Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sigma dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 3, 2007, 12:19 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 214
Default

I am thinking of buying this lens for sports photography, football / motorsports mainly, has anyone got any veiws or opinions of it or should i go for the 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a teleconverter? prices are similar! focal lenth or f2.8??????
colinl is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 4, 2007, 5:01 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

It is a hard decision and I would say it is down to asking "do I need f2.8". The longer range is going to be really helpful for football, with the motorsport it will depend on where you can get as to what you need. The 70-200 with a 1.4x is quite a bit softer than the 100-300. I would ping a pm to radiocontrolguy as he used to have the 100-300 and now uses the 70-200 (might still have both).
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 12:21 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 214
Default

Thanks Mark

I will try radiocontrolguy and see what he thinks,
colinl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 7:10 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

colinl wrote:
Quote:
I am thinking of buying this lens for sports photography, football / motorsports mainly, has anyone got any veiws or opinions of it or should i go for the 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a teleconverter? prices are similar! focal lenth or f2.8?????
Yeah well i`m having exactly the same problem , knowing that the Sigma 70-200 is very soft at f/2.8 and sharp starting at f/4 , i`m more thinking of a 100-300 which has the reputation of being sharp at all focals , am i right ?

I`d choose the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 instead of the Sigma 70-200mm.

So , Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or Sigma 100-300 f/4 :?
guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 7:40 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Depends what you are wanting to shoot, the Sigma 100-300 is a very capable lens and probably slightly sharper than the Nikon at f4, but if you are shooting sports under the lights then it is not going to cut it.

Birding, wildlife, daytime sports etc then the Sigma is the way to go but the extra stop available on the Nikon could mean the differencebetween getting the shot or not.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 2:00 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
Depends what you are wanting to shoot, the Sigma 100-300 is a very capable lens and probably slightly sharper than the Nikon at f4, but if you are shooting sports under the lights then it is not going to cut it.

Birding, wildlife, daytime sports etc then the Sigma is the way to go but the extra stop available on the Nikon could mean the differencebetween getting the shot or not.
My main goal is to shoot people from a distance , you know grabbing a unique moment without them noticing it therefore i need the extra range (200-300).

But if the lens gives me the opportunety i`d probably use it for closer portraits.

I`m maybe better off with the Nikon then ? just a bit scared about the speed of the AF , it`s important for what i need it for.

guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 2:08 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

I could go for the cheaper Nikon 70-300mm VR , the stabilizer is great but i`m not sure it will cut it from a distance , it doesn`t stabilize moving subjects , i`d be better off with a bright lens then.

This lens does have a good reputation for high quality results at a good price & it`s an easier lighter walkaround lens too.
guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 2:27 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I've not used the 80-200 but according to reviews the AF works very quickly. If you went to the 70-300 you are definitely dropping down in quality but increasing portability and it is a less obtrusive lens than the other two options.

If you are shooting stationary objects then VR is helpful but if tracking movement you will want the faster lens. All 3 lenses will do a good job, it is just that they will do a slightly different job. Here is how I rate them for different areas.

Low light/high shutter speed

Nik 80-200 f2.8, Sigma 100-300, Nik 70-300 VR

Range

Sigma 100-300, Nik 70-300, Nik 80-200 (although the 70-300 has a broader range the Sigma can also be used happily with a 1.4x Teleconverter fitted so you get a 140-420mm f5.6).

Portability

Nik 70-300, Sigma 100-300, Nik 80-200

Resolution/IQ

Sigma 100-300, Nik 80-200, Nik 70-300 (the first two are very close together so depending on the copy you have these could be switched either way but they are both a long way ahead of the 70-300)

I will leave you to ponder which will meet youneeds best as you have 3 lenses that will do good jobs just in different environments.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 2:48 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
guillermovilas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 794
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
I've not used the 80-200 but according to reviews the AF works very quickly. If you went to the 70-300 you are definitely dropping down in quality but increasing portability and it is a less obtrusive lens than the other two options.

If you are shooting stationary objects then VR is helpful but if tracking movement you will want the faster lens. All 3 lenses will do a good job, it is just that they will do a slightly different job. Here is how I rate them for different areas.

Low light/high shutter speed

Nik 80-200 f2.8, Sigma 100-300, Nik 70-300 VR

Range

Sigma 100-300, Nik 70-300, Nik 80-200 (although the 70-300 has a broader range the Sigma can also be used happily with a 1.4x Teleconverter fitted so you get a 140-420mm f5.6).

Portability

Nik 70-300, Sigma 100-300, Nik 80-200

Resolution/IQ

Sigma 100-300, Nik 80-200, Nik 70-300 (the first two are very close together so depending on the copy you have these could be switched either way but they are both a long way ahead of the 70-300)

I will leave you to ponder which will meet youneeds best as you have 3 lenses that will do good jobs just in different environments.
Thanks for your feed.

So you don`t think that the Sigma will be much faster then the 80-200 ?
guillermovilas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 4:33 AM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

In regards to AF not a lot different, yes it will be faster but if you are not shooting action then you will probably not really notice it. Also with f2.8 it will focus in lower light which can be helpful.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:15 PM.