No video :(

Nikon 120-300mm by Ken Rockwell

Подписаться 62 тыс.

Просмотров 24 тыс.

50% 1

Nikon 120-300mm Review & Tutorial by Ken Rockwell
Full written review www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/120...
All Nikon Reviews www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ind...
Nikon Lens Compatibility www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/com...
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 History www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300...
Get your 120-300 at www.adorama.com/NK120300.html...
or at amzn.to/30njxPX
or www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...
When you click on the links above to various merchants and make a purchase, this can result in me earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Ken Rockwell® is a registered trademark.
Video shot on Nikon Z7 www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mir...
with Canon 100-400mm L II IS www.kenrockwell.com/canon/len...
on Fringer EF-NZ adapter www.kenrockwell.com/tech/frin...
Recorded with Senal SCM660 mics www.kenrockwell.com/audio/sen...
and Apogee Duet 2 www.kenrockwell.com/audio/apo...
Mystery Text 660 pointed in, A45, AUDP-43@1.75,MP+14r2

Опубликовано:

7 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 135

@sinanuong1999 3 года назад

I’ve been reading Ken’ reviews since 1999. Make my transition to DSLR in 2000. Thanks Ken. Keep up the great work.

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

Thank YOU!!!!!!!

@2pacLEGEND 4 года назад

I was reading your website for years, it's good to see you in person as well

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks!

@Falcon012287 4 года назад

Thank you for all your efforts in your website and videos! Love it, Ken.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks, Nelson!

@yuqin405 3 года назад

i have been reading your wensite reviews for years. glad you have a youtube channel, and see you in person. great!

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

Thank you!!!

@DaruoshAghajaney 4 года назад

I don't know why, but I love your videos. The rate and speed of information delivery is spot on. Just like your articles (i grew up with your articles on your website since i had a canon 10D).

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

THANKS!!!!!!!!!

@gyozakeynsianism 4 года назад

Same here! I agree. The quality and relevance of the information is great - always. No gimmicky crap either.

@bencotech9141 3 года назад

finally i have seen the Ken Rockwell. I have been reading your reviews for so many years

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

Thank you!!!

@davelemieux2470 4 года назад

Although I'm not interested in this lens I appreciate the great no nonsense review. I just picked up the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 for my Z6 partially based on your review.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks!

@LasTerrenasTV 3 года назад

Hey Ken thaks so much for your videos i follow your web page since 2012. Two questions: The filter is the same as the Nikkor 300mm 2.8f VR2? and the foot its the same? Thanks

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

See the details at the two written reviews to compare everything you need: www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/120-300mm.htm and www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300mm-f28-vr-ii.htm Thanks!

@LasTerrenasTV 3 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV OMG! I can’t believe the 120-300 don’t come with the rear filter! How you use this with a polarizer? This is crazy! 🤦🏻‍♂️

@garyroachester1500 4 года назад

I'm a simple man I see Ken Rockwell, I smile and upvote.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Gary, you're the best!!!! Thanks!

@3curb 4 года назад

Hello Mr Rockwell from the Philippines. I would like to ask if this new lens is compatible with the Nikon Teleconverters? By the way, I bought all my Nikon gears for the last 8 years after reading your reviews on your website. Keep it up!

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Haven’t tried the TCs yet. I’ll guess it is, but we’ll have to wait and see.

@ruudjanssens8984 4 года назад

No nonsense review and as always, right on the spot. Thanks Ken.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks Ruud!

@Hero1117a 4 года назад

Luv the videos, hope you do these for older lenses

@frankthespank 4 года назад

Hero1117 - I agree, also I wish Ken with all his camera knowledge would give up a top 3 USED camera and lens recommendation in the current year. Not all of us can afford to buy new gear.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

It's all a matter of time. So much new all the time it's hard to dig back to the really good stuff. Any favorites I should do? Thanks!

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Used what? For digital I buy new since it changes so fast; used is for film gear. Ditto, the D750 and EOS-RP are such screaming deals they replace used. Tell me more. Thanks!

@Hero1117a 4 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV 28 - 300mm, please

@frankthespank 4 года назад

Ken Rockwell - Used as in what used camera body would you buy around $500 or so. Like the Fuji X-T1, many people consider it to still be a good camera. I bought a X-T1 for $300 and it has dipped my toe into the mirrorless world. So many videos are titled like “is the X-T1 still good in 2019?”. It would be cool to hear your opinion on if you only had $500 what camera or lens (or both) would YOU buy? Something like that I think would be popular since so many people use your website to go back and read about old cameras when researching older cameras to buy in certain price ranges.

