Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM and 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM lenses available for pre-oder


The two new Sigma lenses for Nikon F-mount are now available for pre-order at B&H:

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Stephen

    The link to the 120-300 is of an older version.

  • hellok

    I think 120-300 is the old one. Shows in stock and 22 reviews.

  • Roy

    Link is wrong for the 120-300 I think? It points to the older version.

    Here is the pre-order link for the Nikon Mount.

  • Here is the correct link for the Sigma 120-300 lens:

  • x

    3600 for sigma lens? success impossible.

    • Mike

      They had an almost $9000 camera for a while.

      • desmo

        it wasn’t successful

  • This lens is for DX body or for FX?, What are the Difference b/w 24-70 mm f2.8 (~$700-$800) vs 17-70 mm f2.8 (~$500). Why the Price is Comparatively Low??

    • Ren Kocksmell

      17-70 is variable aperture, with VR.

      Stick with Leica. Stick with JPEG.

    • preston

      And yes, the 24-70 is for FX and the 17-70 is for DX. That is what the “DG” or “DC” (crop) in the name signify.

  • Nikon Shooter

    Holy Jesus, $3600??? This pig must be wearing some very expensive lipstick. Anyone with a brain will get the Nikon 70-200 with a 1.4 tele. It may become an f/4, but I’ve yet too see a Sigma zoom that can produce quality results wide-open. On top of its ridiculous price the Zigma’s notoriously unreliable focus and iffy quality control make this lens DOA. What were they thinking?

    • Paul

      Their lenses recently have been stellar–better than Nikon’s and cheaper.

      • An anonimous Photographer

        better…Really? Better in what..image quality, build quality, both?

        I’ve seen image samples of a new 35mm of Sigma, but in relation to contrast, color, wide open sharpness (why buy an 1.4 if you’re not plan to use it mostly wide open or close to it) and build (plastic filter thread, no weather sealing) it comes mostly to PRIORITIES (cost is part of that) to choose for this Sigma or Nikon and not to being better. But if you can proof otherwise I love to see it, so please share a link to the test results

        • Tommy B.

          I shoot with the Sigma 85mm f1.4 on a D700 professionally, weddings & portraits, and it produces fantastic images. You can look at “test results” all you want, but it’s real world results that matter. I haven’t personally used Nikon’s 85mm f1.4G, but I’ve seen numerous reviews from big name pros who’ve used both and favored the Sigma over it’s IQ and faster focusing. Those numerous reviews, and not just one person’s opinion, was enough for me to choose the Sigma (as well as the 50mm f1.4). I have not been disappointed.

          • Desmo

            oh really ,
            Big name pros use Sigma,
            what planet you from

      • desmo

        check your meds

    • anon

      a 300 2.8 isn’t a 200 2.8, and they are in no way comparable. if you are ok with 70-200 vr 2.8 with a 1.4 tc, you’d be better off spending 1500 dollars less and getting 300 f4 prime as you’ll get a longer focal length and no quality compromise from a TC. I’m a nikon shooter as well, but i’m guessing that you haven’t handled a 120-300 personally because even the original 120-300 OS was a pretty extraordinary lens. I owned the original OS for two weeks. I returned it only for the lack of focus limiter and the terribly cheap hood, both of which are remedied in this new one. no matter what quirks it had, the image quality was very good. But you can’t knock that price for a 300mm 2.8 with VR/OS. Nikon and Canon versions are both 6000+ dollars. For half the money, i don’t care who you are, at a reasonable viewing size and not zooming to 200% on a computer screen, 95% of paying client’s won’t tell the subtle sharpness difference between a 3500 dollar sigma and 6000 dollar nikon… however you will notice if you are shooting 70-200 vr with a 1.4 tc at f4 and can’t get a fast enough shutter speed. the point is, if you need 2.8, there is no substitute, and not everyone can afford 3600 let alone 6000. Give Sigma a chance, there newer stuff has been drastically improving.

      • Nikon Shooter

        You know, what kills it for me about Sigma is not even the sharpness, but the autofocus. After having used Nikon’s set of 2.8 zooms for so long I’d found flaws in Sigma’s performance almost right away. I have tried the 120-300 before (don’t remember which version) and besides the softness at f/2.8 (which is not a deal-breaker by any means) I found that it just didn’t perform well-enough for me to like it or to warrant such price tag. It may look lovely on paper, but I wouldn’t use it professionally.

        • anon

          likely if you aren’t sure which one, it was probably the original non-OS. the OS I is new enough that you’d have tested it within the last 1.5 years and would remember it more vividly. At any rate, OS vs non-OS makes a big difference in the quality you are remembering. The OS is worlds ahead of the non.

          You made a key point here though..”wouldn’t use it professionally.” Even though i think that most clients wouldn’t notice a difference and there a lots of people making money with this lens… aside from all that, there are plenty of people that really want/need 2.8 but who aren’t planning on using it professionally and can’t afford the brand name premiums. This isn’t a 200 vs 400 dollar lens choice. it’s thousands of dollars difference, which can mean a lot more gear for an enthusiast or a starting out pro. Am i saying that the Sigma performs as well as the nikon in every respect… no.. but why should it. a 50000 dollar audi cannot come close to a porsche 911 that costs 100000, but it’s still a damn fine performing car. I know it’s loose analogy, but you understand what i’m saying. Keep in mind too. Not everyone needs lightning fast AF. The 120-300 OS i owned had very accurate AF, just not overly fast in low light, but i really don’t need it to be super fast so it wasn’t an issue for me. What irritates me is that so many people just say sigma makes terrible products because they aren’t quite as good as the name brands. well duh. they’re lower price alternatives, why should anyone expect them to be identical? If anything, it should be expected that they will be of lesser performing and people should be surprised and happy if they can almost match.

