1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX APO DG IF HSM

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Tom/Cocoa, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. Checking to see who prefers the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX APO DG IF HSM over the Nikon 300 AFS f/4. I have looked at photos on PBase and it seems to be a really nice lens.
    any thoughts?
  2. I'm wondering the same thing. I have also heard that the Sigma 120-300, even though a zoom, is actually sharper than the prime. I'll be upgrading in a few months and I'd like to know which people use and prefer. And, if you have any used one for sale, I'd sure be interested. Thanks.
  3. A few years ago I was seriously considering the Sigma 100-300. At the time I ended up purchasing a used 80-200 AFS and a 1.4 TCE, which got me to 280mm at f4. That setup produced some great images, but it has since been replaced with the Sigma 120-300 and TC's. I'm quite pleased with Sigma products, and both the 100-300 and 120-300 have gotten some very good reviews.

    You can also look at fredmiranda.com for reviews by users (the 100-300 has a better rating than the 120-300).
  4. Had both. The Sigma is a wonderful lens...the Nikkor is wonderfuller. If you need the flexibility then there's no better 300 mm zoom in that price range. If you don't there's no sharper 300mm lens that competes with the Nikkor unless you go to 2.8...especially when you start adding tc's. If there was a x-400/500 zoom that performed like the 100-300, I'd get it today VR/OS or no VR/OS...alas...there isn't.
  5. cwilt


    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    I have owned both and now have the 100-300. My 300/4 was slightly sharper at f/4 than my 100-300, but the 100-300 is very convenient and the factory tripod foot is much better.
  6. Thanks to everyone for you reply... I would like the ability of the zoom and and with a 1.4 tc I should be fine for most of my nature shots.
    again thanks
  7. the 120-300 i had was better than the 300 2.8 (sold them both though)
  8. I have owned 2 copies of the AF-S 300 f4, a 100-300 EX Sigma, and a non-AFS 300mm f4.

    I kept the AF-S and recently parted with the 100-300EX. For my purposes, the Sigma had some shortcomings I couldn't get around. While it's a VERY sharp lens for a zoom and built very well too, Sigmas (at least this lens and the 120-300) seem to have a funny focus setup that requires you to reacquire focus after a zoom unlike the Nikkors. In other words, you can't focus, recompose, and fire the same way. I just couldn't work around it for whatever reason for sports use. If you can, it's really a sharp lens.

    Personally, I find the AF-S 300 f4 to be one of the better bargains in the Nikkor lineup, and extremely versatile. It's sharp wide open, responds well to a 1.4x TC, and AF performance is pretty darn good.

    Depending on your uses, they're both great lenses - particularly for the money. I just get a lot more keepers out of the 300 f4.

    Here's a few hard tests of the 300/f4 AF-S in low-light (D700, f4, ISO3200):
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.