@KanonMadness 3 года назад

Would be cool to see a comparison between the Nikon and sigma S 120-300mm 2.8

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

Good idea. Thanks!

@JGZphotography 4 года назад

Not being able to shoot closer than 6 feet is not disappointing for a lens designed specifically for action sports or birding. I would like to see a hands-on review comparing this lens to the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 Sports lens, which is $6,000 less and what the extra money buys in photo IQ and performance advantages that make this lens to be in my bag.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

We’ll see. What you really need is a comparative tear down.

@chrislognshot 4 года назад

to me having 6ft stand back is not issue for me. since have to be in grandstand for soccer or sofball/baseball. also if at race track give reach that need will out having to bring out 150-600mm when tight spots

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Perfect. Also this lens should work great with teleconverters.

@justinwatson384 4 года назад

Thanks Ken!!

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks Justin!

@pixlapseindia 4 года назад

I am reading kenrockwell blog/website from last 10-12 years...great content

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thank you!

@gungadinn 4 года назад

Ken, I wish that I had your optimism about Nikon and older lens repairs. My Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, Nikon will no longer service. A lot of the super tele lenses are the same way, too old, no parts available.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

That makes no sense. While it came out around 2001, it still sells new today. I believe there's a Federal law in the USA (if that's where you are) requiring manufacturers be able to service anything sold for at least 7 years. Weird.

@goldentigers6722 Год назад

Anyone know a strong tripod head for that lens? I just received it earlier today

@KenRockwellTV Год назад

I use my Manfrotto 410 www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124665-REG/Manfrotto_410_410_Junior_Geared_Head.html?BI=287&KBID=1037 or this ball should work www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/887592-REG/oben_be_117_ball_head.html?BI=287&KBID=1037 or this larger ball head www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/887600-REG/oben_bc_139_ball_head.html?BI=287&KBID=1037 or this giant www.kenrockwell.com/tech/robus/rth-1050.htm

@goldentigers6722 Год назад

@@KenRockwellTVank You Very Much!! Do I need an adapter plate? I’m buying that head hopefully by Friday. Now my gear is finally finished! I have 2 Nikon Z9s a 24-70 2.8 Z mount, 70-200 2.8 Z mount and the Nikon 120-300 2.8 super tele zoom

@KenRockwellTV Год назад

@@goldentigers6722 You shouldn't; lens has a foot with a standard ¼" x 20 TPI thread to match the screw on the top of the head. Heads that use plates (which is most of them) come with a plate.

@goldentigers6722 Год назад

Just bought one and can't wait to try it shooting Nascar and Football with my Nikon Z9

@KenRockwellTV Год назад

Yes yes yes!!! Thanks!

@horstschoninger1265 4 года назад

I have D500 and D850. In this length range I take my 70-200mm 2,8 FL or my 300mm 2,8 VR with tele converters,1.4 III 1,7 II and 2,0III. I will not spend so much money for the lens and get good quality images. Your review is very good and informal.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks!

@Nicov35 4 года назад

@9:40 he said, "I need 2.8 for film, not for digital". Any idea as to what he meant by that?

@jenadarol 4 года назад

Nicolas Valles he probably refers to the fact that compared to films, now digital cameras have crazy high iso capabilities, so even if you lose a stop at f 4, you can just increase the iso. Personally, I still prefer a wider aperture anyway.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Easy: film is ASA 50 to 100 for serious use. ASA 400 starts looking grainy, so we need f/2.8 in almost any light other than direct sunlight. With digital, even crazy high ISOs like 1,600 looks great when we need them. That’s what I meant about having to spend $10,000 to get this 2.8 lens vs the 100-400/4.5-5.6 I use instead.

@trjnsd6874 4 года назад

I am still hoping for an updated, improved 80-400...? I found it much more comfortable to use than the 200-500.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

That's why I use the Canon 100-400; its the lens Nikon hanse;t made yet.

@mika2666 4 года назад

You remind me of Patrick from servethehome, simple, informative and interesting content 😄

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Don’t know Patrick, and thanks!

@frankthespank 4 года назад

Ken, did you ever want to or try to be a TV news anchor? Call me crazy call me kooky but you just seem to be very well suited for it. You have the face for it but also the voice for it and the way you deliver your lines just..... I don’t know how to explain it and I’m not joking. Anyone else see what I see? You kinda remind me of Brian Williams (everything but the lying about taking fire in a helicopter, LOL).

