300mm Lenses - Nikon F4 v Sigma v Sigma zoom

H

Harrogate Photos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Edit My Images
No
I need a 300mm Lens to go on a Nikon D3s and am considering the following :-

Nikon 300mm f4 ( the f2.8 is more than I want to spend)

Sigma 300mm f2.8

Sigma 130-300f2.8 zoom


Would appreciate peoples thoughts, the Nikon is around the £1000 mark, and the the sigma zoom £1700ish and the sigma tele £2000.
 
Unless you need the 2.8 or want the zoom the 300 f4 is an absolute stonker of a lens. Takes a TC nicely as well.
 
I've had the 300mm f/4 AF-S for about 6 years or so now and love it. The image quality's great, AF is fast, built like a tank, and no ridiculously expensive drop-in filters like the older regular AF version.

I haven't tried either of the Sigmas, but I do like the Nikon f/4 AF-S.

I already have the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, so based on that alone I'd personally probably not bother looking at the zoom.
 
Thanks

have you tried it on a full frame sensor camera ?

looking at Ken Rockwell's site and he was critical of the Nikon F4 300mm only have a 77mm front element - he thought there would be vignetting
 
Harrogate Photos said:
Thanks

have you tried it on a full frame sensor camera ?

looking at Ken Rockwell's site and he was critical of the Nikon F4 300mm only have a 77mm front element - he thought there would be vignetting
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell is making the mistake of lens design theory (which says it should have 82mm element) vs reality.

There is no problem.

Fantastic lens.
 
Thanks, to be honest have only had one sigma lenses recently but sent it back - was just a macro lens and wasn't as well built as Nikons.

More marks for the Nikon so far, am thinking the loss of a stop is compensated with a D3s being good at higher ISO's.

Also, not to forget the Sigma's are double that of the Nikon f4 and the Sigma f4 is similar price to the Nikon f4


www.timothycook.co.uk
 
Don't forget the Sigma 100-300mm f4 too as a cheaper option.

Messiah Khan has a used Sigma 300mm F2.8 and 1.4TC in the sales section if you want to have a look.
 
puddleduck said:
Ken Rockwell is making the mistake of...
Click to expand...

He makes a lot of those. His own "About Me" section says that half is website is pure fantasy.

I haven't tried it on a full frame digital, but I have used it on my N90s 35mm body (which is obviously the same size as an FX digital body), and it had no vignetting that I noticed.

Harrogate Photos said:
Thanks, to be honest have only had one sigma lenses recently but sent it back
Click to expand...

The only AF Sigma lens I've used that's really impressed me is the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (but it's a crop lens, not full frame). I've had a couple of their manual focus macro lenses that are extremely good though (24 & 50mm f/2.8).
 
Harrogate Photos said:
I need a 300mm Lens to go on a Nikon D3s and am considering the following :-

Nikon 300mm f4 ( the f2.8 is more than I want to spend)

Sigma 300mm f2.8

Sigma 130-300f2.8 zoom


Would appreciate peoples thoughts, the Nikon is around the £1000 mark, and the the sigma zoom £1700ish and the sigma tele £2000.
Click to expand...

Have you found anyone with physical stock of the Nikon 300mm f4
 
if you want the zoom and/or F2.8 the sigma 120-300 is an excellent lens. i use mine on the 1dmk3 for equestrian events and it goes the job superbly (see the sports crit section for a few threads with examples).
 
Owned both the Nikon 300 f4 and now the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. The Nikon is much lighter and easier to manage on a walk about, its sharp and fast enough to focus. The Sigma is much heavier but can still be held easily enough, its nice and sharp and you have the advantage of the zoom feature ( which i use quite a bit ).

Why do you need a 300mm lens in the first place?
 
I have the nikon 300mm f/4 and it's some good quality glass. Goes well on my F5 which is a film camera so can do full-frame no worries. Ken Rockwell is wrong on this one.
 
Hey guys ... give Ken Rockwell his due. While he says:
  • I haven't shot with it yet, but I have played with one several times.
  • I'm suspicious of the 77mm filter size ...
  • With only a 77mm filter size I fear that ...
... nowhere, that I can see, does he give any hint that his suspicions or fears may be reflected in fact and otherwise he only says good things about the lens.

I find Ken to be a great source of information and advice. But, as with anyone, I'm aware of his preferences, prejudices and quirks - which are very clear if you browse his site. Then I compare his opinion with other reviews etc and make up my own mind; in this case I suggest this review.
 
I've had a Sigma 100-300 f/4. Great lens, actually, superb. Would recommend it to anyone.
 
PickleB said:
Then I compare his opinion with other reviews etc and make up my own mind;
Click to expand...

I skip his opinion, read the other reviews, then make up my own mind. :)
 
The Nikon 300 f4 AFS is a beauty for my choice of subject... next stop for real improvement over it as far as I am concerned is the Nikon 300 2.8... and with the bulk/cost issues that go with it.

I'd be reluctant to get rid of mine even if I complete my quest to buy a 400mm 2.8 prime - simply because the 300 f4 is so small and performs so well. Sometimes carrying a bazooka is socially unacceptable ;-)
 
desantnik said:
I'd be reluctant to get rid of mine even if I complete my quest to buy a 400mm 2.8 prime - simply because the 300 f4 is so small and performs so well. Sometimes carrying a bazooka is socially unacceptable ;-)
Click to expand...

You know, I've been seriously tempted to sell mine to help fund another 2 or 3 SB-900s, but I just can't bring myself to do it, even though I don't use it anywhere near as much as I used to since picking up the 70-200 f/2.8.
 
I have had both the Nikon 300 F4 and the Sigma 120-300 F2.8.

If you can live with a 300 F4 prime or it suits your photography better, then it is a cracking lens,no doubt about that. I sold mine to fund the 120-300, this too is a very good lens,with the flexibility of zoom which suits what I prefer to photograph better.

Yes the prime is sharper,but not as flexible,your brass so it`s up to you mate.........:)

Edit to add....The Sigma is a heck of a lot heavier, maybe worth bearing in mind.
 
How do the Sigma 50/150-500 lenses compare IQ wise. I would quite fancy a serious zoom but wouldn't use it enough to justify mega bucks.
 
cowasaki said:
How do the Sigma 50/150-500 lenses compare IQ wise. I would quite fancy a serious zoom but wouldn't use it enough to justify mega bucks.
Click to expand...

Different ballpark frankly.

The Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S smokes the 70-200 VR (when it has a TC on), and the 70-200 VR smokes either of those super-zooms.

Different league totally.
 
puddleduck said:
Different ballpark frankly.

The Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S smokes the 70-200 VR (when it has a TC on), and the 70-200 VR smokes either of those super-zooms.

Different league totally.
Click to expand...
i would like to see a 70-200mm with a 2x on beat a 50-500mm os for image quality at 500mm ;) and i doubt it would at 400mm.
 
fracster said:
I have had both the Nikon 300 F4 and the Sigma 120-300 F2.8.

If you can live with a 300 F4 prime or it suits your photography better, then it is a cracking lens,no doubt about that. I sold mine to fund the 120-300, this too is a very good lens,with the flexibility of zoom which suits what I prefer to photograph better.

Yes the prime is sharper,but not as flexible,your brass so it`s up to you mate.........:)

Edit to add....The Sigma is a heck of a lot heavier, maybe worth bearing in mind.
Click to expand...

exactly my thoughts
 
scottthehat said:
i would like to see a 70-200mm with a 2x on beat a 50-500mm os for image quality at 500mm ;) and i doubt it would at 400mm.
Click to expand...

No, not with a 2x TC.

However a 300mm f/4 AF-S with a 1.7x TC is way better than a Sigma zoom (talking about the 50-500, not the 120-300 here)

Sorry.

All I can say is that if you think your zoom is good, you'd wet yourself over a 300mm f/4 AF-S.
 
puddleduck said:
No, not with a 2x TC.

However a 300mm f/4 AF-S with a 1.7x TC is way better than a Sigma zoom (talking about the 50-500, not the 120-300 here)

Sorry.

All I can say is that if you think your zoom is good, you'd wet yourself over a 300mm f/4 AF-S.
Click to expand...
i did not mention a 120-300mm, also a friend has the 300mm f4 afs and its a top lens with a 1.7x tc i found it to be about the same with a drop in af speed.
people say the same about the pentax da*300mm f4 with a 1.7x, i found it to be about the same but slower af speed. all my op of course,
as you say none of them have the flexibility of a zoom, so there is up and downs to zooms.
 
D300 + Sigma 120-300 + 1.4tc in the pocket makes a hell of a good all round, walkabout wildlife set up.......:thumbs:
 
Thanks for all the comments - it sounds like all the lenses talked about are essentially good lenses but it just comes down to the application.

Thinking about the assignments that I have had then 70-200 alongside a 300 would work really well but then at other times a 24-70 along with a 120 to 300 would also give me more flexibility.

I am still confused as to what is most suitable for me - but have till next week to decide as that's when the money will be in my account to buy.
 
Yep, it is a bitch of a decision.

I initially went for the prime, kept it a while and more or less swapped it for the F2.8 zoom,I did ponder both decisions for a while before making the final choice.....:)
 
My tu'pennuth for what it's worth.

I was in the same boat with the same dilemma earlier this year. I chose the 300 f4 based on all the advice and comments on this forum alone.

It's been bang on and it's a cracking lens for what I use it for.

If not tried a 1.7TC but is fab with a 1.4TC, and I cant see me ever moving it on.
 
I am about to buy a nikon 300 afs with 1.4 & (1.7 or 2) TC for wildlife ( small birds to deer). I currently have a 70-300 vr which if find is normally at 280 to keep up the IQ. I intend to keep one or other of the TCs on the lens full time.
For those of you that use the 300 afs with a x2 TC what do you think of the IQ, compared to the 1.7TC, & have any of you used the new x2 TC which is reported to have very good IQ.

As far as actual stock I don't think any of the major suppliers have any, jacobs an jessops are on back order, 10 days for jacobs "if nikon have any!"
I'm never sure about using most of the lower priced web suppliers as I want UK stock for warranty, not a grey import
 
I'd recommend steering clear of a 2x TC on any Nikon lens apart from f/2.8 primes. Only the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S range (and probably the 400mm f/2.8) can take a 2x and maintain respectable IQ.

The 1.7x is OK on the 300mm f/4 AF-S but does need to be stopped down. The 1.4x is sharp from the off, 420mm f/5.6.

I'd stick with a 1.4x for the 300mm f/4. A 300mm f/2.8 will take the 1.7x better, 510mm f/4.8, stop down to f/5.6 and its all gravy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top