Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Review

Golf007sd

Very interesting review on this lens.

Photography life review of the Sigma 120-300 2.8 DG OS HSM Sport

mamoth

Really its nice one ... thanks for sharing ... >-

Msmoto

Interesting… a "new" lens which performs like its predecessor, but cost a heck of a lot more. ANd, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VRII blows it out of the water.

I think before spending %3600 on this I would go all the way for the Nikon at $5800.

Msmoto

I will have to agree, there are times when a zoom is great. And when one cannot "zoom with the feet" it may be a nice lens to have. But, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 falls off too much from the center, and is actually, as I understand it, the old lens with a new package, I would still find the 300/2.8 Nikkor best for me. This would give me 70-200, 300, 400, and with the TC's up to 800mm.

I think the issue with edge sharpness is the deal breaker for me on the Sigma.

shawnino

@msmoto: Is there enough difference in the framing of 300 and 400 primes to want to own both? I think I'd be using 300-and-crop an awful lot more than taking the time to switch the 400 onto the camera. I guess, in theory, one could have the 300 on one body and the 400 on another, but now one is talking about hiring a porter

If I was holding your set of lenses I think my next move shorter-than-400 might be the 200 f/2. On the other hand, your high ISO stuff is so good, you might not need the extra stop the f/2 provides.

Ah go on. Buy the 800 f/5.6. You know you want to. You could get up on a tall building and shoot the Daytona events without leaving home. Travel savings right there make the glass pay for itself...

Msmoto

I am purchasing my Lotto ticket this afternoon…..LOL

As to the 300mm with the 400mm. It is actually practical to hand hold the 300mm f/2.8 while doing so with the 400mm f/2.8…I have done this, but it is something one wants to set down fairly frequently. 2.9 kg vs 4.6 kg.

PB_PM

While the 300mm F2.8G VR Nikkor is optically superior, the Sigma is a budget option for those who don't have $6000 to spend to get a 300mm F2.8 lens.

I rented a Nikkor VRII for a while and while it is a stunning lens, I would be hard pressed to say it is worth $2300 more than the Sigma zoom (the sport sell for around $3700, while the Nikkor is nearly $6000). I opted for the older Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG HSM (non-OS), which aside from the lack of OS is almost optically identical. I think it performs very well for the price (I picked up a used copy for $1500) , and while I enjoyed using the Nikkor, I would have a hard time justifying the extra cost of ownership.

Golf007sd

I look forward in getting the 300 2.8 in 2014....you can take that to the bank :P

PB_PM

I did, I have more in the bank thanks to not buying the Nikkor.

Golf007sd

To each his own....