          • catinhat

            I’ve shot many a soccer game with the pre-OS 120-300 and D700 in poor stadium lighting. I have no idea what AF speed issues you’re talking about, it nailed almost every shot. I would suspect a flaw in technique or suboptimal AF mode settings if this lens didn’t perform on a quality body.

            • anon

              My OS vs non-OS is based on others’ claims. I haven’t used the non-OS, only the OS. I felt the OS I version was very good… And others have claimed that the OS version is much better than the non-OS.. that’s the only way i made that claim about the non-OS. it very well could have performed well in most instances.

    • catinhat

      The price does seem a bit on the high side. The last revision before OS was introduced (two version back) had been going for between $2700 and 3000. When the model got discontinued, it went on sale at some outlets for as little as $2400, and I was lucky to pick it up then. I can tell you that this lens is excellent wide open at 300mm. It is a killer combination with a D700 or D3s for nighttime sports shooting. The problem for my type of use is that since they introduced VR the price keeps getting higher and higher, but sports shooting doesn’t really need VR.
      I have used their now discontinued 100-300 f4 as well, a great option for a mere $1000. It was superb wide open up to at least 270-280mm, even with 1.4TC on, still very good wide open at 300mm. Behaved no differently than Nikon’s 70-200 VR1 in this respect, but a whole lot cheaper than 70-200 + TC, and you might be surprised which one would be sharper.
      I have heard that Sigma quality control could be spotty, and some samples may not be as good as others. I guess I’ve been lucky. On the other hand, when it comes to quality control, Nikon these days should just shut up and sit quietly in the corner.

  • Richie

    i have an older sigma 24-60 2.8 and although the build is pretty good (actually i wore the rollers out after 15,000 frames) the glass is terrible! Full of ghosting etc. Would take a lot for me to buy another Sigma!

  • Anoop

    If quality is in line with 35mm F1.4. this will be a hit. prices will go down in 6 months.
    nikon 200-400 costs 6.5K+ canon’s version is not even out. i hope its compatible with nikon and canon TCs fully. else its high time sigma upgrade its TC line.

  • Sifor

    Hmm given the grey pricing of the current version is roughly $2k, this does make me wonder how valueable the customisation thing will be… probably not worth an extra $1600….Honestly I was expecting them to retail it at $3k (genuine) and something like $2.5k for grey.

    • Sifor

      Ah I just noticed that apparently the lens is only $600 more expensive than the current version (using B&H pricing, current OS is $3k, new one is $3.6).. I think that’s reasonable, given that grey pricing will probably end up being $2500-$3k.

  • krsnapixels

    I am confused

    I ordered Refurb 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Nikon from Sigma Website yesterday.

    How come all of a sudden it is a new lens in Nikon Rumours now?

    • Because this is a brand new lens, you bought the old version.

  • I was really looking forward to the new 120-300 but a 56% rise in RRP (UK prices) seems madness.

    Unless this is now OEM sharp there is no way I would look to buy one as you’re into used Nikon VR or Canon IS 300 2.8 territory. While you loose the zoom you gain sharpness and a better set of TCs.

    Looking like I am going to have to wait even longer now and see if the price drops or settle on a used lens.

    • Tabazan

      I read somewhere that the the big news for the 120-300 are on the cosmetic front, not on optics. A bit sad. But let’s wait for “real life” tests. The range is very interesting, and for indoor sports could match excatly the needs. A shame it’s not a Nikon 🙁

      • anon

        the biggest complaints of that lens were focus speed, lack of limiter and cheap hood. All of which sigma has fixed or claimed to have fixed. Metal Hood secured with a tension screw rather than plastic click in place kind, focus limiter with i believe three settings added, and focus speed tweaking through the USB lens dock (not sure how/what this means, but it’s interesting) So it’s definitely more than just cosmetics. and a nikon 120-300 2.8 vr will like cost no less than 7000 to 8000 dollars. 200-400 f4 is 7000+

  • Tabazan

    Regarding the “dock”, I think it’s a good way for Sigma to : 1. destress Sigma Q.C. by reporting calibration work on customers. 2. Assure that, in the case the 120-300 is a success (and if it is, could do harm to Canikon range), that calibration of their new lenses can be done even if Canon/Nikon “forget” to update/include these new range lenses in the calibration listing. If it would be the case, no other way than send it back to Sigma. That “happy home calibration” is curious. and, counting the price to add for the “dock”, and the work to do that, suppose that Sigma could release products without more application. Q.C. problem solved, reported to clients.

  • Jan F. Rasmussen

    The ability top customize focus limiter sounds VERY appealing!

  • Tondu

    Sorry, but for a weathersealed 2.8f lens with OS (or VR) in this focal range the price is not on the cheap side but not to high either…and the weather sealing is a good step in the right direction for all nature and sport photographers…

  • Back to top