Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I am looking at replacing my 70-300mm (which is about 2 years old). I am keen to get a 70-200 f/2.8 but cannot really afford (justify) spending the money for the Nikkor.
Is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 a worthy competitor and sensible replacement to the 70-300VR that I currently have.? Aside from the obvious that it can go to f/2.8 is it worth the change? Will I see a benefit in the picture clarity?
This lens will only spend maybe 10-20% of the time on the camera and the lens I use the most is the 18-70mm which is a few years old now. I was looking at replacing this with the 24-120 f/4 VR but after a couple of reviews am unsure and will wait to upgrade my main lens until I can really go for the one I want.
BTW I am using a D90.
Any opinions are greatly appreciated.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
See you like action, in theory it should focus faster - more light going to AF sensors, so that would be useful to you.
Personally I'd save and get yourself the nikkor 70-200, so much more flexible as can be used with teleconverters successfully.
Why not stop by at a camera shop and give the sigma a go, shame I had one not so long ago you could've had it.
A singular opinion: forget any 70-200 2.8 for your apparent interests. They are indoor, event type lenses, and if used for reach outdoors need a converter which says good bye to lens speed. If your set on a 2.8 get the nikon 80-200 2.8 D. I have and use a 70-300vr extensively, so long as ther is decent light. I also bought into the hype for the 70-200 Nikon, after nominal use it sits in the cupboard unused, as it is neither long enough, nor light enough (wt) to use all day. It is optically excellent, with superior build quality, however many buy it without have a need for its' best use. (I can hear the keyboards clacking as naysayers prepare their rebuttal, however I did say a singular opinion.)
Thanks for your help.
I suppose the photos on my pf are a bit out of date. Yes I do take motorsport photos but my interest is quite broad. My kids sport for example, where there are times when the days are quite dull or could even be indoors.
I went to the camera shop today to have a quick go on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS MACRO, will have a look at the images from the card when I get home.
I seriously thought about the 80-200 f/2.8 based on its fantastic reviews and build quality but I am sure that a image stabilising lens would provide a lot of benefit.
In regards to the loss of reach, the option is obviously to have a converter but as you say there will be a loss of lens speed, I may then still hang onto the 70-300mm VR as a back up.
decisions decisions, if only I could afford whatever I want then it wouldnt be a problem.
Thanks again for you input. I have to go now and have a long hard think about things.
An interesting post Carl as I am in a similar situation myself. I too have the D90 but no long lens at present and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 just too expensive for me. So I am looking at the Sigma, the 80-200 (which I hadn't known about before this post) and the 70-300 which you already have.
My thoughts are that the fast aperture would be more beneficial than the reach. Potentially I could shoot at 200mm wide open and then crop to achieve the same shot at 300mm and f/5.6 on those occasions when more reach is required. I would love VR but I am hoping I can live without it. f/2.8 provides much more light and I don't mind bumping the ISO up to 1600 so I should be able to sustain a fast enough shutter speed for what I do. Having said that the VR is very good; I took a shot in church with the 18-105mm at full reach and got away with 1/20s.
As you say: decisions, decisions!
Folks, let's not forget about depth of field at 2.8, and with high ISO add noise. Vr will not help if your subject moves. Your about to separate from a large chunk of change, so please due proper due diligence. Happy hunting, sometimes the pursuit is more worthy than the goal.
Quote: An interesting post Carl as I am in a similar situation myself. I too have the D90 but no long lens at present and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 just too expensive for me. So I am looking at the Sigma, the 80-200 (which I hadn't known about before this post) and the 70-300 which you already have.
As you say: decisions, decisions!
I am still pondering the decision, but I will say this - I have given up hope of getting the 70-200 2.8 VR. It is just too expensive but I would prefer to keep to Nikkor lenses. The VR is not the be all and end all and if I am usingthe lens for motorsports or even portraits I can use my monopod or tripod so effectively have a VR function available.
Therefore the 80-200 2.8 is the most likely replacement.
im a bit confused,
if i read right, you have the 18-70 and the 70-300vr nikkor lenses both of which i use and they are superb lenses with good build quality. why would you want to change them!!
pm me if you still want to buy a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, as i am selling mine.... thought i would add that cheeky classified in there to see if they leave it in.... well it is relevant to the post.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st October 2014 - 31st October 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View October's Photo Month Calendar