Question - Nikon or Sigma ?

[rookie]

- Hi, I’d like to ask a question (which I'm sure must have been asked before, so apologies) and hope you will indulge me, as I’d like to pose it in sort of an ‘exam’ question.

Being a little fortunate – I have some unexpected disposable funds, not enough to change my life - and the interest rate is rubbish at the moment, again there really is that much that the interest on it would make a difference - so I’ve decided to ‘invest’ it in a long telephone prime. I’ve always liked the Nikon 300mm 2.8 (300mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR NIKKOR to give it is full title), but I know a number of people who have the Sigma version (300mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM), which is half the price.

The question is –

Does the difference in quality, if any, between the Nikon and Sigma version justify the price difference, and is there a noticeable difference in the output in terms of sharpness and tones.

Discuss?

Ideally it would be good if you owned one of the two lenses in question and supported any answer with example images shot with the lens. It should be assumed any images taken will be for publication in print and the web.
You have……… thank you for indulging me (oh and there is no extra points for correct spelling or grammer!!)

 

[Gary Coyle]

The Sigma is pants in comparisson to the Nikon, if you were a totally new user and tried the Sigma you would be happy with the results, if you then tried the Nikon you would get the feeling that Sigma are a bunch of thieving sods and have no right to be conning the good old folk of the UK.

There are some seriously good Sigma lenses (QC issues aside) but the 300mm prime aint one of them when directly compared to it's Nikon equivilant.