Nikon 80-200 f2.8 or Sigma

[colinl]

looking to buy a new lens for football games and motor sport and i am undecided on the nikon 80-200 f2.8, sigma 70-200 f2.8 or sigma 100-300 f4 and possibly a teleconverter, not sure what is best 2.8 or the extra focal lenth with the f4?,any opinions or reviews or whether this is the best choice / range for what i will be doing, the prices are pretty similar!

[nexusworks]

I am assuming youshould consider the VR:





Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR

This should be a better choice if money is never a concern. Reveiws for this lens is very good.

If you are on Budget, then I think the Sigma one will do. I just believe the VR will help you a lot in sports.

I had the 80-200mm which is the older version, still takes excellent photos but the VR will be worth it for just a few hundered more.

[jacqth]

is VR necessary for sports pictures?

[Bob Nichol]

VR only helps for the photographer's shaking, not the subject motion. The only thing that helps subject motion blur is shutter speed and the f/2.8 aperture helps get better shutter speeds. In some cases VR may actually hinder in sports photography.

[Mark1616]

Bob is right, VRis not going to be a big help in shooting most sports and if you start to pan quickly with VR engaged then the lens is likely to bounce as it gets to max travel and then tries to keep up. I always turn it of when shooting sports unless I'm in low light and have a static player for example where you might for some reason want more dof so you can get away with a slower shutter speed. In honesty it is only for portraits where I have IS turned on apart from that it is off. Wedding photogs get great use out of VR lenses in this length when shooting from the back of the church as lighting is generally horrible. I'm not saying don't get a lens with VR as it certainly has its uses but don't get it for sports use thinking it is going to make a world of difference.

[nexusworks]

Though VR is not necessary but you already spending that much, why not top it up a bit more for it. Is better to have than without, thats all I am saying.

[cope]

A friend of mine shoots with the D200, mainly high school athletics. Before buying his Nikon, he borrowed a D200 and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. He bought the D200 but bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG HSM Macro instead. He said his copy is better than his friend's Nikon. If you look at 100 actual user's comments, you will find 50-50 on almost any lens out there. Based on his experience, I bought the Sigma. I haven't tried a Nikon 70-200, but the Sigma is lightning fast and super quiet.

[musket]

Some interesting lens tests at Photozone :idea:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

..................musket

[JohnG]

Colin,

I will also state the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is an outstanding lens. But, back to your question:
70-200 2.8 (of any brand) vs. Sigma 100-300 f4.

If every game was a day game then the sigma 100-300 f4 would be the winner hands down. For football (aka soccer for us Yanks) reach is important. I shoot with a sigma 120-300 2.8 and would find going back to a 70-200 way too limiting.

BUT, if you have possibility of poor light games then no question go the route of a 70-200 2.8. You can put a TC on it to get more reach - won't be as good as the 100-300 (which by the way would also take a 1.4x TC) but the f4 would really hurt you in poor light.

[colinl]

Thanks for the advice, i have ordered a nikon 80-200 IF EDf2.8,(waiting on its arrival) as poor light and dull rainy days are common here in Scotland:G, i will probably get a tele convertor as the reach isnt great for soccer but i think this lens is the best all rounder for me. vr was to dear and dont think it would help in sports much anyway