Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Telephoto lens & Nikon D70

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Hew Moore, Dec 17, 2005.

  1. Hew Moore

    Hew Moore Guest

    Hi All
    Has anybody got any constructive comments / criticisms about this
    combination please. my wife is doing quite a bit of motorsport photography
    especially night-time photos. Would if be of benefit to her over the
    standard 28-80 & 70-300mm zooms she uses which came from her older film
    camera? - Just had a quick look and they seem to be the Nikkor AF - G
    series.
    Good choice for a Christmas present or ......... ???
    Thanks
    H.M.
     
    Hew Moore, Dec 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hew Moore

    Joan Guest

    Joan, Dec 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hew Moore

    Deedee Tee Guest

    AF Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 G? I own one, and it is quite poor optically
    and mechanically, especially above 200mm and when used wide open at
    all FLs. I don't own a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO, but I have heard it
    described as good to excellent, and it is cheaper than good-quality
    Nikkor zooms. I own another Sigma APO lens, and its mechanical
    construction is reasonably good (some people don't like the matte
    black finish because it gets dirty easily, but it can be cleaned).
    Besides giving you an image quality that likely is visibly better, the
    Sigma also gives you one to two more aperture stops, i.e., 2-4 times
    faster exposure fully open, compared to the Nikkor 70-300. This means
    a lot for night shots. With a Sigma 1.4 teleconverter, you would get
    up to almost a 300 f/4, still faster than the Nikkor 70-300 and
    probably better (or at least not worse) optically than the Nikkor.
    Weight is another matter entirely. Your wife might not be able to hold
    up the Sigma for hours on end, so a tripod or monopod would be useful
    (unlike the Nikkor, the Sigma 70-200 has a properly placed, removable
    tripod mount).

    I cannot comment on the Nikkor 28-80, but the overlap with a 70-300 or
    70-200 is too small to be of any importance. It is simply a zoom with
    different uses.
     
    Deedee Tee, Dec 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Dec 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Hew Moore

    Joan Guest

    I know, it just makes me green with envy 'cos I can't possibly afford one.
    ;-)
     
    Joan, Dec 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Hew Moore

    gambo1953 Guest

    I have that lens on my 300D/20D and I am very happy with it. I do high
    school sports and nature photography. A little soft at 200mm but not
    unacceptable. Works nicely with the Sigma 2x Teleconverter. A bit of a
    beast in weight, but I almost always use a tripod or a monopod
    affixed at the lens collar...
     
    gambo1953, Dec 17, 2005
    #6
  7. It's well worth it! Think of it as an investment, you can always sell it
    for good return. Not so with the bodies. I love mine , even with a TC-2
    attached.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Dec 17, 2005
    #7
  8. Hew Moore

    Paul Furman Guest

    Hmm... I don't understand why this would be:

    "Test shooting indicates that the VR setting may influence bokeh so to
    achieve the very best results, be sure to turn VR off."

    Sorry, off topic from the original question...
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 17, 2005
    #8
  9. I believe there has been issues with some units where the bokeh showed
    diagonal movement. There was a post around here a good while back about
    this seen by someone taking cricket, the game not the insect, photos with a
    2x TC and this lens. FWIW, I have not seen anything like this with mine,
    either by itself or with a TC-IIE
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Dec 17, 2005
    #9
  10. Hew Moore

    Joan Guest

    Stop teasing me. I need to get new carpet next year!
     
    Joan, Dec 18, 2005
    #10
  11. My carpet is almost 20 yrs old and looks like crap, go for the lens! :)
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Dec 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Hew Moore

    Hew Moore Guest

    Thanks everyone for your input. The Nikon lens would be VERY nice but can't
    justify the extra cost at this stage - she's not a professional
    photographer - yet!
    Seems like it would be a good choice to start the ball rolling and give her
    some encouragement.
    Thanks especially to Deedee Tee & Gambo for your constructive input.
    Have a great Christmas and New Year too
    Hew
     
    Hew Moore, Dec 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Hew Moore

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    That's why you can't afford the lens. It's all about priorities. I assure
    you, the lens is better than the carpet.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Dec 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Hew Moore

    cimawr Guest

    Yes, IMO and IME she would get a *lot* of benefit from the lenses
    with larger apertures. Larger aperture means a faster shutter speed can
    be set, which will stop the action of sports much better.

    There are a couple of different versions of the Sigma f2.8 lenses; I
    would suggest the HSM version of the 70-200 f2.8. I've just gotten one,
    and got quite decent results at a dog agility competition with it this
    weekend despite shooting without flash in an unlit quonset hut.

    If you look at getting her a WA to short zoom (e.g. the 28-70 or the
    like), read the specs carefully; there is a Sigma lens out there which
    is advertised as being f2.8, but does not have a *constant* aperture.

    One caveat, though: the 2.8 lenses will be *much* heavier and larger
    than the G lenses. You might want to consider also getting her a tripod
    or monopod to use with it, especially since she shoots at night.
     
    cimawr, Dec 19, 2005
    #14
  15. Hew Moore

    Jim Guest

    A 2.8 will be a huge advantage. I have the Nikon 4.5/5.6 ED AF-D (non
    G version) and it is a better lens than the G (and that is not because
    the other is G, it is because Nikon built a less expensive version
    which isn't as good). I only find a problem when full zoomed too 300
    (looses some contrast). Other than that I like it given its size and
    lack of weight I still used it when I don't want to lug the large lens
    around . However, I bought the Nikon 80-200 F2.8. AF-D I have never
    looked back. It is a superb lens. I don't know who it compares with
    the sigma, but the F2.8 will do here well at night. Autofocus will be
    faster and the faster lens makes it easier to compose etc.

    At BH Photovideo the Sigma looks like it is about $750 and the Nikon
    looks like its 819.00 after rebate.. you choose!
     
    Jim, Dec 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Hew Moore

    Sionnach Guest

    looks like its 819.00 after rebate.. you choose!

    But there's a crucial difference between the two lenses: The Sigma lens is
    an HSM lens, the Nikon is NOT an AF-S, which IMO means the Nikon's
    performance will *not* be comparable for shooting sports.
     
    Sionnach, Dec 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Hew Moore

    Joan Guest

    LOL at both of you.
     
    Joan, Dec 22, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.