Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Nikon Lenses (
-   -   Nikon 300mm f4 or Sigma 100-300mm f4 (

Angel L. Jan 20, 2010 3:30 PM

Nikon 300mm f4 or Sigma 100-300mm f4
Ive been away a while, its good to be back shooting again!!

I need to compliment my D80 and 18-200vr with a telephoto for sports, mostly baseball from the third and first baselines in high school and next year in college. I also want the lense to able to use outdoors for the kids in the park and in the pool playing around. Any thoughts on the Nikon 300mm and the Sigma 100-300mm. I will be using it also with a 1.4 tc to capture decent pics of the outfield, so tc performance is critical. I am leaning toward the Sigma for the zoom capability but I have read so many users unhappy with third party lenses?

Photozone aps-c reviews on both are very favorable.

Local craigslist here in Miami posts a nikon 300mm monthly for around $1100, is that fair? I have never seen the Sigma on Craigslist.

TCav Jan 20, 2010 5:04 PM

My guess is that, with a 1.4X TC, both of them will be too long for shooting the infield. If you want to cover both the infield and the outfield, you might be happier with the Nikon 80-400 VR.

Angel L. Jan 20, 2010 5:16 PM

Thanks for the reply,

I have read the AFS on the 80-400 vr is to slow for any moving subjects?

TCav Jan 20, 2010 5:43 PM


Originally Posted by Angel L. (Post 1042363)
I have read the AFS on the 80-400 vr is to slow for any moving subjects?

So would AF on the lenses you mentioned with a 1.4X TC. It would turn your f/4.0 lenses into f/5.6 lenses, so focus speed would suffer.

You could just rent what you're looking at, and base your buying decision on first hand experience. See

JohnG Jan 20, 2010 5:54 PM

The 80-400 is NOT in the same league as the other two lenses. It's not a great performer. The Nikon 300mm f4 is a champ by all accounts. BUT if you're going to go with a 300mm prime you need a second body with a zoom or you'll miss too much action. If you have only a single body then the 100-300 f4 is the better choice.

TCav Jan 20, 2010 6:53 PM


Originally Posted by JohnG (Post 1042368)
... If you have only a single body then the 100-300 f4 is the better choice.

... even when it's mounted on a 1.4X teleconverter?

JohnG Jan 21, 2010 7:31 AM

Better than a prime was my point. As to the 80-400 I haven't heard good things about that lens from sports shooters. I've seen and heard great things about the other two lenses though. But, it's worth saying I don't shoot Nikon so my recommendations are based on what I've picked up from sports photogs using Nikon system.

Hards80 Jan 21, 2010 12:42 PM

i was under the impression that the problem with the Nikon 80-400 IS is that it is one of the slowest focusing lenses ever.

Angel L. Jan 21, 2010 2:32 PM

Sigma has a new APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM or
will I be better off with 100-300 and a tc when I cant get on the field?

JohnG Jan 21, 2010 3:13 PM

Angel I've never seen any reports from a sports photographer on the 120-400 lens. That makes it a risky proposition in my book. How things look on paper and how they perform in the real world of sports photography are often very different things. For my part I wouldn't want to be limited to f5.6. At least with the 100-300 you can shoot at f4 if you're on the field. It's not just about shutter speed it's also about trying to get subject isolation. It's the reason I never use my canon 100-400L for sports. Great lens - sharp, quick as any f5.6 lens to focus but man I hate the backgrounds you get with f5.6.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:54 AM.