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

I spent many decades of my "real" career in recording, radio, TV and film. I was always building the studio and network digital and analog video and audio infrastructure and even designing the hardware from scratch where I got to invent and patent and build and create; being an anchor means just reading other people's writing - not for me. Thanks!

@jonnyfez 4 года назад

Have read and enjoyed a lot of your lens reviews. Found them very helpful and incredibly detailed.so thank you. Have to say on the whole quality/repairability I am personally disappointed with Nikon. I am a hobby/amateur photographer and I wanted a Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR or VR II for a long time. I have both a D500 and D850 and both are great bodies. I saved up (this was a big purchase for me) to get a 300 f2.8 because everyone I spoke to and everything I read told me it was the boss for the sort of stuff I was doing (mainly wildlife parks). I bought a used VR 1. On receipt it was broken. No autofocus at all. It went straight back. I found another used VR 1 and bought that. It was great. A massive leap above any other lens I had used. Fantastic optics, sharpness, focus speed. The other day the VR system broke. Just made a horrible grinding noise and the image shuddered all over the place. I can use it with VR off. I took the lens to two shops to try and get a repair and both say..no parts ...Nikon won’t touch it and we can’t repair it, so it’s just a case of use it as a non VR, sell it or bin it. I bought it 8 months ago with a 6 month used warranty but thought if anything went wrong then at least I could send it to manufacturer. Very, very disappointed. I’ve tried to see if any retailers will buy it as faulty/non VR but they will only purchase if it is repaired. It was suggested I buy another faulty one and then get a repair shop to butcher the parts. I can’t afford to throw that kind of money away. I also have a 200-500 f5.6 VR and although image quality is very good it’s not fast enough for moving animals in low light. It is a great lens in terms of VFM. But for moving animals I wanted the 300. The 200-500 is poorly made. The lens hood doesn’t fit (this is common) it just kept falling off so I’ve had to tape it on. So my own experience of Nikon in terms of being ‘premium’ is that I’m disappointed. I’m thinking of just selling the lot to be honest.i certainly can’t afford to just buy another 300 f2.8. I know I can still use the 300 and it will produce great images in the right conditions. But when animals are stationery I’m going to have to take a hit in quality to compensate for lack of VR ..and with a lens like that you should not be making compromise.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Nikon fell to number two in the 1990s behind Canon and is now number three behind Sony. It’s not the 1970s anymore. I went to Canon in 2013, but as far as repair goes, when exotic lenses die that haven’t been sold for ten years die, no maker fixes them. Sorry about your bad luck; my 30 year old exotic ninonband Canon lenses still work Great - but if they stop focusing, to the dumpster they go. Sorry and thanks!

@jonnyfez 4 года назад

Ken Rockwell hey..no need to apologise Ken..it’s not your fault. I’m simply pointing out my own experience. I’m sure there are lots of people out there using old lenses...I know some of them. You’re right...it’s bad luck..I get a lot of that. The 120-300 looks great but out of my financial reach. I think I’ll just have to keep using the 200-500 and an unstabilised 300 2.8. I did a lot of research on the 300 2.8 VR when I bought it and yours in particular was very useful. I am in no way blaming you for a good lens developing a fault...just throwing in my experience.

@dr.sandipmehta973 4 года назад

I watch your videos just to see you and hear your voice. hope to see many more videos

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks!

@robwasnj 4 года назад

I find these reviews on lenses most of us will never use or own quite interesting. I'm curious why something like a 600mm prime won't focus nearly as close as a lens like the 200-600mm zoom. Is it because of the larger apertures or something else? Also curious how much faster these super lenses really do focus compared to lenses most of us can afford.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Easy: zooms often use a trick where they’ll shrink the effective focal length in exchange for closer focus at the longer zoom settings. Lens makers rarely do that with fixed lenses.

@robwasnj 4 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV I'm glad I asked now, thanks for the enlightenment Ken. Sometimes I shoot birds from a hunting blind in my backyard and I'm able to get extremely close, actually close enough to fill out the frame with small sparrow or cardinal. I was really pleased that my 100-400 can focus extremely close, even works like a macro in a pinch. I wonder what wildlife photographers do in such situations where they actually can get close with those primes... extension tubes? Really happy to see you on youtube btw and love how much you know the history behind photography not just the current products.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

robwas I use my 200mm macro daily.

