Sigma 300mm F2.8

ryanyboy

ryanyboy

Messages
5,275
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondering if anyone has any experience of the Sigma 300mm F2.8 (mainly for sport).

It's quite abit cheaper than the Nikon 300mm F2.8 although it also lacks VR/OS.

My experience with Sigma has mainly been fillipn' awful but I'd welcome any comments all the same :)

Ta
 
You getting into sports togging now the wedding season is tailing off????

Cant help you on the Sigma question, other than I have read that Sigma and Tamron are both slower than Nikon at focussing.
 
Only for fun mate. Haven't the time to do it seriously.

But if it's slow focusing then it's off the list.

What about the Nikon 300mm F2.8 NON-VR anyone?
 
By all accounts the 120-300 is a sharper lens. I have one and the AF is ok on it, never had a 300 prime so can`t compare the two for AF. I would think the prime would be as good if not better...........:shrug:
 
Ryan, the Sigma 120-300 is slighty sharper than the 300. but only for pixel peepers really (i've had both).

If you keep your eye open in the for sale forum, there will be a second hand AF-s 300 F2.8 going in there at the weekend, with 15 months warranty from grays of westminster.

**Just as a note to mods - all dealing will be done accroding to forum rules - this is not an attempt to sell it **
 
ryanyboy said:
Only for fun mate. Haven't the time to do it seriously.

But if it's slow focusing then it's off the list.

What about the Nikon 300mm F2.8 NON-VR anyone?
Click to expand...

Hi Ryan I am going to get flamed here but................My experience is don't buy the siggy if you can afford the Nikon. I've had 2x 120-300mm and one 300mm the auto focus struggles and is certainly not as fast as the Nikon. Tobers had the same experience and ended up at Sigma's HQ with one of their techies, pointed it at on coming cars and it could not cope with multiple in focus pictures. I'm not going to go any further but there are a host of other reasons I would not touch one again. In summary the Nikon is sharp from 2.8 onward and I mean sharp bunlike the Sigma, much better color and contrast mated with your D700 you will be a very happy man. Having said that for a grand I still would say it is a good buy but for list price no buy the Nikon second had.

Cheers

Grant
 
Last edited:
You don't need VR for the footy (though you might want it for weddings) personally i would go for the Nikon 300 or the 120-300 that Ade mentioned :)
 
It might be worth bearing in mind that Sigma announced a new version of the 120-300mm with OS at Photokina.
 
I didn't get on with my soggy 300/2.8. I found it a tiny bit soft and af was unreliable. When it got focus it was fine but that was the exception. I have a canon 300/2.8 now and it knocks spots off the siggy. I'd expect the nikon would be way better too.
 
In contrast to what others have said, I actually had no issues with my Sigma 300. It was the later version but not sure if that makes much difference. I don't think I ever had an issue with it shooting BTCC ( for a hobby not to make cash )

I only sold it because when my son was born I didn't have the time to go to the races anymore.

Pete
 
Thanks again fellas. I'm certainly going to stick with Nikon (sorry Pete). All my lenses are Nikon and my personal experiences with Sigma aren't that good. I'm now thinking of going for the 300 2.8 non-VR version. As Andy says I won't need it for sports (or wildlife imo) and I won't use it for weddings (unless the vicar is a real a**e and makes me stand 200 yards from the action).
 
I had a sigma 300mm f2.8 ex i did'nt have a problem with mine and it was sharp. Auto focus was good even with the 1.4. I would'nt recomend the 2x image quality was'nt that hot but the auto focus was reasonable even with the 2x. have a good look at the auto focus on /off switch if you are buying secondhand probably the worst part of the lens
Regards
Richard
 
Last edited:
I've used the Sigma 300mm f2.8 for a couple of years now. Recently sold it and bought a Nikon 300mm f4 due to the weight (a 2.8 is a bit too heavy for hiking), but while I had it, it was a great lens. Really sharp, accurate and fast focus. Have a look at my website; http://www.afowler.co.uk/gallery/ the vast majority of the wildlife shots are with the 300mm + a 1.4X TC. Also used to use it for equine events;

20080912083152_dsc_6822.jpg


20080912083241_dsc_7771-edit.jpg


20080912083444_dsc_7707-edit.jpg


The Nikon would probably be a little better, but the Sigma is no slouch, and for the price it is great. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top