@Godless: you've touched on an interesting point. As I've brought up in many threads, I have a Sigma 8-16mm for my D90 which I absolutely love. I wanted those extra couple mm nobody else was selling and I got them. And the lens is great and I'm happy. Of course, the more I read on the Internet, the more I think I might have just gotten a good copy. And I guess it could always break down. But as it sits, it serves me well.

The 120-300 interested me. I ended up splashing out nearly double for the Nikon 200-400mm instead. Nobody in town had a 120-300 to test drive and half the shops had never seen one ("$3000 for a Sigma? Never heard of that, Son..."). I was envisioning this nightmare of bouncing ten-pound packages back and forth with B&H in the United States until I got a great copy. In the end I declared my love for my 135mm f/2 DC and said that would cover the low end, and maxed out plastic for the longer Nikon. I'll never know if I did the right thing.

If Sigma is going to try to go toe-to-toe on high-end glass (they have another zoom that's longer and heavier, I think it costs like $25K) they need to get samples for sale to far-flung places to dispel the lingering (unjustly deserved?) reputation of low quality. Even though I love my 8-16mm, and I don't need any more glass in any range presently, I'm (foolishly?) nervous to buy anything but Nikon.

SquamishPhoto said:
The main difference between your suggestion and the older Nikons is optimal quality. As much as you may love the convenience and price of the Sigma zooms, they're hardly the pinnacle of optics

You obviously don´t know about the 120-300 OS. Read the reviews and check it out first.
The resolution of this thing is about on par with many tele primes. Better than any other Sigma telezoom has been.

---

And your presumption that I love the "convenience" of zooms is absolutely wrong. There is nothing convenient about zooms. I would much prefer a prime, but I will not shell out 6k for a 300 2.8 prime if a fast-focusing, stabilized, really sharp zoom is available at 2k. Apart from this one, I do not own any other zooms and I doubt I ever will (a series of 8/24/85/300+ primes would be enough for the rest of my life).

Godless said:
The AF-D 2.8 model sucks (slooowwww AF, missed shot, thank you ma´am..)

I would recommend investing in the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS instead of the older Nikon models. Can´t get better for the money and the focal length anywhere. For Nikon, that is.

Sure, its slow to rack through the entire range, but under most real working situations you're focus speed is hardly an issue when you're tracking a subject as it may only move a millimeter at a time while following the subject. The main difference between your suggestion and the older Nikons is optimal quality. As much as you may love the convenience and price of the Sigma zooms, they're hardly the pinnacle of optics, whereas the Nikons are all gems. If you're going to recommend a third party alternative I think TTJ has the right idea with the Tokina or even spend the money on the Sigma 300mm 2.8 prime.

Suggesting the zoom is just bad form. :]

I'm currently renting a AF-S 300mm f2.8G VRII, and it is one sweet lens. AF is fast, without a doubt. The main reason to get the F2.8 over the F4 is for use with teleconverters. Being able to stick a 2x TC and getting a 600mm F5.6 is sweet. That said, I'm more likely to buy the Sigma 120-300mm OS, for cost reasons.

I picked up a Tokina 300 f2.8 - last version made. It is AFD so it is a bit slower but optically it is great. CAs are there but that is an easy fix in LR or post. I picked it up for $1,200 which I think was a steal.

Depending on what you are shooting any of the older AF 300mm lenses are all great performers. They are slower than the AFS lenses but if you don't want to break the bank or like me, really nice to have and I do have enough uses for it I could justify the $1,200 price but not much higher. Anything more than that I would have just gone with the 300 f4 AFS. If I had a D3s+ I would just go with the 300 f4 since the gain I get from 2.8 I could easily make up for it in ISO and the AFS would be a bonus. That is for my shooting though.

SquamishPhoto said:
The AF-S models tend to be up around $3000 depending on the shape its in. If you look around you can find the older AF versions for anywhere from $900-2350 depending on model, age and condition.

The AF-D 2.8 model sucks (slooowwww AF, missed shot, thank you ma´am..)

I would recommend investing in the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS instead of the older Nikon models. Can´t get better for the money and the focal length anywhere. For Nikon, that is.

Great review, Gentoo. thanks very much for posting it. And tcole, thanks for finding it. I own the 200-400mm and I'm finding it might be Just Too Big(tm) so I'm looking for options...

The AF-S models tend to be up around $3000 depending on the shape its in. If you look around you can find the older AF versions for anywhere from $900-2350 depending on model, age and condition. However, much like the AI-s version that kyoshinikon uses, the optics are all amazing regardless of what comes after the "A". Its all about budget and how you're going to use it. If you can swing it the AF-S will be the most desirable of the bunch.

Never go for the AF-I that Rockwell uses because they're hasn't been support for repairs on those for years. They were the precursors to the AF-S lenses and the only way to repair a broken motor on one of them is to buy another copy of the lens and cannibalize it for its motor.

