Nikon 300mm F2.8 vs Sigma 300mm F2.8

MinispudMinispud Posts: 10Member
edited December 2013 in Nikon Lenses
I'm in a dilemma as to which one to choose. The sigma wins on price but do I buy the Nikon as a second which will bring the price down and add give me VR. Would love to hear your thought to help me decide. This is going on a D4 body.

Comments

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,809Member
    If you have the money for the Nikkor, get the Nikkor. I don't think you'd be disappointed by either, but the Nikkor has better optical coatings, and if you already have Nikon teleconverters you are set to go. I mention that because Nikon TCs don't work with Sigma lens, without a physical modification.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,365Moderator
    Look at the MTF charts The Nikkor is much better. I looked at the Sigma and decided to wait until I could grab the Nikkor
    Msmoto, mod
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    The Nikon 300 2.8 VR II is going to be the only lens, in this focal length, that will soon be mounted on my D4.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    Not claiming you should buy the Sigma, Nikkor optically superior, but if you are going Sigma, the 120-300 looks to be the better buy. Gives the prime a good fight at the long end, has the zoom range, and has VR. I tried a (two-?) generation old model and it is nice glass.

    Of course I'm on record here as not really seeing the joy in the 300 2.8 for my own photography. I have the 200-400 4, but if that lens didn't exist I'd either have the 200 2 and crop where required, or go whole-hog for the 400 2.8 if I desperately needed the length (and spend a year eating packaged macaroni and cheese).
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 4,321Member
    Also suggest the Nikkor 300 2.8 VR II. I have used the Sigma for only 5 minutes. It's a nice looking lens but when you look at the charts, I would save the money and buy the Nikkor 300mm. If the price is scary then look for a used one. Just ask lots of questions about why it is being sold.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    The Sigma 120-300 OS (first version) has become my primary lens. I got it for a steal of a price on clearance. I have many shots on my flickr with a 1.4x, 2x and naked. For 1/3 the price of Nikon it was a no brainer for... Here's a set with the Sigma... http://www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn/sets/72157636905007005/
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,365Moderator
    @Coastalconn

    I think you have stated the issue clearly and supported it with images. For all but a very few instances the Sigma will perform flawlessly.
    Msmoto, mod
Sign In or Register to comment.