Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM

Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,743
Continuing the quest....

I had previously posted some pictures from a Sigma 70-200 DG EX Macro here: https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=110872

No responses, but hey, that's okay. Maybe it'll help someone down the line. I sold that lens, mostly because I didn't think the sports pictures that I took with it were great. I bought this lens for slightly more money.

For comparison purposes, I took similar photos:

This one is at 200mm (actually 210mm) at f/4:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


This is a 100% crop of the same picture:
View attachment 95877

This lens doesn't have a "macro" feature, but I got just about as close as I could and still e able to focus:

This one is at 300mm at f/5.6:
View attachment 95878

And a 100% crop of that picture:
View attachment 95879

My quick conclusion with regard to these pictures is that the Sigma 70-200 macro is better at, well, macro. And that the 100-300 is pretty sharp at f/4, while the 70-200 wasn't really sharp for me until f/5.6.

The better test for my purposes will be how this lens performs outdoors with sports. To be continued....

DAB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
361
Location
Southwest Florida
Hi DAB, the 100-300mm f/4 is on my wish list for a sports lens. I would love the nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 but the extra 100mm with the Sigma at the long end offers that much more options when shooting soccer matches.

Keep us posted as to your thoughts on this lens.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
2,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
You have a very good sample(lens) there and a keeper.
My first telephoto was the 100-300 f4 but I was never happy with the clarity/sharpness of the lens so made a quick change for the 70-200 vr.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
1,243
Location
London UK
My first telephoto was the 100-300 f4 but I was never happy with the clarity/sharpness of the lens so made a quick change for the 70-200 vr.
Same here, although I kept it for about 2 years as I couldn't afford better at the time. Tested it against a friends 70-200 VR (with 1.4x TC attached) and the 70-200 blew it away in every respect.

I think thats where my lust for the pro lenses came from :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,896
Location
Blackpool Lancashire UK
Hi this may be of some help, I won't bore you without many lenses I've had and tested in my time at needless to say it's been a considerable amount, this is a test I did a while ago.

I must point out that I reguard the nikkor 300 AF-I the best of the 300 nikkors wide-open having one extra ED element if this lens doesn't outperform the Sigma 100-300 zoom then it's time to give up buying the manufacturer's own lenses.

What was a surprise was how close the Sigma came to matching the nikkor, my copy of the Sigma has been better than the two versions of the 70-200vr nikkor I have had and sent back both the images were both processed exactly the same the only slight difference is in the focus point my Sigma seem to back focus after I had snapped it in two and had it repaired this is now been rectified.

Phillip.


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
Merrick, NY
Hi this may be of some help, I won't bore you without many lenses I've had and tested in my time at needless to say it's been a considerable amount, this is a test I did a while ago.

I must point out that I reguard the nikkor 300 AF-I the best of the 300 nikkors wide-open having one extra ED element if this lens doesn't outperform the Sigma 100-300 zoom then it's time to give up buying the manufacturer's own lenses.

What was a surprise was how close the Sigma came to matching the nikkor, my copy of the Sigma has been better than the two versions of the 70-200vr nikkor I have had and sent back both the images were both processed exactly the same the only slight difference is in the focus point my Sigma seem to back focus after I had snapped it in two and had it repaired this is now been rectified.

Phillip.


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The Nikkor seems noticably better on my screen here at work.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,743
Same here, although I kept it for about 2 years as I couldn't afford better at the time. Tested it against a friends 70-200 VR (with 1.4x TC attached) and the 70-200 blew it away in every respect.

I think thats where my lust for the pro lenses came from :rolleyes:
Maybe you had a bad copy of the 100-300? I used to own the Nikkor 70-200 vr and did some tests here: https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=68110

After your comment I figured I'd try to do a comparison. Not exactly apples to apples unfortunately. Different distances, different focal lengths, indoors in one, outdoors in another, and a different newspaper (the Sigma is focussed on the classifieds with more crowded and smaller print). The Sigma shots have no sharpening in camera and no sharpening out of camera either. I don't remember, but I expect that I didn't sharpen the Nikkor shots either.:

Nikkor 70-200 at 200mm at f/2.8:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Sigma 100-300 at 300mm at f/4:
View attachment 95881

Nikkor 70-200 at 200mm at f/5.6:
View attachment 95882

Sigma 100-300 at 300mm at f/5.6:
View attachment 95883

To my eyes, both lenses seem pretty sharp. Even if you decide that the Nikkor is sharper (and don't forget that you're comparing 200mm to 300mm), the Nikkor in no way blows the Sigma away.