@robwasnj 4 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV Yes, that'd be an ideal lens for some types of wildlife photography... I"m in the Sony ecosystem so that doesn't exist yet, I do own a 90mm macro but the birds don't let me get quite that close to use it, the 100-400 though works out pretty well since it allows much closer focusing than a prime telephoto would.

@billmorrigan386 4 года назад

A nice lens for ten grand. It's good that Nikon doesn't completely neglect its DSLR niche. No doubt some photographers will try this lens in Tokyo at the upcoming Olympics. But I rarely shoot at 2.8 and even less at 1.8mm. I prefer f/4 VR zooms and 1.8 primes because of their portability and because they suffice. So, I agree that the 200-500 f/5.6 is the bargain of the century among Nikkor super-teles. This 120-300 f/2.8 should really impress the clients, although lighting equipment is usually enough :) By the way you shot the video with three catch lights (nice) and used autofocus :) (it did a tiny tad of hunting at 5.59). LOL. But on a serious note, thanks for this excellent review and superb job.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

I’m a one man show. Takes forever to get myself framed by trial and error. Thanks!

@billmorrigan386 4 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV You bet!

@dannyjonze 4 года назад

Cant believe after all these years I'm watching ken rockwell saying these words and i dont even have to read them. Ha

@dannyjonze 4 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV good job. Dont stick to such tight framing forever though. :)

@BernardSolomon 4 года назад

Can we play baseball with this? Loved the way you described how big and impressive it was and would clear the way for you.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

You got it. People see this and get out of the way. Thanks!

@Narwaro 4 года назад

For shorter distances, the 300 f4D is an underappreciated lens. Its 1.4m at the closest, focuses really fast, is sharper than anything and on par with 600f4, etc. and much more saturated than the 300 PF. Its f4 yeah but cameras can handle that one stop difference today and I am not shooting birds in moonlight.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

300/4 is also built like a real lens in Japan, not out of plastic in the turd world. www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3004af.htm or www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f4afs.htm (www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300mm-pf.htm Chinese)

@dannymccune1888 4 года назад

300mm 2.8 mystery lens by Tamron. Years ago I would have called Herb Keppler on this one. As I'm sure you know, the early Tamron 300/2.8 was white, at least some had a red stripe. The later (2nd?) version was sort of olive color, with a bright green stripe. I got one about 25 years ago mostly for astrophotography. It was actually pretty good, but some blue halo around bright stars. And hot spots in daytime pics, like chrome car bumpers and sun reflections in glass and water also had blue flare sometimes. But there was another version of this lens that was near perfect with regard to the blue flare - and it had a RED stripe. Same 2nd version, same dull olive body, but a red stripe and apparently a TRUE APO. I only saw one, and a number of photos taken with it. Nobody at Tamron knew anything about it. So, if Ken Rockwell doesn't know anything, I have to wonder if it was a dream... One thing I thought might be the case; maybe Tamron takes lenses that test exceptionally well, puts a red stripe on them, and sell them to "favorite" customers. Any ideas?

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Easy: look for it at EBay rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?type=1&campid=5336071501&toolid=10001&customid=

@dannymccune1888 4 года назад

Ken Rockwell - eBay. Yeah, that's where I saw it. The seller didn't know much about it. By the time I suspected it might be something special, it was gone. I think it went for about $400. I've been watching for another to pop up ever since.

@stanobert3475 4 года назад

This specialized lens is perfect for the part-time and full time professional sports photographers who can justify this expensive beast. For amateurs like me, a 70-200 2.8 on a cropped sensor camera is a much better bang for the buck. This would a great lens for a professional sports photographer with the D6 at the 2020 olympics.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Exactly. Thanks!

@silviu_antone 4 года назад

Ken, please insert images between cuts.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Tell me more. Thanks!

@markrosnick6487 4 года назад

I'd love to have one...but I'll keep my 300mm f2.8 AIS and 400mm f3.5 AIS

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Perfect. Thanks!

@moza260 4 года назад

oh yes, 2m minimum focus distance in 120-300/2.8 is a huge disadvantage compared 1m in 70-200/2.8. Lens like Tamron even can focus at 0.9m for its 70-200/2.8 series.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Yip, all depends on what you shoot - and why I prefer the Canon 100-400. Thanks!

@eskwadrat 3 года назад

You look in your early-mid 50's and you admit to shot for 50yrs. So how old are you? Great video.

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

I've been shooting avidly since I was 5 years old. Stepped up to medium format around age 7, and bought my first 35mm SLR at age 11. Haven't stopped since! THankS!