I have 2 300mm f/2.8 AI-s If you aren't afraid to manual focus they definitely don't break the bank...

Found this thread. Curious is anyone is shooting the 300 F2.8 AF-S non-VR lens. I didn't know about it until I was just looking at used lenses for sale...seems like it might be a good compromise of features and quality for the price.

Great reading and information you guys. Please keep discussing it.

heartyfisher said:

T stops are only useful if you dont have TTL metering which compensates for the degradarion through the multiple elements. so although in theory The same F-stop on a 500mm lens provides the same amount of light as a 12 mm lens. Actual amount of light that gets through is dependent on the number of elements. So a 500mm Prime at F5.6 will be brighter than a Super Zoom that is set to 500mm and F5,6 but a 500mm prime at F5.6 will be as bright as a 35mm prime at F5.6 if the number of elements were the same(all things being equal, coating, quality etc).

DOF has nothing to do with TStops, but is a function of Focal lenght AND Aperture Fstop.

That is what I meant to say, I suppose I just worded it incorrectly :)

Good points.

Hi Chris, Nope dont agree :-). T-stops are always larger(numerically) than the lens F-stop. that's due to the loss of light as the light goes in and out of lens elements and gets reflected off the surface rather than going through it. However, These days the degradation is not too bad.

The fact is that if you are shooting a 18% grey card with a good F2.8 35mm and a good F2.8 200mm. the shutter speed will be the same. ie the amount of light getting to the sensor is the same even if the diameter of the opening is much smaller for the 35mm.

T stops are only useful if you dont have TTL metering which compensates for the degradarion through the multiple elements. so although in theory The same F-stop on a 500mm lens provides the same amount of light as a 12 mm lens. Actual amount of light that gets through is dependent on the number of elements. So a 500mm Prime at F5.6 will be brighter than a Super Zoom that is set to 500mm and F5,6 but a 500mm prime at F5.6 will be as bright as a 35mm prime at F5.6 if the number of elements were the same(all things being equal, coating, quality etc).

DOF has nothing to do with TStops, but is a function of Focal lenght AND Aperture Fstop.

f/2.8 is -not- the same on any lens. F stops are not the same as T-stops. T-stops denote the total amount of light transmitted through a lens, while an F-stop only denotes the size of an aperture relative to the focal length of a given lens.

this is why f/2.8 on a 35/2 lens is much smaller than f/2.8 at 200mm on a 70-200mm lens, and why longer lenses, of the same given aperture as a shorter one, will have shallower depth of field.

Actually F2.8 on any lense is the same brightness. theoretically. However, as we have seen in the lense patents, A lense labeled F2.8 may not actually be F2.8 and a 300mm may not actually be a 300mm.
Although, I agree that the greater number of elements will probably darken a lens.

Oh Great Review Gentoo! I dont have a "real" lens in that range yet ;-) and your review was most interesting. I have a 200-400mm Zoom lens ..... , dont get too excited .. .. its a tamron F5.6, I need to use it more but I am so spoilt with VR that its takes a bit of effort to "remember" to bring it along! :-) Really looking forward to nikon's rumoured 100-500vr

I can't comment on the noise, as I really have no logical explanation for it, aside from the fact that the extra stop nets you an extra stop of ISO. In all likelihood, it's just a placebo effect of having a very pretty new lens :)

Thanks for the explanation Chris, that makes a lot more sense. Do you know anything about the noise?

Fewer elements in the 300 than a complicated zoom like the 70-200 means that light has to transfer through less glass, which equals better brightness at equivalent f-stops. also 2.8 @ 300 is a much bigger hole than 2.8 @ 200.

That's probably it actually. Certainly more magnification than a 70-200 that's for sure.

I was only kidding! But you think it really is brighter? That's funny! Maybe because of the higher magnification it seems to be brighter?

Makes sense alpha. The noise was noticeable in the other lenses before any color tweaking was done. I could see it in Capture NX2. An F2, that's interesting as it seems a bit more bright and sensitive to light than my 70-200 which is also a 2.8.

Wow, thanks for the review Gentoo! Sounds like a great lens (except for the blasted focusing ring). We've already seen some amazing shots coming out of it in the PAD! Maybe I should do a review on my 80-200...

As for the noise thing, I don't really know. My guess is it has something to do with the color that comes out of the lenses, as perhaps your tweaks to the color when using your other lenses cause the noise to stand out. Or perhaps your new lens is actually an ƒ/2 and lets in a lot more light than you imagine! ;^)

Wow, that's a nice review. Cool stuff!

nice review gentoo, glad You like it - and imagine now, that You are handholding add 15 cm of 200-400 :)

Thanks, I appreciate your sharing such insights and experiences. While I dream of lenses like the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4... I find that my 200/4 at 1190 grams feels heavy after a while. I wonder how much I'd like the 2900 grams of the 300/2.8? Worst part of getting old is being better able to afford large glass, but less willing (and able) to carry it.