I would also agree that Phillip's Nikkor 300mm prime is sharper than his Sigma 100-300. But it looks very close to me too.

DAB
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,896
Location
Blackpool Lancashire UK
The Nikkor seems noticably better on my screen here at work.

Hi it's much closer than it actually looks, I did point out that the Sigma is back focusing slightly in this image, I really should do the test again as this was taken about eight months ago to prove to Sigma that the lens was back focusing, although saying this if my 300 mm prime( Stoped down one-stop) doesn't do better than a 100-300 zoom wide open well:eek: .

I do have to say thou that the Sigma is a very fine lens in fact I am vrey impressed with all my Sigma lenses.

Phillip.

:smile: :smile:
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
175
Location
Sweden
The 100-300 is a very, very good lens.
I sold my Nikkor 80-200/2,8 since it was no better then the sigma after some slight PP ( except at 2,8. I now have the excellent Sigma 50-150 for 2,8 work ).
I would only replace my copy with a Sigma 120-300/2,8 since Nikon has no alternative for motorsports/sports at variable distances.

Nikon seems to take more lenses off the market than they release, and Sigma has introduced some very good lenses the past few years so I think I will continue to buy lenses from Sigma as long as they are as good as the 100-300, 50-150, 30/1,4, 150mm macro and so on. And the money I save can be used to....a lot.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
366
Location
Syracuse, NY
... I would only replace my copy with a Sigma 120-300/2,8 since Nikon has no alternative for motorsports/sports at variable distances.
You might want to reconsider this. Check out Photozone's and Photodo's reviews. The 100-300 f/4 Sigma is one of the best zoom lenses they've tested. The 120-300 f/2.8 goes wider, but it is not as sharp as the 100-300 f/4.

Dave
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,336
Location
UK
I agree..its a cracking lens and was going to replace with the 120-300mm 2.8 but decided against it now and spent most my money on the 85mm 1.4..lol
I really can't fault my copy and works flawlessly with a 1.4 converter
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Cambridge (the UK version!)
I'm interested in trying this lens again (the first copy I tried was poor).

Seems to have a lot of mixed opinions - having owned the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (superb), Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S (superb) and the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR (awesome!), I'm now looking to step back into smaller glass for long walks and bike rides.

On paper the 100-300 f/4 does sound good, but I'm still mentally scarred by my initial experience with this lens.

Opinions here are mixed - could this be due to sample variations, or differing definitions of what is "sharp"?
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,336
Location
UK
sharp enough for me
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Cambridge (the UK version!)
Thanks for the post, Stuart :)

Its impossible to judge sharpness web-sized (my target is for large prints, not small images via web deployment) - do you happen to have something shot around 300mm you'd be willing to show a 100% crop from?
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,336
Location
UK
I'll have a look but I lost a load of raw files recently and only have whats in my photobucket..My copy is very sharp though and I knoew a few others that own this lens and love it for its sharpness wide open.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Cambridge (the UK version!)
Great, I'd appreciate that.

Its a lens I'd like to give a 2nd chance too, I as thought the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 was excellent, and I figured (hoped!), this lens might offer 95% of its bigger brothers performance, for half the weight and 1/3rd the cost :)
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,336
Location
UK
Well I am pretty sure it does just that..although you do get the odd lens which isn't always 100% although haven't heard many storys of variation in this particular one. I do like its size and its easy to hand hold all day which is a bonus.
 
S

shoei

Guest
I hired one for a week and used it a bike race. Got some cracking pics from it.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


But here is a 100% crop with no sharpening applied.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Very soft. And having seen a 100% crop from a Nikon 70-200AF-S VR with a 2x TC fitted thats pin sharp, think that this 100-300 was a bit of a "friday afternoon special".
Still cant decide between the 70-200 and 100-300.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
1,243
Location
London UK
I
I'm now looking to step back into smaller glass for long walks and bike rides.
Andy if I've told you once I've told oyu a hundred times, the 200-400 isn't THAT much bigger and heavier...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


:tongue:

(100-300 to the left, but its got its hood off so it looks smaller...honest...haha)
:wink:
 
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