D50 lens question

[kimba]

I am a new owner of the Nikon D50 with a 28-80 lens. I am loving the pictures I am getting with this lens. The problem is, I am trying to get some decent pics of my daughters gymnastics routines and need a longer zoom; but within a reasonable budget. I've been investigating the Nikon 70-300 G....any opinions? recommendations? Clearly, I'm not a professional, but would like nice photos...any help would be highly appreciated!!

[toriaj]

I'm in pretty much the same boat as you, but I think I'll go for the Sigma 70 - 300 mm f/4. The better for my wallet. After you buy it, post and tell us what you think!!

[Stoller]

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 will perform better in low light or indoor conditions. I use mine for dog shows and have great results.

[George Riehm]

I am a new owner of the Nikon D50 with a 28-80 lens. I am loving the pictures I am getting with this lens. The problem is, I am trying to get some decent pics of my daughters gymnastics routines and need a longer zoom; but within a reasonable budget. I've been investigating the Nikon 70-300 G....any opinions? recommendations? Clearly, I'm not a professional, but would like nice photos...any help would be highly appreciated!!

I would pass on the G. in favor of the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (~$185), which, while not perfect, will offer a more useable range for a little more money.

If you want to stick with Nikon then the Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED (~$305) would be a better choice, albeit at more than twice the price of the G.

HOWEVER... for indoor action shooting, like gymnastics, you will need every bit of light performance you can get, so you might want to make the leap to a 70 or 80-200 f/2.8.

The top of the line Nikkor version is the 70-200 f/2.8 image stabilized (VR) lens costing around $1600. The non-image stabilized version is, the less expensive, but just as fast, Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 at about $900. Both of these lenses are razor sharp, and for action sports VR is not really an advantage as it is designed to compensate for camera shake, not subject movement.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is the least expensive of the bunch at about $725, and considerably less center sharpness performance than the Nikkor 80-200 at f2.8.

My opinion:

The Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 is the best of the bunch for image quality, and cost. Riveling and in some cases besting (at f/2.8) even the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L duo (non-IS and IS) priced at $230 to $800 more.

I have spent a lot of time considering my next lens, and up until recently the Sigma was at the top of the list, but I kept forgetting about the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. For the extra $175, it wins, hands down. I have rented this lens and it is truely as good as a long telephoto zoom can get, at f/2.8, which is the whole reason for buying a fast zoom lens.

While there are other factors to consider, like AF, contrast, and color performance, having an f/2.8 lens that isn't tack sharp until f/4 or f/5.6 may not offer much benefit to the low-light sports shooter.

Just my opinion (which I retain the right to change occasionally).;)

[erichlund]

I would pass on the G. in favor of the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (~$185), which, while not perfect, will offer a more useable range for a little more money.

If you want to stick with Nikon then the Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED (~$305) would be a better choice, albeit at more than twice the price of the G.


I agree about the G, but it may be a moot issue. I went out looking for a 70-300 for use while my 18-200 is in the shop, first at three stores back home and about 5 here in Colorado Springs, where I'm on vacation. I was searching for the Nikkor 70-300ED or the Sigma 70-300APO. I couldn't find either, but here's what I did find out.

Nobody has a Nikkor 70-300, and this may very well be because they have been discontinued, as I was told by one retailer. (OK, there may be a few around, but nobody I visited had one). Remember the rumor about a 70-300VR? May be not too far off.

Nobody I visited carries Sigma. The stores with repair shops say it's because getting repair parts is a major challenge. They'd much rather carry Tamron who provide excellent repair parts support.

I ended up getting the Tamron 70-300. It has the same 1:2 macro as the Sigma, and I'm getting decent image quality from it. It's a bit more expensive than the Sigma, but less than the Nikkor 70-300ED. Focus speed seems reasonable, and it doesn't seem to hunt (so far). Getting in and out of macro can be challenging until you either figure it out or read the manual.

[memphishooter]

I got a Tamron 28-300 used before I ordered my D50, and it has been very good for me. It gives me the range I need to shoot whatever I am after. Just don't get the stock lens on any digital camera, because it is usually a cheap accessory. This is what I was told, and I believe it. I had been shopping for a 28-200, but they were out of it. They did have this 28-300 and it has hung on the front ever since. I first used it on my N50 for a trip to the Gulf Coast 8 days after Katrina hit. The pictures it got . . .

[George Riehm]

Thanks for the report Erich. It is interesting to contemplate a 70-300 VR, and it's about time for a new lens in this range with VR.

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is readily available on-line, but hey when you need a lens...

If memory serves me, you have the 18-200 VR. After looking at the photozone.de tests I can see why you chose it. It is a much sharper lens through the whole range than the Sigma and Tamron 11X zoom. Even at nearly double the price it seems to be worth the investment. In fact the center sharpness rivals a lot of pro grade lenses.

In reading the photozone reviewers comments at the end of the review I was wondering if the author had read his/her own data. I'm now seriously looking at replacing the Sigma 18-125 DC as my daytime utility lens.

Anyway thanks for the first hand account, and hope you get that bazooka back asap.