Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mood, Aug 31, 2008.
anybody used this lens yet ?
any remarks/ examples would be appreciated
Can't comment directly - got the 150-500 instead - tired of waiting for an AF-S 80-400 from Nikon. Was looking for a lighter smaller 'carry' long lens for backcountry treks. The 150-500 is f/5-6.3 and larger than the 120-400 - costs slightly more as well.
I got this lens for a specific reason - I wanted a lighter long zoom in my 'carry kit' - trying to limit what I was lugging around. In the past I'd carried a half dozen lenses and wanted to cut down on this trip.
Debated which Sigma for a bit and decided to go for the longer one. Just back from a trip to Rocky Mountain NP and it got a workout. Good time for wildlife there and I used this lens quite a bit. Generally pleased with it - you get what you pay for. IQ may not be quite at the Nikon level but it is cheaper by a third, has OS (VR) and is faster focusing than the Nikon 80-400. I found that it worked fine for wildlife but was still a bit slow focusing for birds in flight - not that I have much experience shooting those, so that may be me.
Any TC forces this lens into manual focus mode since you're starting at f/5 - Nikon wants at least 5.6 for AF if I recall and even a 1.4 TC adds a full stop. Still, I did try it with a Sigma 1.4 and modified Nikon 2.0. I definitely needed the Katz Eye focusing screen - my eye isn't good enough for manual focusing at those lengths. Initial look at shots confirms that IQ dropped - as expected.
I've got a 200-400 and that is a great lens BUT after taking that on a trip I found it to be large and heavy - and it took up half my backpack. It was not easy to 'whip out and shoot' and indeed was a bit of a load on hikes. The weight and size of the Sigma let it do what I wanted - it was usable hand-held or on a monopod. I could carry it on hikes - mounted on a D70 along with a 16-85 and (rarely used 70-300) on a D300. My 12-24 got used less often - more from the car for sweeping views.
I could also use the 150-500 from the car - leaving it on the back seat - for wildlife along roads. Couldn't really maneuver the 200-400 easily in similar situations.
Ideally, I'd like an AF-S Nikon 80-400 but........... It compliments the 16-85 (which I was happier than expected with) and has reach. If a new version would work with a 1.4 TC I'd be thrilled - but really don't anticipate that.
So.... as far as your use goes - it depends on what you plan on using it for and what you want to spend.
The Sigma gives you OS and a focusing motor - the Nikon and Tokina lack one of the two. It's about the same size as the Nikon but larger than the Tokina (have a used one of those and while it's an OK lens in a small package, I prefer having the OS/VR). IMO, you get your money's worth - though I wish they'd spent a bit more and given you a slightly faster lens with better IQ.
yah I would use it for hiking/ wildlife similar to you
I had the 70-200 and IQ was great, but it was too short
the 70-300VR I currently use is also short
I rented the Nikon 80-400, and it was okay, but needs AFS
I figure for $900, the 120-400 is the same 4.5-5.6 as the Nikon, has HSM, and OS
the "new" 80-400, whenever it comes will surely be $2k
I may just give it a try..
Hiya, I received my 120-400 this week and due to the awful weather haven't been able to give it a full testing yet but have been pretty pleased with the results from a few test shots.
I would say it is a pretty heavy lens though so the OS is useful if nothing else to stop the camera shake that I was experiencing almost straight away :redface:
Having owned the Nikon 70-300 VR and a fairly swift own and return of a possible faulty (or at least not very sharp) copy of a Tamron 28-300is I think the IQ between 120 and 300 is at least as good and on the test shots at 300mm cropped I feel the Sigma is probably sharper than the both the other lenses.
At 400mm it still feels pretty sharp although I was in a rush and the shots I have taken (even a quick one mounted on a tripod) were less than perfect but possibly more because of camera shake than any lens issues.
I have posted a comparison crops at 300mm below for the 3 lenses above and linked to the full size if you want to take a look?
Sigma @ 300mm Full version here:
Link to full size: http://flickr.com/photos/nictry/2829539369/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Nikon @ 300mm
View attachment 246511
Link to original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nictry/2757704770/sizes/o/
Tamron @ 300mm
View attachment 246512
Link to original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nictry/2757675108/sizes/o/
Sigma @ 300mm 100% crop
Link to full size: http://flickr.com/photos/nictry/2829540037/sizes/o/
Tamron @ 300mm Crop @ 100%
View attachment 246514
300mm Nikon 70-300 crop @ 100%
View attachment 246515
Here is a quick shot at 400mm
View attachment 246516
Link to full size: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2831229386_671717f5d3_o.jpg
All of the images in this gallery were taken with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8:
In fact, pretty much all of the images in my baseball and softball galleries from this year are with the Sigma 120-300. Feel free to look around in there.
It is an excellent lens and I highly recommend it.
the 120-300 2.8 is a whole different can o'beans
was talking about the new 120-400
mood - What did you decide?
I'm considering the same lens and can't seem to pull the trigger. I found one online, new, for $780, they accept paypal and I have a 10% paypal coupon. I could get it delivered for about $700. Seems like a great deal.
I bought the Sigma 18 - 200 lens last week with OS. So far the test shots look good. I took it to a Rugby game and handheld it mounted on a D70s while the D200 was mounted on the tripod. Very impressed. If the 120 - 400 performs that good, as others have mentioned, I might do it. I have until the end of the month to decide.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.