300mm F2.8 Nikon vs Sigma

[barry]

Nikkor AF-S 300mm f2.8 VR ED IF vs Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM


I know this comparison has been canvased before but I would be interested in hearing anyones current comments.

Obviously with the higher pricing for the Nikon would you expect there be that that much difference in IQ and general performance.

The lens will generally be used for motor sports and it would only get limited use, leading me to think the Sigma may be an economical alternative.

Also if I go with the Sigma is the Nikon TC1.7 convertor compatable.

[aim54x]

I would definitely go the Nikkor.....but that is just me....I have a certain dislike to Sigma. The Nikkor has just been updated as well!

[Sylvia]

I can't comment on the sigma, however I can on the Nikkor.
It is stellar in performance. It is one of the sharpest and fastest lens I have, next to the 200f2.

Its hard to say more really, it is just so good. If you want the best then this lens is up there. Also consider the 300 AF-S MkI and MK II, you could pick one up form 3-4.5K. No VR but for sports, who cares.

Good luck.

[Raskill]

Mate, if you are thinking of the Sigma 300 prime, then maybe consider the 120-300. Far better for Motorsports, sharp all the way through the focal length and 2.8 all the way through also.

[photomarcs]

Mate, if you are thinking of the Sigma 300 prime, then maybe consider the 120-300. Far better for Motorsports, sharp all the way through the focal length and 2.8 all the way through also.

+1. As much as I am with "primes will always be better than zoom" I find 120-300 an exception in certain circumstances.


If you're going to compare the nikkor as sigma, it's quite obvious that the Nikkor is the best way to go about it in my opinion, 100% compatability. can't go wrong. haha but then again, I shoot canon.