DSLRUsers.com

I've been away for a while, but I'm back in the game now so I am wondering how the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lens stacks up against the Sigma 300 f2.8 prime.

I am looking for something to round out the longer end of my lenses as I currently have a 15-30 f4-5.6, 30 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 all of which are Sigma and I am more than happy with the quality of Siggy lenses.

I would love to be able to fork out the $$$ for a Nikon 300 2.8, but alas, no.

Nikon 300 2.8

I think Adam(e) runs the sigma 120-300? Might be worth asking him.

I can only vouch for the Nikon variety above

both are good lens and I have and used both. You would find that the 300mm 2.8 sharper of the 2. Both work well with SIGMA TC and the 1.4 TC is a tad sharper than the 2X TC but image's are still quite good. I still have and use the 300mm 2.8 and both lens are hard to hand hold but can be done, using a mono pod works better for me

this was taken with the 300mm 2.8....... hand held

Mate i can do nothing but recomend the Sigma, yes the Nikon might be a bit sharper but can it zoom out to 120mm if need be??? Shooting everything from clipsal to animals at the zoo with my 120-300 I couldn't be hapier....... my 1.4x converter just about lives on this lens such a great combo.

A few shots using the lens.







I'll be down your way this weekend if you want to have a look and go with it.

Cheers
Adam

......... some more shots with the 300mm 2.8 & 1.4TC......

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=33548

So, Adame, you don't feel that the overlap between the 70-200 and 120-300 is wasted?

I can see the pros and cons of each, but I am slightly leaning towards the 120-300, I think.

Smurh should you decide on the Sigma, I know where there is a second hand one for sale in perfect condition. If you are interested PM me and I will put you in touch with the owner.

Smurph wrote:So, Adame, you don't feel that the overlap between the 70-200 and 120-300 is wasted?

I hope I'm not stating the obvious here, but the 70-200 is useful when you need a wide end out to 70 mm and only 200mm on the long end; the 120-300 is useful when you don't need as wide on the wide end but need longer on the long end. I have both and for me they're useful for different things.

"Overlap" is too simplistic a way of looking at zoom lenses IMO, the zoom range of lenses (and the use of that zoom range) is far more important.

To get back to your original question, are you going to lose out by not having the zoom function?

Another one for the Sigma 120-300, fantastic lens, specially coupled with the 1.4TC. I used it exclusively at the V8SC round for all long shots a couple of weeks ago. No issues with sharpness at all!

Smurph wrote:So, Adame, you don't feel that the overlap between the 70-200 and 120-300 is wasted?

I can see the pros and cons of each, but I am slightly leaning towards the 120-300, I think.

Not one little bit mate, i still shoot certain things with my 70-200 because as stated above sometimes you need the wider shots.... PM me if your free any time over the weekend or on friday and ill give you a look. Better to try something IMO then you can decide for yourself.

Adam

Happy to add my opinion to this one.
After careful research I decided on the 120-300F2.8 ~ my primary reason being that when combined with the 1.4TC it was the cheapest 400mm of quality that I could afford.
No complaints with this set up - it has been a winner for me.
I used this combination with the D200 before Christmas and the D300 in the new year for Cricket, and more recently for Windsurfing and Kiteboarding.

Gallery Link follows :-

http://www.pbase.com/steven_hight/cricket

http://www.pbase.com/steven_hight/windsurfing

a friend of mine has the 120-300, d3 combo he uses for soccer and other sporting events....excellent results