28 PM
reggieb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


suteetat wrote:
I am planning a trip next year and I am very curious about the Sigma.
I know that is is heavy but I think it is right at the limit of what I would tolerate.
For a safari trip, I will have one camera with 500/4 already but want another camera
that will cover rougly 100-300mm range. I already have 70-200 and 300/4 but ideally
I don't really want to change lenses during game drive as it can be very dusty.
So I think about the Sigma as a possible one lens solution. 80-400 would be another possibility
but it is a relatively slow lens
...Show more

Just FYI, I once thought about doing something similar, and I rented the 120-300 to test. It was much bigger than I expected, it's a very large lens. Good lens, but very large. At its size I'd rather have something longer than 300, which is driving me to the 500mm sport.



Sep 06, 2017 at 08:02 AM
Lightsearcher
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


I had the 120-300mm for two or three years and it is a beautiful and versatile lens.

I used it all the time with the 2.0 TC and it delivers always super sharp pictures, AF speed slow a little with the TC's but once it catch the subject it will track the

I sold it a few months ago because I didn't use it too much and also the lens is too heavy for my walks at the beach.

I think the Sigma with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's will be a one lens solution for your trip.

Some pictures I shoot with the 2.0 TC:

http://marcelobarrera.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p104534835-6.jpg

http://marcelobarrera.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p372254606-6.jpg

http://marcelobarrera.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v119/p659916585-6.jpg






Sep 06, 2017 at 11:12 AM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


GOVA wrote:
I have non S 120-300 and find it excellent. No complaints of any sort in terms of IQ and focus speed.

F/2.8 works very well with my copy, I've used it with 2X TC from Sigma and have pretty good pictures at 600mm with full AF. I've used it with D800 and now with D810.

Now, as much as I like it, it would not be my choice lens for any sort of travel. It is large and heavy and there is no way around this. It will do when you lean this against car window, but if this is the case
...Show more

I was thinking of 150-600 a bit but decided not to go that route for a couple of reasons.
One is that game drive starts before sunrise so the faster the lens the better. I already have Nikon 200-500 but decided to take 500/4e FL instead as it AF much faster, I also would guess that its T-stop is better than 1 stop difference according to F4 vs F5.6 . I have not test it properly but when I got my 500/4e FL, I feel that iso went down more than 1 stop with the same shutter speed in similar condition wide open. I think 150-600 as a whole is similar in IQ to 200-500 and as good as they are, 500/4 is still significantly better.

---------------------------------------------

reggieb wrote:
Just FYI, I once thought about doing something similar, and I rented the 120-300 to test. It was much bigger than I expected, it's a very large lens. Good lens, but very large. At its size I'd rather have something longer than 300, which is driving me to the 500mm sport.


Yes, I held it once at a photo show, it is even heavier than my 500/4e FL a bit. Not a lens I want to handheld for long but doable sometimes. Luckily this trip, weight is not a big issue so I want to make sure I am well equipped for it.




Sep 06, 2017 at 09:02 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Lightsearcher wrote:
I had the 120-300mm for two or three years and it is a beautiful and versatile lens.

I used it all the time with the 2.0 TC and it delivers always super sharp pictures, AF speed slow a little with the TC's but once it catch the subject it will track the

I sold it a few months ago because I didn't use it too much and also the lens is too heavy for my walks at the beach.

I think the Sigma with the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's will be a one lens solution for your trip.

Some pictures I shoot
...Show more

Nice pictures. IQ looks very impressive. I am definitely seriously consider this lens for the trip.





Sep 06, 2017 at 09:03 PM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Loved the range (120-300) for rodeo under the lights.
These days I'm inclined to go "light" with the 300 f4 PF wide open
Sigma grab...







Sep 07, 2017 at 07:43 AM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


my favorite long lens Sigma 120-300/2.8 S







Sep 07, 2017 at 07:50 AM
billslatteryjr
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Nasim has not standardized all his test scores (old and new Imatest versions?) and the older Sigma 120-300mm Sport scores should not be compared to the newer 70-200mmE scores. He's said he hopes one day to get around to redoing them.
I have and use both the 120Sport and the 70-200mmE. There is very little difference between them when it comes to sharpness at f4 with the E using the new TC. But I need the longer reach at f2.8 for night sports so I keep the Sport.
If it was my choice I'd go with something like a D810 and the 500mm at f4 and a D500 (D7500 or a super light D5600) at f2.8 and a bare 70-200E. The DX kit would probably be lighter and small than the 120 Sport by itself and you'd never have to swap lenses.
My 300mm Sport isn't the best at accuracy, even worse than the 600mm Sport. But the 70-200mm is the best zoom I've ever used when it comes to accuracy, speed and sharpness.
Hope that helps some.




Sep 07, 2017 at 09:39 AM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Thanks everyone. I think 120-300/2.8 is excellent and it would have the right reach on FF for me to compliment another FF with 500/4 well. It is tough to choose between 120-300 with all the weight or 70-200/300 PF with all the AF speeds and light weight.
As of right now, I certainly could go with D500/70-200 and D850 with 500 for sure.
If I go for 120-300, I could very well spend that money on another D850 body closer to the trip and crop if neccessary with 70-200 or stick a 300PF on it, I suppose.



