Nikon's new 120-300mmF2.8 G VR: I've seen this lens costing nearly $10,000. Sigma has a 120-300mmF:2.8 optical stabilized and Internal focus and zooming which is in their Sports...

Larryshuman

I've seen this lens costing nearly $10,000. Sigma has a 120-300mmF:2.8 optical stabilized and Internal focus and zooming which is in their Sports category for their Global Vision and only costs $3000 to $2700. Given the Sigma lens has a very good established history with the sports press why spend $10,000?

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

With Nikon, I would guess probably because they can and people will pay it ...........

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Larryshuman wrote:

I've seen this lens costing nearly $10,000. Sigma has a 120-300mmF:2.8 optical stabilized and Internal focus and zooming which is in their Sports category for their Global Vision and only costs $3000 to $2700. Given the Sigma lens has a very good established history with the sports press why spend $10,000?

The Sigma is an exceptional lens that I have used for 7 years without fail. I would not even consider spending 3 times more for the Nikon!

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

MT Shooter wrote:

The Sigma is an exceptional lens that I have used for 7 years without fail. I would not even consider spending 3 times more for the Nikon!

Maybe not you but there are people who will pay the outrageous price or they would not be selling as such.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

authorizeduser wrote:

Maybe not you but there are people who will pay the outrageous price or they would not be selling as such.

Are they selling it at that price or offering it at that price?

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Retired CPO wrote:

Are they selling it at that price or offering it at that price?

What is the difference? The advertised price is the selling price unless there is a special discount in effect.

Bill_de Loc: US

I read in a few places that we should expect to see a lot of these lenses at the Olympics.

The only caveat with reading the same thing in a few places is that it is probably one source copied a few times by others.

--

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Larryshuman wrote:

I've seen this lens costing nearly $10,000. Sigma has a 120-300mmF:2.8 optical stabilized and Internal focus and zooming which is in their Sports category for their Global Vision and only costs $3000 to $2700. Given the Sigma lens has a very good established history with the sports press why spend $10,000?

Because the Nikon lens is three times as good as the Sigma. Are you serious, your stating that the Sigma has a established history with the press, are you serious? Your post is a laugh.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The difference in price is due to the way Nikon makes optics. Sigma is a good lens and visually you may not see a difference. The difference is in the glass.
--Bob

Larryshuman wrote:

I've seen this lens costing nearly $10,000. Sigma has a 120-300mmF:2.8 optical stabilized and Internal focus and zooming which is in their Sports category for their Global Vision and only costs $3000 to $2700. Given the Sigma lens has a very good established history with the sports press why spend $10,000?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Sigma has gained a good reputation as a lens manufacturer. I have only one non OEM lens and it is a Sigma 60mm f2.8 Art for my Olympus which is razor sharp and works to perfection with my Olympus bodies.
Nikon has an excellent reputation around the world as a lens manufacturer. I know very little about their lens manufacturing process but I know they are very strict in the selection of the glass used and the quality control of their premium glass. I bet tolerances are very low and I know they test and retest the optics to make sure they meet their standards. Even when they repair a lens they first test it thoroughly before returning the lens to the owner.

In one occasion it happened to me, I sent my 12-24 f4 AF-S for repairs and it took over 2 weeks to have the job done. When I was able to talk to a technician over the phone he explained to me that the repair had been done but the lens was going through a series of tests to make sure it was working to specs. Indeed the lens has been working like a champ and I have been very happy with its performance.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

authorizeduser wrote:

What is the difference? The advertised price is the selling price unless there is a special discount in effect.

The difference is, are the lenses selling or just being drooled over.

Bill_de Loc: US

camerapapi wrote:

Sigma has gained a good reputation as a lens manuf... (show quote)

I saw a video a while back where the head of Sigma visited the Hoya glass factory. They said all Sigma glass came from Hoya. They went on to say they work very closely as the 2 plants are very near each other. I also read Hoya co-develops FLD glass with Sigma.

They are no 3rd rate companies.

--

John Maher Loc: Northern Virginia

I think one factor in all professional equipment -- not just photography -- is who is paying for it. In one can get the corporation to pay for it, money is no object.

CWGordon

I had the Sigma for awhile. It was so heavy I stopped using it and traded it on other stuff. I do not know how heavy the Nikon is, but I would not want such weight were I using it for sports. Personally, I’d rather use the 70-200 2.8. Maybe a 300 prime with a second body, but not if I hadda carry it around my neck! If you really think you might need the extra reach, I guess, but I would find another lens or lenses to avoid carrying the incredibly heavy Sigma around. Maybe I am just getting old...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

authorizeduser wrote:

With Nikon, I would guess probably because they can and people will pay it ...........