@eskwadrat 3 года назад

Thank you!

@jimmyhillreckon 4 года назад

The last 20 seconds are hilarious. 👍👍

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Pay close attention! Thanks!

@jarosawsiudzinski5442 4 года назад

200 f4 macro, please. Old but gold lens.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

I use the 200/4D Macro daily. Came out back in 1993!! AI-s isn't as good; so much new stuff hard to find time to look at these. Thanks!

@2pacLEGEND 4 года назад

Oh btw sigma made 120-300 prior to nikon so that's why people used so called "junk lens" as i understand... for car sports there is typically good light and people shoot a little closed 120-300

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thanks!

@goldentigers6722 Год назад

The Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sports lens is Outstanding! I sold it to buy this Nixon 120-300 2.8 because of the superb quality

@migueltrujillo5932 3 года назад

U the best Kenny, but for more you try to steer me away, I want this lens verrry bad. Not really need it though :=)

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

Get it, then. Great lens, just expensive for some people. Thanks!

@smilsmff 4 года назад

7.5 ft. ( 2.3m) 7.2 ft. ( 2.2m) with manual focus From Nikons site For 300 f/2.8 Prime that is New too

@smilsmff 4 года назад

minumum focus distance

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Different values for AF and manual focus; had to simplify. Thanks!

@villageblunder4787 4 года назад

Sorry, love my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and was only £1,200 used.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Such a deal! Thanks!

@sultanalmudimeegh1001 4 года назад

I will buy the lens to be the Boss :). All you review are pragmatic and useful Thanks !

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Just saying it like it is. Thanks!

@tomhughes5123 3 года назад

yeah at £10.000 id rather get the 180-400 f4 e and the sigma 120-300 f2.8 . And another pro body 😀😀 ..

@KenRockwellTV 3 года назад

I prefer the 28-300mm; much more practical unless I need f/2.8 - which I only do for shooting ISO 50 film! www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm thanks!

@tomhughes5123 3 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV i do more wildlife than sports , so yeah the 180-400 with built in tc 1.4 is perfect . not cheap but 10.000 for a 120-300 . makes the 180 -400 tc e look like a bargain

@tomhughes5123 3 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV im getting one expensive pro telephoto as a jack of all trades , the built in 1.4 tc is perfect , iv used a few zooms up to 4-500mm and the extending fronts really cheese me off , ok theyre decently priced but iv got a decent budget and if the new 180-400 f4 e is anything like the older 200-400f4 s then it should be a great investment

@Narwaro 4 года назад

Price per pound? That is really ridiculous but interesting nonetheless.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

I agree. Just was curious, and it was free to add.

@lescobrandon3047 4 года назад

I have a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR s lens on order for my Z7 and I’m quite happy not to have to sell my body for the 120-300. Sigh. A loss for women.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Such awesome lenses all of these. We go farther and get better pictures with smaller lenses. Thanks!

@Carl_Aznable Год назад

So weird to see the man in the flesh. To me, he's only been a voiceover or text for the last 20+ yrs

@KenRockwellTV Год назад

Thanks!

@guermeisterdoodlebug7980 4 года назад

Again I’m drawn to believing Ken’s videos are interesting and for people serious about photography. Some others seem to me more about entertainment and getting a few cheap laughs.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Thank you! I hope they are. I’m all about making better pictures and facts that might help. Some people just want to be entertained; I’m trying to share what I know so others (and myself if I forget) can use it to make better pictures. Too manly people just want to gossip about gear - I want to make great pictures. Thanks!

@Thedeepseanomad 4 года назад

Personally I shoot raw. 😉

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

Go, man, go!! Thanks!

@LaLa-uz7jr 4 года назад

Hm, so you need 2,8 to shoot film, hmmmm...so, we need fast lenses just for film, ahaaaa! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

When you’re at ISO 50 all the time, it helps!!! Thanks!

@jfphotography69 4 года назад

What was Nikon thinking, $9.5K, really, LMAO.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

They made a real lens for real shooters - not some plastic rubbish for part timers, bloggers or RU-vid tweaks. A real lens for real shooters. Finally, some real nikon and not just same old offshored plastic. Bravo and thanks!

@jfphotography69 4 года назад

@@KenRockwellTV this is the reason why Nikon is BLEEDING money, their camera division is at least. Again, $9.5K, really, LMAO. Is this lens seriously $6K better than the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, if it wasn't for Sigma Nikon would have never released such a lens. Just like the Nikon 500mm f4 is not $4.5K better than the Sigma 500mm f4 sport, I am sure only amateurs shoot the Sigma.

