{Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM + 1.4X TC} vs. {Nikkor 300/4D}

No "Sigma" forum... Oh, well. Looks like I'm posting here. Hope this don't turn ugly...


Apparently, at f/8, and strictly in terms of image sharpness, the Sigma lens is on par with the Nikkor 300/4D.

See for yourselves:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3


I know, right? Hooooly sh*t... And that's at 200 with a 1.4X TC(!)


I've had the 300/4D since about 2006... Gosh, that's 10 years. Anyway, I always knew that it was an OK lens. Maybe more than just OK but by no means was it anything like the 300/2.8.

Now, being in the market for a 70-200 zoom I thought I'd carefully weigh my options. So I weighed them, quite literally. But I'll get to that later.

There's more to a picture than its sharpness. You can talk about: f/4, image contrast, clarity, distortions or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking strictly image sharpness at f/8. You may call it definition, resolving power, rendition of fine detail, it's all the same to me.

There's a lot more to any lens even than the picture itself! I ain't talking about that either, because I don't care! I'm buying a 70-200 lens to shoot panoramas on a tripod at f/8, f/11 and sometimes f/16 and to focus via Live View. So things like focus acquisition, low-light performance or whichever specs and attributes, it's all irrelevant to me.

Given that there are quite a few options of covering the 70-200mm range, I've decided to carefully examine all of them. In what I thought was the end, the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR2 seemed like the way to go but, boy, was it a heavy one... Ideally, I needed to cover the range up to 300mm. So I thought: "the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4 on my back? Plus a whole bunch of other stuff?".... Holy Christ, my poor spine! Hmmm.... What then? Replace the 300/4D with the lighter 300/4E? Let's forget the 2 grand for a moment, what am I supposed to shoot with between 200 and 300mm? Then I went: Hey, what about a TC? Can't hurt to peep it out!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=4

Hmm... Not impressed..., especially with the corner sharpness. But hey, let's go check out other lenses. Actually, I already did. Just hover the mouse over the same picture... Yep, that's Sigma for ya! Honestly, I feel like I've just found the Holy Grail. I can get the 70-200 Sigma for under 700 bucks. Let's see.. $300 for the TC AND I get to leave my 300/4 at home? Sweeeeet!


Couple questions...

A. Does it make sense to you that this Sigma 70-200 + 1.4X TC combo is almost as good as the Nikkor 300/4D, at f/8? Again... image sharpness only. I know that the overall picture quality can never be as good.


B. What TC is that anyway? It just says "1.4x Extender". I don't want to start another thread, so WHAT 1.4X TC would be the best for this lens? Can I use one from Nikon?


C. Is the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM about to be replaced by a new version? Given that it's a 5-year old design and the fact that the price is down to a point that I consider to be suspiciously low, is it possible that Sigma is cooking up an upgrade?



Thanks!
David

Take a look at the Nikon 70-200/4. They also compare it to the Sigma 70-200/2.8

https://photographylif​e.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f4g-vr

Also check out this test of the Sigma:

http://www.cameralabs.​com …-200mm_f2-8_EX_DG_OS_HSM/

Thanks, man! That pretty much confirms everything I already knew and everything I've said in this thread thus far. The most useful was the second link... The guy kinda botched some of the samples with JPEG compression but I was still able to make out what I needed to see, which turned out to be in line with the data available from the-digital-picture.com. The best part is that he used the Nikon D800 which happens to be also my camera and the one that I'm planning to use with the 70-200/2.8 Sigma. The actual photographs (not the charts) were a nice touch, however, he couldn't have picked a worse scene to demonstrate the landscape capabilities of this lens. The scene lacks contrast as there is no direct sunlight (so no real whites) and the already soft shadows offer no chance of displaying any kind of true blacks because of the haze. Furthermore, having so much air between the "subject" and the camera undoubtedly degrades image sharpness due to the atmospheric distortion(s).
So, unfortunately, the photo samples that would have been the most useful to me do not hold any merit as demonstrators of this Lens' landscape capabilities, in terms of resolution AND image contrast.