Has anyone done testing between these 2 lens? The weight of each (with TC) would seem to be about the same. Sigma is cheaper. F stop advantage favors 300mm with TC.
I've never used the Sigma but have seen good shots with it. I own the 300 + 1.7X TC.
The old addage "You get what you pay for" will likely hold true. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but I would (and DID) go with the 300 + tele
I also own the 300&1.4TC. I love this lens. It is super super sharp. If you shoot for detail I don't think the Sigma will match it in this area. This lens is my go to wildlife lens. ( Birds, plants, bugs & other critters ) I don't own the Sigma. But zooms most of the time fall short in this when compared to prime lens. Also the 300 has a very close focus & I use it for macro and close up work. I also use EXtubes with the lens. Now for the negatives. The Sigma has the OS system 300 f4 no. One other thing I would recommend is if you go with the Nikon 300mm f4 is to get the Kirk replacement tripod collar. It makes the lens rock solid. I won't say the one that comes with the lens is bad, but it is no way as solid as the Kirk. And when you use a TC you could have some issues with shake and movement. Again I am amazed at some of the images I get with my 300mm. For now and the for the near future this is the closest thing to the Nikon 500mm f4 I can afford.
Mark
A friend of mine has just done a side by side in depth test using Sigma/Canon and although Sigma glass is pretty good it was no surprise that the Canon was sharper. He runs top end Canon gear, I top end Nikon gear, we often make side by side comparisons and both agree, Sigma is good but not that good.
Jim: I am trying to understand the quality of images from a prime with a 1.4 and 1.7 TC vs a zoom. In this case the Nikon 300mm with 1.4 and 1.7 vs the Sigma 150-500 OS - both at 400 and 500mm. Are you saying that a prime with low TC is always better (generally) than a zoom at those ranges?
I am also interested in any analysis or thoughts of the new 70-200mm 2.8 VRII with 2.0 TC III at 400mm vs the Sigma 150-500mm at 400mm.
I have the Sigma 150-500 and I am very pleased with it. Two factors which helped to determine my decision: OS and cost. It does take some getting use to and I am still in "practice mode" with it. I have posted a couple of shots taken with it in the avian gallery.
Charlie Hi there Well what I can tell you is that I had both of them at the same time.using the 300 f4 + 1.4 and 1.7 TC on the D300 150-500 on the D90 also of course changing them around occasionaly.The Nikon comes up tops all along the way you cant beat the sharpness and also the macro factor of this extremely good lens.
The Sigma is great and also sharp but mostly from f7.1 onwards also remember that OS cant be used on tripod .
I think that the 300 f4 is one of the sharpest lenses on the market today,You wont be dissapointed
This is after using both of them for about 2 years
I moved to Canon 4 mths ago and have the 300f4 of Canon and it doesnt compare to the Nikon
Posted by Jim Erhardt on April 10, 2010 at 7:12 AM
Jim: I am trying to understand the quality of images from a prime with a 1.4 and 1.7 TC vs a zoom. In this case the Nikon 300mm with 1.4 and 1.7 vs the Sigma 150-500 OS - both at 400 and 500mm. Are you saying that a prime with low TC is always better (generally) than a zoom at those ranges?
Yes! That is why primes remain popular - for their unsurpassed image quality. This is not to say that you cannot get superb results with a zoom, especially with today's top-end lenses - but the prime will usually have the advantage.
it's an unfair comparison - as sigma is much cheaper than the combo. i use the sigma with 1.4 TC - for the reach - it's not as sharp or does auto focus as good as Nikon 300 - but do you expect it to do so? but for the reach (700 with the TC) is sometimes very useful
Discussion
11 repliesThe old addage "You get what you pay for" will likely hold true. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but I would (and DID) go with the 300 + tele
Mark
Generally speaking, zooms sacrifice image quality for convenience; primes sacrifice convenience for image quality.
Jim: I am trying to understand the quality of images from a prime with a 1.4 and 1.7 TC vs a zoom. In this case the Nikon 300mm with 1.4 and 1.7 vs the Sigma 150-500 OS - both at 400 and 500mm. Are you saying that a prime with low TC is always better (generally) than a zoom at those ranges?
I am also interested in any analysis or thoughts of the new 70-200mm 2.8 VRII with 2.0 TC III at 400mm vs the Sigma 150-500mm at 400mm.
The Sigma is great and also sharp but mostly from f7.1 onwards also remember that OS cant be used on tripod .
I think that the 300 f4 is one of the sharpest lenses on the market today,You wont be dissapointed
This is after using both of them for about 2 years
I moved to Canon 4 mths ago and have the 300f4 of Canon and it doesnt compare to the Nikon