Sep 07, 2017 at 07:14 PM
la puffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


So you have a 500/4 and want some way to get to 300mm.

I had the Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sport (the latest version) for 29 days. I spent a whole day tuning it with the USB dock. IQ wise, it's a decent lens, good, but nothing great. I hated the weight shift when zooming and the reverse direction of coming was nuts. My copy and another also had a focus shift when zooming, meaning it would move the focus point when zooming in or out. Really tough to zoom in quickly with accuracy. I give it a 7.5, a solid average. It's a remarkable attempt at something different, but still needs a version or two to really compete against the competition.

Another idea to consider (on FX bodies) is the 70-200/2.8E with a 1.4x TC III. That's gets you to 280mm at f/4, very handhold able, sharp as heck and you'll hardly notice the TC. You can even use the 2.x TC in a pinch. And when all is said and done, you have the arguably the best (and most expensive) 70-200/2.8 zoom produced. This is the match to go with a 500/4 prime. No Mickey Mouse, and no quackers.



Sep 07, 2017 at 09:40 PM
RandyR
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


I've had one since they were released. It's the equal to my 300vr1 but it's very difficult to hold and zoom


Sep 07, 2017 at 10:32 PM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Thanks, every one. Personally, I have not tried 70-200/2.8e FL with 1.4TC yet but I played with 2.0TC iii a bit couple of months ago and I was not very happy with IQ to be honest. I have not been to a safari before so I have no idea if 2 camera with 300 and 500 ml will be enough or 500 and 70-200. I kind of think that 120-300 would pretty much over what 70-200 and 300 would do. If I would end up using 300mm most of the time, I guess I would prefer to use just 300/4e PF, I think.
I saw on Moose Peterson's site, his gear for his Africa trip and he has D5, D500 and
800mm, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4e PF. If it is possible to change lens during game drive here and there without too much hassle, I think 70-200 and 300 would be an easier option for sure.



Sep 08, 2017 at 05:31 PM
smjphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


Its important to consider where and when your safari is. This affects how easy to change lens because of dust and rain. Some places aren't dusty and some are really dusty depending on the season. It also matters because some areas allow your vehicle to go off road and get very close to animals (5' -20') like elephants or leopards. For these, you might really want something pretty wide. Another consideration is the type of vehicle you will be in. Some are completely open and have no way to use a bean bag. Handling a 500 and a 120-300 and maybe a monopod is a juggling act for some.
It's my opinion that counting on changing lens doesn't work as well because of timing more than dust issues. And you're right about wanting to shoot in low light for many safaris.
I also found that carry on weight for the plane (international flight) was a problem when they made me weight my camera backpack. You never know when the airlines will clamp down on that.
Another issue many people have is not having enough long lens experience. Practice shooting from a vehicle with whatever you are going to take. Long lenses in low light from a vehicle is way more demanding than it seems, regardless of how good the equipment is. Know your minimum shutter speeds and maximum iso before you go. Grainy, blurry shots are really disappointing when you get. home.
There is no right answer, but checking out the specifics of your safari will help with the choices. Then just use what you brought to the best of your abilities.
best of luck, you will love it, I'm sure.



Sep 08, 2017 at 09:29 PM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


la puffin wrote:
So you have a 500/4 and want some way to get to 300mm.

I had the Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sport (the latest version) for 29 days. I spent a whole day tuning it with the USB dock. IQ wise, it's a decent lens, good, but nothing great. I hated the weight shift when zooming and the reverse direction of coming was nuts. My copy and another also had a focus shift when zooming, meaning it would move the focus point when zooming in or out. Really tough to zoom in quickly with accuracy. I give it a 7.5, a solid average.
...Show more

regretfully I can't agree with the review of the Sigma 120-300/S out of the box w/o playing with the focusing, mine shot dead on.
at a distance of 0.5miles across a bay with their 1.4xTC on I could still read the address on a lighthouse.








Sep 10, 2017 at 08:41 AM
la puffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


sjms wrote:
regretfully I can't agree with the review of the Sigma 120-300/S out of the box w/o playing with the focusing, mine shot dead on.
at a distance of 0.5miles across a bay with their 1.4xTC on I could still read the address on a lighthouse.


Respectfully, I can't tell much at all from that photograph. What are you trying to demonstrate?

I've had the Sigma painstaking tuned, and I have a 70-200 FL and a 400/2.8G. The Sigma without a tc and stopped down to f/4 is just not as fine in detail nor as fast and precise in focus speed as the 70-200 FL with a 1.4 TC III.



Sep 10, 2017 at 02:13 PM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Sigma 120-300/2.8 vs Nikon 70-200/2.8e FL + 300/4e PF


well then it just must be handling then when i can get an image like this w/o even concentrating. and this is a fast moving game.







Sep 10, 2017 at 03:47 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       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.