A comparison test of a shot at 300mm f/8 between four different lenses/lens combos. Purpose of the test....to confirm how much quality difference there was/wasn't for everyday use of these lenses.

The lenses tested....from left to right below: an older Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro, the current Nikon 70-300mm VR, an older Nikon 300mm f/4 AF, and the Nikon 80-200 AF w/Kenko Pro 300 1.4X tele-adaptor. The price range for these lenses runs from $80(used) Sigma to $400-500(used) Nikon 70-300mm VR and Nikon 300mm AF, to $900(used) for the Nikon 80-200mm + Kenko combination.

The test was done at ISO 640 on a snowy day, using the D300 at f/8 and ss's of 1/640 or 1/800. This setting should be achievable with decent results on a wide-variety of Nikon bodies both old and new. Shots were done in 14bit raw, adjustments made and NEF copies duplicated as indicated, then converted to TIFFs with 10-5-0 "edge definition" applied (my usual practice) in NX2. 1000 x 667 pixel (top row) and 3000 x 2000 pixel (bottom row) JPEG copies were then made from these TIFFs using Photo Mechanic, with Photo Mechanic applying the appropriate conversion sharpening in the process.

It should be noted that the Nikon 80-200 tele-conversion resulted in a 280mm focal length....thus minor cropping was utilzed (in RAW) to achieve frames comparable to the native 300mm lenses.

It should also be noted that the use of the tele either cut the shooting speed in half (at f/8) or required downsizing the aperture from f/8 to f/5.6. The results essentially were the same...but I've included two shots, one at each aperture/ss combination, for this lens combination.

The top row below shows the original shots with no adjustment made at all other than the equally applied 10-5-0 "edge definition". It is intended as a frame of reference. The more important bottom row shows in larger size the comparison with the 80-200mm plus tele crop applied, and with a slight bump in contrast for the Sigma and the tele combination, both of which lost just a tad of "bottom end darkness" relative to the two Nikon 300mm's. This adjustment was made using auto-adjust Levels in NX2. The result is five near-identical photos.

Here is my take.

The Sigma is outclassed, although I hasten to add that it is sharper at f/13 for which it is optimized (macro), and that even as is it is good enough that I do not hesitate to grab it as a lightweight, versatile (1:2 300mm macro in addition to general use) lens when the occasion demands. I should also point out that this is an older (pre-digital) model without the multi-coating that more recent versions of this Sigma Model (the APO DG Macro) have. I've given one of these to my daughter and I can assure you that the later models are better than this.

Of the Nikons, the 300mm AF is the standard bearer and is uniformly sharp from edge to edge at this focal length. The 70-300mm VR runs a remarkably close second and offers outstanding value as an all purpose tele-zoom.

The 80-200mm is equally sharp at 200mm, enough so that results are comparable at 280mm with the tele. However, the tele does cut contrast just a tad and therefore photos taken with the combo usually require just a bit more pp. It is good enough, however, that it's f/2.8 speed often outweighs the convenience of the 70-300mm. Both these zooms fit in my main Domke bag with other lenses and a pro body, so which I use often depends on the nature of the shoot (70-300mm VR for general purpose travel, etc.) and the 80-200mm with or without tele for journalixm, sports, and shoots where isolation is likely to be important (people, flowers, etc.).

Have at it, and draw your own conclusions.