@ronhill6947 4 года назад

cybertec69 ken seems to be stuck on the idea that the $$$ It is the better it is 😂 It really just makes him come off as a pretentious arrogant gear snob. He clearly has no clue what materials sigmas sports lenses are made of, do a little research Ken! This was the first vid of his I watched and it will be my last! Get your head out of your ass ken!

@jfphotography69 4 года назад

@@refuztosay9454 you say you have the Sigma 120-300 but the focus speed is not the same as the Nikon, when did you purchase the Nikon 120-300 since it's not on the market yet, if you meant the Nikon 300mm f2.8 , then yes the prime will be faster, all primes are faster than zoom lenses, also will the new Nikon 120-300 be faster and sharper than the Sigma , well it should, as it uses the latest technology and it's 6.5K more, which is absurd. In regards to the Nikon 500mm f4 prime, I am sure it's a fine piece of glass, and so is the Sigma, apparently you never tried the Sigma 500mm f4 sport, and the Sigma 120-300mm pictures look just fine to me, many pictures on Instagram, search sigma120300sports, sigma500mmf4 and sigma500mmf4sport. The Sigma 500mm f4 sport has lightning fast autofocus, and it's tack sharp, and build like a tank, and thousands less than the Nikon/Canon equivalent. Saved myself thousands, over 4K to be exact from the Nikon equivalent, and could not be happier. www.dxomark.com/sigma-500mm-f-4-dg-os-usm-s-canon-lens-review-super-sharp-shooter/ www.naturettl.com/review-sigma-500mm-f4-dg-os-hsm-sport-lens/ Taken with the D500 and D850 and Sigma 500mm f4 sport, all shots including BIF shots are hand held. photos.app.goo.gl/9LC1T8LYLbsExjTj7 photos.app.goo.gl/nnEsE1oNBEwfMezz6 photos.app.goo.gl/67bbXHeWf4supoeM8 photos.app.goo.gl/ojSJauQ9Zj6sbfgY8 photos.app.goo.gl/J33z8EoprtbytWAH8 photos.app.goo.gl/8h4XakfweNKDfYdt8 photos.app.goo.gl/5Uh1m3YReZbmaGox8 photos.app.goo.gl/J2HShN7FdCHAsysv9 photos.app.goo.gl/SRDVi4mLbjnkRQD6A photos.app.goo.gl/R72eWkUcMQW6oJJQ8 photos.app.goo.gl/xSMg5moLacFkmy5o6 photos.app.goo.gl/AyCruH4e484WHXcD9 photos.app.goo.gl/D1KXVcdzptSH4DDB8 photos.app.goo.gl/4tpXYLNF7CVhgAoQ8 photos.app.goo.gl/Tg9F5XZuQY8mW3di6 photos.app.goo.gl/qY8urobRTKjdYC8M9 photos.app.goo.gl/Hdd31Di3AKQaLESF9 photos.app.goo.gl/UJouth2TpmZ74Sgw6 photos.app.goo.gl/K94pWKVNWA3Z3bF66 photos.app.goo.gl/zzW4TqDukAjJ75Da6 photos.app.goo.gl/rcK4jDkDA8X7RxCb9 photos.app.goo.gl/tXLD56C334ymxPL86 photos.app.goo.gl/upnVNzpn8tq7JJes5 photos.app.goo.gl/8E2xb2kkwkUeZTwx7 photos.app.goo.gl/VBdJgdrHWaBPcpjXA photos.app.goo.gl/hMCMGPLsuUUUSWSM8 photos.app.goo.gl/aN25RF6brUyikULb9 photos.app.goo.gl/tuKWFWwLJSQPnwTD9 photos.app.goo.gl/A9Gm8dcGsx2wDCqa8 photos.app.goo.gl/acdvryeCeGsg1VcEA photos.app.goo.gl/oxjpGufxAydFvqpz9

@jfphotography69 4 года назад

@@ronhill6947 could not have said it any better myself, I deal with these brand snobs all the time, I wonder sometimes if these people even use a camera.

@silviu_antone 4 года назад

Plus your video is out of sync.

@KenRockwellTV 4 года назад

I know, driving me up the wall. Just checked my source (OK); getting in and out of RU-vid and to your home all entail variable A/V delays that seem pretty sloppy at RU-vid. Thanks!