Telephoto Lens Comparison (Opinion): I did a quick and dirty (which is all my attention span will permit) comparison between the Sigma 300 D f/2.8 and the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR. The Nikon...

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I did a quick and dirty (which is all my attention span will permit) comparison between the Sigma 300 D f/2.8 and the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR.

The Nikon is bigger, heavier but has VR and yes the image quality is slightly better. The difference can easily be corrected in PP.

Is it worth 75% more just for the VR?

fawlty128 Loc: LI, NY now in Allentown, PA

That's a big price difference. I know nothing about either lens but if you are shooting at shutter speeds above 1/300 sec.(faster if crop factor is involved)then VR will be of little use.

KlausK Loc: Brewster, NY

Is it this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-300mm-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0009JKGZ6/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1390867921&sr=1-10&keywords=sigma+300+f%2F2.8+for+nikon

vs. this?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-300mm-Nikkor-Super-Telephoto/dp/B0030BEVEW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1390868050&sr=1-1&keywords=nikon+300mm+f%2F2.8

(I looked for the Nikon version of the Sigma but the Canon came up, however I assume that features and price are about the same. And they both have image stabilization.)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

KlausK wrote:

Is it this: br br http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-300... (show quote)

Yes those are the lenses.

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

I did a quick and dirty (which is all my attention span will permit) comparison between the Sigma 300 D f/2.8 and the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR.

The Nikon is bigger, heavier but has VR and yes the image quality is slightly better. The difference can easily be corrected in PP.

Is it worth 75% more just for the VR?

The 75% difference in price is split between the brand name, the image quality, and the VR.

Where did you find a comparison which said the IQ is "slightly better"? How big the difference is would affect how much of the cost difference I would attribute to the Nikon.

Whether or not the VR is worth it depends on what you're shooting. With the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VRI, I have gotten very sharp images using VR, a monopod, and 1/20th shutter speed. I don't do that often, but I do shoot under 1/250 with it a bit, so the VR still helps.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Joer, I'll let others argue the merrits of VR.
Good glass, such as Nikon or Canon, hold very high resale values. I've heard of instances where the Bigmas are bought used for 30% less than they go for new. That's a huge loss. The loses are less money on less expensive lenses, but the percentages seem to be the same.
Of course the Corporate glass costs a bundle more, but if and when you sell, you'll almost use the lens for free.
I had a Canon 500mm that I had paid $4900 for. After the mkll was announced at double the price, I sold mine for $5900.
That does not make then any cheaper to get into though. They are worth what you pay for them, and you get what you pay for as well.
At least that's my 2cents. Good luck Joer. ;-)
SS

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

amehta wrote:

The 75% difference in price is split between the b... (show quote)

I didn't find a comparison that said slightly better. That's my opinion after shooting some sample images.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

joer wrote:

I did a quick and dirty (which is all my attention span will permit) comparison between the Sigma 300 D f/2.8 and the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR.

The Nikon is bigger, heavier but has VR and yes the image quality is slightly better. The difference can easily be corrected in PP.

Is it worth 75% more just for the VR?

I would think that VR would be a big help on a 300mm lens, I have a Canon f/4 and the IS is a big help, I get better telephoto pics with it (less motion blur) than I did with my 180mm Macro with a 1.4 TC attached.

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

I didn't find a comparison that said slightly better. That's my opinion after shooting some sample images.

I misunderstood. If you don't see a significant difference, that obviously isn't a cost factor.

I don't know if it's worth considering, but KEH has 2 used 300mm f/2.8 without VR for around $2800. The IQ should be in the same range as the other two, all the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AF-S lenses are excellent.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

joer wrote:

I did a quick and dirty (which is all my attention span will permit) comparison between the Sigma 300 D f/2.8 and the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR.

The Nikon is bigger, heavier but has VR and yes the image quality is slightly better. The difference can easily be corrected in PP.

Is it worth 75% more just for the VR?

Not to me. Of course money means different things to different people. Some people spend money on smoking, drinking, and having fun. That's not my style, so I can spend money on midrange photo equipment.

KlausK Loc: Brewster, NY

Another option would be the Sigma used on eBay with the extra resale discount already deducted.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

jerryc41 wrote:

Not to me. Of course money means different things to different people. Some people spend money on smoking, drinking, and having fun. That's not my style, so I can spend money on midrange photo equipment.

Too bad about the fun. :lol:

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

SharpShooter wrote:

Joer, I'll let others argue the merrits of VR. br... (show quote)

Can't dispute the resale value. Canon and Nikon fetch more than most brands.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

joer wrote:

Too bad about the fun. :lol:

I enjoy not having fun. It removes the pressure of trying to be happy all the time. :D

Aldebaran Loc: Florida

jerryc41 wrote:

I enjoy not having fun. It removes the pressure of trying to be happy all the time. :D

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: