sigma 120-400

[evan47]

i am thinking of changing my nikon 70-300 vr for the sigma 120-400 os hsm. i use the nikon d7000 and d90. is it worth me upgrading, or should i stick with the nikon and crop the image? i would like a bit more reach, plus the tripod collar on the sigma would be handy. i was hoping that there would not be too much of a loss of sharpness with the sigma.

[pnodrog]

Unless you go to the Sigma 150-500 I think you may as well keep saving. I like Sigma lenses but I cannot see the gain 120-400 may bring being worth the expenditure. Be careful with the Sigma 150-500 as a batch was recalled. One from new stock should be fine.

What other lenses do you use, have you tried a 1.4x adapter and why do you want the longer reach? Almost a silly question as I often wish I had more than 300mm but for the photography I do the extra weight and cost is not justified.

[evan47]

the nikon 70-300 is not compatible with a teleconverter, also, it will not take a tripod ring. the extra 100mm would be handy for birding, as long as there isnt too much of a drop in image quality. i have considered the 300mm f4 and a 1.4 tc, but this is far more costly with no vr and a poor tripod ring. the sigma 150-500 varies too much in quality to risk buying.

[Manfred M]

I would agree with you on the 150-500 quality issues; ours has been back to the Sigma twice for repairs to the onboard electronics and focusing motor. I've heard that the 120-400 isn't any better.

[Mark von Kanel]

As ive said before the sigma 50-500 is great, why dont you hire the lens you intend to buy and see how you get on with it?

[Flash Falasca]

i am thinking of changing my nikon 70-300 vr for the sigma 120-400 os hsm. i use the nikon d7000 and d90. is it worth me upgrading, or should i stick with the nikon and crop the image? i would like a bit more reach, plus the tripod collar on the sigma would be handy. i was hoping that there would not be too much of a loss of sharpness with the sigma.

I had the 120-400 sent it back after 2 weeks it was disappointing,got the 50-500 and I'M IN LOVE.

[Donald]

I have been very happy with my 120-400 and had no quality problems.

[Melkus]

Going to add one more here a lens I rented for a trip. The Tokina 80-400 very good lens and and at the right price

[Shadowman]

The upgrade would have to be justified by the outcome. Are you looking to gain more in detail, to fill the frame with your subject and/or get you closer without scaring the subject? I noticed you said you wanted to get more reach, but would 400mm be enough from what you are getting with the 300mm? You also mentioned cropping your current photos, so you must feel that the space around your subject is just wasted pixels. However, sometimes the environment of your subject is just as important.

I have the 70-30mm and wanted more reach, tried the 500mm mirror lens (I know the quality is not going to be the same) but the added focal length didn't fill the frame that much more. I would need at least 600mm to fully fill the frame or have to move closer to my subject. My subject to lens distance for this particular test was around 150 feet.

I read that a three foot tall figure would fill the frame at a 100 foot distance with a 500mm lens.