Nikon 200-400/4 vs Sigma 120-300/2.8

[drbondod]

Debating between these two lenses. Besides cost, which lens would you chose for wildlife photography?

 

[brian_f2.8]

400 @ f4 is nice although the 300 @ f2.8 with a 1.4 would be nice and a lot less $$$

 

[robbins.photo]

Well if your shooting wildlife I'm assuming you'll be shooting mostly outdoors in fairly good lighting conditions for the most part, have you considered something with a little longer focal length such as a Sigma 150-500 or maybe one of the new Tamron 150-600 mm's? I mean the faster 2.8 glass is nice but for wildlife I think you'll find something in the 300 mm range a little limiting when shooting outdoors.

 

[drbondod]

400 @ f4 is nice although the 300 @ f2.8 with a 1.4 would be nice and a lot less $$$

I thought of that Brian. I have read about some focusing issues with the older Sigma 120-300. I'm not sure about their newer release.

 

[coastalconn]

Well if your shooting wildlife I'm assuming you'll be shooting mostly outdoors in fairly good lighting conditions for the most part, have you considered something with a little longer focal length such as a Sigma 150-500 or maybe one of the new Tamron 150-600 mm's? I mean the faster 2.8 glass is nice but for wildlife I think you'll find something in the 300 mm range a little limiting when shooting outdoors.

I would disagree with you. I shoot the first OS version of the Sigma 120-300. With a 2x TC I have a 600 F5.6 lens and it is useable wide open and very sharp by F8. The 150-500 isn't even close in terms of IQ. When light it low you pop off the TC and have a very sharp 300 F2.8 lens... The Tamron will be a very interesting option (I ordered one) but I have already seen a post that the 120-300 with 2x TC is sharper by a touch at 600... I have not shot the 200-400 but Nasim has a very interesting comparison. DXO mark gives the newer sport version a slightly higher score, but they state sharpness is the same. But what you read about reliability on the first version is true. I've had mine 3 months and already have had to have the HSM replaced.. page 4 has the comparison.. Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Review I have plenty of images with the 120-300 if you want to see some let me know

 

[robbins.photo]

Well if your shooting wildlife I'm assuming you'll be shooting mostly outdoors in fairly good lighting conditions for the most part, have you considered something with a little longer focal length such as a Sigma 150-500 or maybe one of the new Tamron 150-600 mm's? I mean the faster 2.8 glass is nice but for wildlife I think you'll find something in the 300 mm range a little limiting when shooting outdoors.

I would disagree with you. I shoot the first OS version of the Sigma 120-300. With a 2x TC I have a 600 F5.6 lens and it is useable wide open and very sharp by F8. The 150-500 isn't even close in terms of IQ. When light it low you pop off the TC and have a very sharp 300 F2.8 lens... The Tamron will be a very interesting option (I ordered one) but I have already seen a post that the 120-300 with 2x TC is sharper by a touch at 600... I have not shot the 200-400 but Nasim has a very interesting comparison. DXO mark gives the newer sport version a slightly higher score, but they state sharpness is the same. But what you read about reliability on the first version is true. I've had mine 3 months and already have had to have the HSM replaced.. page 4 has the comparison.. Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Review I have plenty of images with the 120-300 if you want to see some let me know

Lol.. well I won't disagree with you there, but the 120-300mm F/2.8 is a pretty expensive piece of glass, the one's I've seen usually run between about 2 to 3 grand. As a hobbyist it's a bit beyond my price range for a single lens, at least at this point. But who knows the op might have a bigger budget than my own so it might be a good option for them. I have been giving some serious thought to adding a teleconverter for use with my Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 but I'm saving for a body upgrade first.

 

[coastalconn]

Lol.. well I won't disagree with you there, but the 120-300mm F/2.8 is a pretty expensive piece of glass, the one's I've seen usually run between about 2 to 3 grand. As a hobbyist it's a bit beyond my price range for a single lens, at least at this point. But who knows the op might have a bigger budget than my own so it might be a good option for them. I have been giving some serious thought to adding a teleconverter for use with my Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 but I'm saving for a body upgrade first.

The OP isn't too concerned about price. The 200-400 is about twice as much as the 120-300. Please, please don't take offense Robbins.Photo, but when discussions come up about exotics, most people that are asking have the money and are looking for first hand experience.. He/She actually stated "besides cost"

Back to the OP, Thom Hogan has a long review of the 200-400 and has a love/hate relationship with it as he states. In case you haven't seen it.. Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G Lens Review by Thom Hogan

A few other thoughts about the 120-300, which I don't know if they addressed in the Sport version, I can confirm focus accuracy isn't a strong point in the first as you mentioned earlier. When it is on it can be very impressive...
300 F2.8 focused on upper gulls..d7100

sunset seagull wars by krisinct, on Flickr
420 f4.5 d300

White Throated Sparrow by krisinct, on Flickr
600mm F8 d7100

Golden Crowned Kinglet by krisinct, on Flickr

 

[Aloicious]

if the sigma you're looking at is either of the OS versions, I'd take it over the 200-400 any day of the week (especially if its the newest sport version which is compatible with their awesome dock)....

wildlife shooting is typically in poor, or at least unpredictable, lighting, so faster is definitely better as you WILL need to shoot wide open at times. and the nikon is basicaly a really slow 200mm, moderately slow 300mm, and a moderately fast 400mm....it is a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but its more of a compromise than anything else IMO, and for the price it costs, its just not worth it to me...if you're looking at that kind of money, you'd be better off with more focal length at the same speed with a good used 500 F4 or 600 f4, or a significantly faster 300 f2.8 (either a Nikon 300 f2.8 prime like the VR1 or VRII, or the Siggy 120-300 OS or Sport).

 

[brian_f2.8]

Go to a camera store and play with these, if they have them available or rent each one. I haven't seen anything about weight. The 120-300 is very easy to hand hold. Are you going to use a mono pod? Tripod? How will you be shooting? The 120-300 might be easier if you climb a small ledge or a tree.