Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

AF Speed: Sigma 120-300mm vs Nikkor 300 f/2.8G AF-S VR
Sam Carleton, Photographer
Mason | OH | USA | Posted: 2:35 PM on 07.21.08
->> How does the Sigma 120-300's AF performance compare with the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR? I am looking at getting one of these lens for shooting High School football.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tom Suarez, Photographer
Austin | texas | USA | Posted: 2:42 PM on 07.21.08
->> I do not know about a comparison but I have the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and I shoot night football with it and it works really well. The focus is fast and smooth. I use it on Canon 40D and Mark IIn. Mine is about 3 years old so it is not the newer version. I think it is as sharp as my Canon 70-200 2.8. It is heavy and requires a mono pod though. IF you want to see samples from lens you can look at my site at www.tomsuarez.net and look under the sports folder and baseball. The little league game was shot with it and some of the photos were shot at night.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Non Conforming | MA | United States | Posted: 3:40 PM on 07.21.08
->> Sam don't know if you saw this post.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=13720

Personally I have enough 3rd party paperweights that I've sworn off Sigma/Tokina/Tamron brands. Two things to keep in mind:

First the tolerances for the off brands is much wider than Nikon/Canon, so be sure that you can use/test/return numerous copies until you get one that works to your expectations. Second (and my biggest speed bump) When (not if) the lens finally needs service NPS will set me up with a loaner and even run interference for me if something goes awry in the shop.

My one and only experience getting a Tokina fixed left ME feeling more 'serviced' than the lens. Wasn't a good time.

As to the lens in question, one of the shooters that I've worked along side has one on a Canon. We both agreed that is was less than optimal. Soft @ 2.8 and while the focus was as fast it seemed to not stay locked on as well.

I don't know about the newest VR version but the AF-S II is a 100% solid performer.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Brice, Photographer
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 3:55 PM on 07.21.08
->> Do a test - the 120-300 isn't really 300.

If you can go to a store, and shoot something with both lenses, you'll know why the Nikon costs more and is worth it.

I used to have a 120-300 and now I have the Nikon 300/2.8 VR.

My only regret - I didn't buy the Nikon first.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gary Rather, Photographer
Santa Cruz | Ca | US | Posted: 6:31 PM on 07.21.08
->> Pretty much over the years. I have learned in the camera gear world. with a Canon / Nikon you really do get what you pay for.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Clifford, Student/Intern, Photographer
Reno | NV | United States | Posted: 7:13 PM on 07.21.08
->> I used the sigma and it was slow and it backed-focused like crazy. Save the extra money and buy the Nikon.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ben Stewart, Student/Intern
Minneapolis | MN | USA | Posted: 7:25 PM on 07.21.08
->> I had a Sigma 120-300 a year ago and I now have a Canon 300 2.8

But I got rid of it for specific reasons, and I think mine was defective. The focus would work indoors under room temperature/warm conditions, but failed when out in the cold. As a resident of Minnesota, that's pretty unacceptable.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steve King, Photographer
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 7:45 PM on 07.21.08
->> Sam,
As the rest have said, just go the Nikon route. I used a Sigma 120-300 for about 6-8 months and sold it to go all Nikon, and I haven't looked back. Although the reach is enticing, 120 to zoom out to 300 looks nice, and I think that is what gets people to go for it, yet I would say that at f2.8 it is always soft. Mine was pretty fast to focus, but still just slightly soft at f2.8, which just won't cut it. I didn't have the backfocusing issues, but you will also need to deal with the issue of the zoom ring working in the OPPOSITE direction of Nikon lenses. That bugged me. The Nikon 300mm is a great lens, period, even the AFS-II.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Alvin Self, Photographer
Irving | TX | USA | Posted: 8:01 PM on 07.21.08
->> I have a 120 - 300 on a canon 40D and Mark ii body. It is a superb lens. I have used it for over a year.
The Dallas Morning News uses them in their lens pool.

Light Tech- a professional Lens and camera rental company says it is the only non OEM lens that they will use in their rental fleet. They can not keep them on their shelves during football season. I can tell you if the lens wasn't escellent they would'nt rent them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 8:23 PM on 07.21.08
->> I have heard Nikon users have better performance then us canon folk with the sigma. I found I had less critical sharp photos with the sigma then I get with the canon 300 2.8 . Nice lens but more for the high school sports crowd, then the pro sports crowd PS. I had 3 of themn before i got one without QC issues and even then it did not cut it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ed Wolfstein, Photographer, Assistant
Burlington | VT | USA | Posted: 9:59 PM on 07.21.08
->> A really "old" thread about Sigma lenses - circa 2002...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=272
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: AF Speed: Sigma 120-300mm vs Nikkor 300 f/2.8G AF-S VR
Thread Started By: Sam Carleton
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
What happened when Tony Gonzalez met Mickey Pfleger? Crazy stuff! ::..