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 120-300mm 2.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by gofast, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. I'm surprised that of all the shots being requested, I have not seen any from this lens. This lens is on my very short list.
    How does it compare to the Nikon 300mm 2.8 (all versions). Anyone that has had the luxury to own both the
    Sigma 120-300 and any of the Nikkors 300mm 2.8 can you please chime in.
    Posting shots taken with the Sigma is encouraged of course :biggrin:

    Thanks in advance....
  2. I got this lens last winter. Overall, I like the lens. I don't think it is quite as sharp as the 80-200 AFS that it replaced. However, for what I use it for it preforms very well. Below are a few shots that were taken over the last few months.

    It pairs very well with the Sigma TC's, especially the 1.4, giving you a 168-420 f4.

    I believe that this lens is also not quite a true '300' at the long end, but more like 285mm. I've taken side by side shots at 300 with the 120-300 and 70-300 and the 70-300 is a little longer. That being said, I don't really consider it a deciding factor, especially considering its price. I picked mine up here on the Cafe in excellent condition for less than $2000.

    It is not equal to a 300 prime, but I believe it's more versatile. There have been some shots that I've taken that I wouldn't have been able to get because the subject moved toward me and I had to zoom.

    It's hard to beat this lens in terms of price and performance.

    Jacoby Ellsbury at Fenway 10 days ago:
    NIKON D200    ---    340mm    f/4.0    1/2000s    ISO 400

    Scott Kazmir a few nights earlier (iso 1600 on D200):
    NIKON D200    ---    300mm    f/2.8    1/1000s    ISO 1600

    Osprey with the 1.4TC attached:
    NIKON D200    ---    420mm    f/4.5    1/1250s    ISO 400

    It's partner, also with TC:
    NIKON D200    ---    420mm    f/4.5    1/2000s    ISO 400

    Local HS baseball from last spring:
    NIKON D200    ---    300mm    f/3.2    1/1000s    ISO 400
  3. I just noticed that the edges of some of the images look a little pixilated - this is just because of their resolution for the web.
  4. kiwi


    Jan 1, 2008
    Auckland, NZ
    I have owned the Sigma 120-300 and now own the Nikon 300. There i no doubt that the Niikon has the edge on colour and clarity at 300. But, the Sigma has the edge from 120-299.

    It's a very good lens, but just not quite as good as the Nikon prime.

    AF speed is similar.
  5. Echo what Darren said. If I could, I'd buy the Nikon 300mm. But, it isn't gonna happen;I am very happy w/ the Siggy. I also like the flexibility of the zoom. I'm very surprised Nikon doesn't offer one (did hear a rumor of a 100-300 f2.8, but that rumor died quietly & quickly). If you don't need/want f2.8, the Nikon 300mm f4 is also a very good lens. I needed the f2.8 for fall sports.

    Couple of recent shots:

    (stick blur is SS vs lens)
    NIKON D300    ---    180mm    f/2.8    1/320s    ISO 200

    NIKON D300    ---    270mm    f/2.8    1/1250s    ISO 1000

    NIKON D300    ---    270mm    f/2.8    1/500s    ISO 1000

    NIKON D300    ---    180mm    f/2.8    1/640s    ISO 1000

    NIKON D300    ---    170mm    f/4.0    1/1600s    ISO 200

    NIKON D300    ---    300mm    f/2.8    1/3200s    ISO 250
  6. Randy


    May 11, 2006
    i had em both and at the same time....for the money the 120-300 is a fine lens but the 300vr is better, mainly at 2.8
  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.