How good is it? Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM

[rob-nikon]

Im looking for a versatile zoom lens and I'm currently thinking about the older Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM lens as I think it may give the price/quality/versatility I'm looking for. Ok it's not going to be as good as the nikon 300mm f2.8's or nikon 200-400 f4 but it's not in their price brackets either. I've read several reviews on the internet and it sounds like it's a great lens but there are just a few issues I would like answers to first.

My questions are:

1/ focus breathing-how bad is it for close subjects? I like to photograph subjects ideally within 10-15mm or less. I gather close in the difference can be 50-70mm in focus breathing.
2/ teleconverters- is it sigma only or does the nikon 1.4II TC fit?
3/ how good is it compared to the nikon 300mm f4 or nikon 70-200 f2.8vri? AF wise and IQ.

Currently it looks like it may just be what I want, a zoom lens with a fast aperture with or without a TC. There are times recently when I feel like I could do with f2.8 when light is low and I'm at f4, 1/100 and yet still pushing high iso's. For a hobby it's looks like its in a nice price bracket where it's not £3-4k for a lens and still has plenty of benefits. Ok I'm not thinking it's within the same performance league as either the 300 f2.8 or 200-400 f4 but is it good enough? I'm thinking it could be a very useful addition to the 70-200 and 300 f4 where it nearly gives the best of both of these but for a small IQ difference and more versatility than a prime. I'm thinking of using this for the more static/slower moving wildlife like deer, grouse and hares (when not moving of course). Having a zoom would be more versatile for shoots these as my position is usually quite fixed.

I would love to hear what any current/previous owners think, especially if you use it on a d7000 or d7100.

 

[rob-nikon]

After a bit more research I've found out that nikon tc's won't fit and I've also found a review showing the focus breathing against a cannon 300mm which was interesting. So that's 2 of the questions answered, can anyone let me know what they think image quality/sharpness is like against similiar priced nikon lenses (70-200vr1 and 300mm f4 AF-s if possible).

Looking on Flickr there seems to be some great pictures taken with this lens. I'm still in two minds due to the TC issue and focus breathing but a f2.8 zoom sounds good and will help solve some of my problems (keeping ISO low when using higher shutter speeds for wildlife, and being able to zoom out from 300mm for that wider environment shot when my position is fixed)

 

[markyboy.1967]

Have a look on my flickr as i have used my Sigma 120-300 for several years and im very happy with it.The zoom for me has been very important, especially in hides.Also have a look at Alans thread about the Sparrowhawks as i suggested he get the lens as well and he uses it like me with a 1.4 tc attached.Im happy with it and so are several others.

You MAY spot a little difference is you pixel peep with the Nikon 300 f2.8 etc but not enough for the extra cost.

 

[rob-nikon]

Have a look on my flickr as i have used my Sigma 120-300 for several years and im very happy with it.The zoom for me has been very important, especially in hides.Also have a look at Alans thread about the Sparrowhawks as i suggested he get the lens as well and he uses it like me with a 1.4 tc attached.Im happy with it and so are several others.

You MAY spot a little difference is you pixel peep with the Nikon 300 f2.8 etc but not enough for the extra cost.

There are some stunning images taken with it on your flickr, I think I've seen Alan's sparrowhawk images before but I didnt know thats what he used. I fully understand about the quality price wise with this lens, it may not be the same quality as a nikon 300 f2.8 but its a faction of the price for just a little less quality. A f2.8 zoom could be so useful when your position is fixed and thats what makes it so tempting. Im more swaying towards it now. Thanks for your help.