Nikon 120-300

Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,051
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #42
I loved the IQ from the sigma 120-300 but it was a PIA to hold. The internal zoom did make it perfect on a monopod for sports....I think my last one, the OS version, was about 3500 new so 10k is a joke.....I doubt anyone would see 3x better images or 3x better anything
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
508
Location
Viera, FL
At $10K, Nikon is only helping Sigma sell lenses. I had the version before the Sport current model and aside from being a heavy beast, it was a great lens, especially for indoor or night sports. As Randy said, I highly doubt the Nikon model will be 3X better.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
6,529
Location
N Idaho
introductory price is being reported to be $9500 in the US. if that’s the price and I wanted something in the 120-300 range I’d look for a Sigma. i don’t need a 120-300mm lens.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
1,600
Location
Seattle
Real Name
Tim
Wish my pockets were this deep....<sigh> A lot of venues I shoot in this would be a great lens for shooting from the back...may have to give the Sigma sport a test drive....
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
753
Location
Miami, Florida and Goffstown, NH
Real Name
Dale
I read about the Nikon 120-300. My impression is that the glass is great. I do not care for the screw-on filter or the size of the filter. I am sure the cost of the screw-on filters for this lens will be high. Further, from what I can see if you use a CP filter, you can only adjust it with the lens shade OFF, like the 500 PF. I find the 180-400 with the drop-in rear filter to be much better as you have the ability to adjust a CP with the proper rear filter holder. I believe the adjustable rear holder and filter are the same for all the super-tele Nikon glass. Just my opinion.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
50
Really disappointed with the price when I saw it.
I thought about buying the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sport after working with my 70-200E and 500PF w/out something to fill the gap. I am a wildlife shooter and do not have issues with the 300mm limit, as I shoot fairly approachable wildlife, use both DX and FX bodies in my workflow, often shoot from a blind, and rarely shoot small birds. After playing the the Sport lens, I decided that the balance shifts from 120-300 were a real issue and the weight savings over the 200-400VR were negligible. In the end, I found another (#3 for me) 200-400VR. This lens was $1700 (can you believe it!) and looked to be unused. I've had it for about 3 months now, and it is the sharpest of the three I have owned thus far. I think that I am pretty set w/ my 70-200E ($2100) + 200-400 f/4 ($1700) + 500PE ($3600) = $7400 ...all for less than either the new 120-300 or 180-400 Nikon lenses... would love the latest and greatest glass, but I doubt that any of those new lenses would translate into "real" noticeable differences in my images.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom