View Full Version : 300mm
Got the new toy today. Did a quick comparison test between the 300mm f/4 AF-S versus the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. Some without the 1.4x TC and some with.
Side by side. Basically the same size. The Sigma looks a bit bigger, but that's with the circular polarizer on (was removed for the test).
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/DSC_7098.jpg
With hood extended. The Nikon is built in whereas the Sigma is detachable. Clearly, the Sigma is larger.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/DSC_7097.jpg
At f/4. Taken during the midday, so some of these are blown.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a4wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b4wo.jpg
At f/5.6.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a56wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b56wo.jpg
At f/8.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a8wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b8wo.jpg
At f/11.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a11wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b11wo.jpg
At f/16.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a16wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b16wo.jpg
At f/22.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a22wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b22wo.jpg
At f/32.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a32wo.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b32wo.jpg
Following pictures with 1.4x TC. The Sigma is with the 1.4x APO EX TC and the Nikon is with TC14EII. 420mm instead of 300mm.
At f/8.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a8w.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b8w.jpg
At f/11.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a11w.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b11w.jpg
At f/16.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a16w.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b16w.jpg
At f/22.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a22w.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b22w.jpg
At f/32.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a32w.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b32w.jpg
At f/45.
Sigma
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/a45w.jpg
Nikon
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/b45w.jpg
Some preliminary pictures with the Nikon.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/DSC_7063.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/DSC_7065.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/ebn2/Sigma%20vs%20Nikon%20300mm/DSC_7067.jpg
congrats on the new lens. that nikon 300 f4 is a winner. looks to be a little more contrasty, and slightly sharper than the sigma. you might want to look into getting a kirk bracket to replace the one that comes with the lens - people say it's not very rigid (although people say wedging a cork between the foot and the lens gives it good stability). i wonder if nikon will ever make a vr version of this lens.
meriadoc
05-17-2005, 8:56 AM
hey, not a bad pickup there ;)
I've been looking at the canon 300 f4 IS or the 400 5.6.. Thinking of renting one for my vacation to test it out before deciding to spend a bunch on lenses...
ccplim
05-17-2005, 9:50 AM
Congrats on the new toy. You can easily tell the difference between the two.
Btw, did you notice the big drop in AF speed once you put on the TC?
Schnauzer
05-17-2005, 10:31 AM
Did you get the Nikon to replace a Sigma you had ?
I am thinking about a 300mm also for the horse shows . We have one this weekend but everything will be close and my 70-200mm will handle it . I am seriously considering the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with an extender . I'll know better after I do a couple of shows .
congrats on the new lens. that nikon 300 f4 is a winner. looks to be a little more contrasty, and slightly sharper than the sigma. you might want to look into getting a kirk bracket to replace the one that comes with the lens - people say it's not very rigid (although people say wedging a cork between the foot and the lens gives it good stability). i wonder if nikon will ever make a vr version of this lens.
Already did. I opt for the Kirk bracket instead and glad that I did. The tripod collar that it comes with is really a joke compared to the Kirk.
hey, not a bad pickup there ;)
I've been looking at the canon 300 f4 IS or the 400 5.6.. Thinking of renting one for my vacation to test it out before deciding to spend a bunch on lenses...
Yup, not bad at all. :)
Those are some great lenses you are thinking about there. I've seen lots of great pictures coming off both of these and they're very similar in price (which is pretty sweet considering that's what a 300mm f/4 AF-S costs). I'd probably go for the longer one since I'm guessing you're using it for bird photography.
Congrats on the new toy. You can easily tell the difference between the two.
Btw, did you notice the big drop in AF speed once you put on the TC?
Nope, not a big difference in AF speed at all, which is great. The only noticeable difference was what you see in the viewfinder, since you're looking through it at 420mm instead of 300mm.
Did you get the Nikon to replace a Sigma you had ?
I am thinking about a 300mm also for the horse shows . We have one this weekend but everything will be close and my 70-200mm will handle it . I am seriously considering the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with an extender . I'll know better after I do a couple of shows .
Eventually yes. Will eventually pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 VR to fill the gap from 100-200mm that I'll give up with the Sigma. For the price and what it does, the Sigma is a great lens, but it's lacking certain attributes. Looking at faster lenses these days since I tend to stay out in the field for extensive shooting at times and having an extra stop will help. Also, Nikon's AF-S system is a tad faster than Sigma's HSM and I'm amazed by how fast it can lock on.
Given what you're shooting and that lens that you already have, I'd wait it out and see how the 70-200mm works for you. If you find out that you need the additional reach, then I'd take a hard look at the 1.4x teleconverters (which you're already doing) beforehand. It'll extend the lens to 280mm f/5.6 which will still allow the lens to autofocus.
ccplim
05-18-2005, 8:20 AM
Nope, not a big difference in AF speed at all, which is great. The only noticeable difference was what you see in the viewfinder, since you're looking through it at 420mm instead of 300mm.
Hmm..... this is interesting. I tried on one a few months back and can immediately tell the difference when the TC was added. I have also heard many people complains about this issue before. :confused:
JerseyJay
05-18-2005, 12:47 PM
Great buy. I know few great bird shooter who use D2H/300 f/4 combo and they love it, especially for that price.
BTW. I think its time to clean up that camera :). You have dirty spots all over your pictures :)
Yeah, it is. Those spots are pretty consistent in the pictures and it looks like I need to clean the sensor. :)
Hmm..... this is interesting. I tried on one a few months back and can immediately tell the difference when the TC was added. I have also heard many people complains about this issue before. :confused:
Got to test it out a bit more yesterday (bird shots posted) and the TC does slow down the AF on the camera. :( Quite noticeable in speed and it also tends to hunt more with the TC on versus off.
ccplim
05-20-2005, 8:42 AM
Got to test it out a bit more yesterday (bird shots posted) and the TC does slow down the AF on the camera. :( Quite noticeable in speed and it also tends to hunt more with the TC on versus off.
Haha... you finally noticed the difference.
Yeah, unfortunately I did. Might have to do with the fact that I was using the Sigma right before I used the Nikon and the AF-S system being faster than the HSM.