Steve'sDigicams

JimC · Nov 12, 2007, 7:59 AM

If it were me and I had $1000 to $1200 to spend, I'd go for the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC (Teleconverter) on it and try to use it for your Football, Rodeo and Basketball (and other low light venues where f/2.8 could come in handy).

Now, a TC will degrade optical performance a little bit (and you lose one stop of light with one, giving you the equivalent of a 98-280mm f/4 Lens when you have it attached. But, this lens wearing a 1.4x TC is really not bad from images I've seen.

It's not going to be as sharp wearing a TC as the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 JohnG mentioned without a TC. But, you could stop down the lens a bit anyway for daytime use if desired, and that would give you a lens that you could use without a TC in less than optimum lighting.

A stop brighter lens (i.e. f/2 or better) would really be desirable for the basketball. But, if light is good enough, you could probably get by with f/2.8 an get some keepers at ISO 3200 for smaller print sizes (where any blur won't be as obvious), and you'd have Autofocus (where you would not have it trying to use a brighter prime on a D40). f/2.8 will give you shutter speeds twice as fast as an f/4 lens for any given lighting and ISO speed.

IOW, given budget (and your stated use for the images), I'd try to get by with one lens for everything. I see that 17th Street Photo has it for about $849 right now:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Autofocus Lens in Nikon mount for $849

Here's a TC:

Sigma 1.4x EX DG Teleconverter for Nikon for $164.89

That combo would keep you within budget and give you more versatility in more lighting conditions from my perspective.

I think JohnG has this combo (and he also shoots a lot of sports). So, I'd see what he says about pros and cons of this type of solution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Nov 12, 2007, 7:59 AM	#11
JimC Administrator Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Savannah, GA (USA) Posts: 22,378	If it were me and I had $1000 to $1200 to spend, I'd go for the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC (Teleconverter) on it and try to use it for your Football, Rodeo and Basketball (and other low light venues where f/2.8 could come in handy). Now, a TC will degrade optical performance a little bit (and you lose one stop of light with one, giving you the equivalent of a 98-280mm f/4 Lens when you have it attached. But, this lens wearing a 1.4x TC is really not bad from images I've seen. It's not going to be as sharp wearing a TC as the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 JohnG mentioned without a TC. But, you could stop down the lens a bit anyway for daytime use if desired, and that would give you a lens that you could use without a TC in less than optimum lighting. A stop brighter lens (i.e. f/2 or better) would really be desirable for the basketball. But, if light is good enough, you could probably get by with f/2.8 an get some keepers at ISO 3200 for smaller print sizes (where any blur won't be as obvious), and you'd have Autofocus (where you would not have it trying to use a brighter prime on a D40). f/2.8 will give you shutter speeds twice as fast as an f/4 lens for any given lighting and ISO speed. IOW, given budget (and your stated use for the images), I'd try to get by with one lens for everything. I see that 17th Street Photo has it for about $849 right now: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Autofocus Lens in Nikon mount for $849 Here's a TC: Sigma 1.4x EX DG Teleconverter for Nikon for $164.89 That combo would keep you within budget and give you more versatility in more lighting conditions from my perspective. I think JohnG has this combo (and he also shoots a lot of sports). So, I'd see what he says about pros and cons of this type of solution.