help choosing 2.8 lens

[wannabe]

I've been looking for quite some time at 2.8 lenses. I think I have narrowed it down to the Sigma 70-200 or the Sigma 50-150. What I like about the 50-150 is that it is half the weight of the 70-200. I could not find any reviews comparing the two lenses in terms of IQ. Does anyone have experience with these two lenses?

[T06]

From what I could find on the net in 5 mins the 70-200 wins hands down & thats with a slappin too.;);)

[herc182]

the 50-150 is also a fair bit cheaper.

I would go for the 50-150 from reviews i have read (although there has never been a direct comparison between the two), the weight and price.

never read anything but good things about it!

if you want the extra reach tho, the choice is the 70-200 (which will give you an effective length of 300mm as opposed to 225mm)

[wannabe]

Hmmm...from what I could find the price is pretty close. That's where I am struggling with this. If one was considerably cheaper, I think the decision would be easier.

To complicate things further, my husband has offered to buy me the Nikon 70-200 VR. :eek: I know it is a stellar lens, but holy cow. That sucker is a beast. (although the Sigma 70-200 isn't much smaller or lighter). I also think the Nikon lens is way beyond my abilities at this point. And the price...yikes! Not sure I could stomach that. So, I thought one of the Sigmas would be a good compromise.

[rawpaw18]

Do you have a primary use for this new lens in mind?

[PHeller]

As an owner of a 50-150 Sigma, I must say, the lens has both its pros and cons. It barely large the 18-55, only a slight bit heavier, a little more versatile indoors than the 70-200.

Here are some pictures comparing a 50f1.8 to the 50-150f2.8 at 50mm, just a real quick few shots.

50mm f/1.8 http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/PHeller/Sigma50-150f28vs50mmf18_4.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/PHeller/Sigma50-150f28vs50mmf18.jpg

50-150 f/2.8 at 50mm.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/PHeller/Sigma50-150f28vs50mmf18_2.jpg
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/PHeller/Sigma50-150f28vs50mmf18_1.jpg

at 150mm.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/PHeller/Sigma50-150f28vs50mmf18_3.jpg

[wannabe]

Do you have a primary use for this new lens in mind?

Primarily, my kids sports, recitals, etc. I currently have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens and use it quite a bit. I really like having the 2.8 throughout the full range. But I need more reach. Even with 2.8, I'm still often using ISO 800 or 1600 and that really does not give you much room for cropping.

[LR Max]

I'm gonna just go ahead and say it' 2.8 glass is pro glass. Pro glass is heavy. Go ahead and get that set in your mind. Otherwise you aren't going to make the best decisions when cloosing your lenses.

I've used a 70-200 Sigma. I compared it directly to my Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S. I can tell you that the nikon produces a better image. Also the AF on the sigma seems "jittery", to say the least. Its not as precise as the nikon.

The sigma is lighter and a bit easier to handle.

I have used a 70-200 2.8VR. It DEFINATELY produces a stunning image. The VR helps out A LOT. One quirk about big telephotos like this is that the minimal shutter speed you can shoot without getting blur is like, 1/200th at 200mm. That is if you've got real steady hands. The lens is so heavy that it is difficult to keep steady. With the VR, it drops down to 1/60th-ish. This is important because usually the lighting at schools or other theaters where children play at have terrible lighting. That VR might be the difference between getting the photo and not.

When I am shooting a basketball game, almost all the nikon guys are using 70-200 VRs (only a few use the older 80-200). There is a reason why.

If you can get the VR, go for it.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

You only live once. Pro glass will last. For what it's worth three of my neighbours are just winning their fights with cancer, they're sure not regretting having spent a bit of dough on their hobbies 10 years ago.

I assume photography is your hobby, I assume getting great shots of the kids is highly desirable. Your hubby's offered.:)

[K1W1]

To complicate things further, my husband has offered to buy me the Nikon 70-200 VR. :eek: I know it is a stellar lens, but holy cow.

Take the Nikkor 70-200VR, don't think about it just do it. If you won't how do I marry your husband? :)

[rawpaw18]

MY kids sports is why I spent money on the Nikkor. Get a couple of shots of the other kids too, and it could pay for itself by making you money.

[wannabe]

Thanks all for your advice. I'm slowly coming around to the fact that good glass is not necessarily convenient. Since I have three kids, I have always tried to keep my kit pretty basic so as to not burden the rest of my family with my "stuff". But, as my photography has improved, I find that I am wanting better lenses, accessories, etc.

My husband has been great with supporting my habit (aka my photography hobby). I have a day job and don't intend to give that up any time soon, but also enjoy sharing my photography with family and friends. So, I know I would get much enjoyment out of a pro lens and I would enjoy sharing quality photos with others. I don't really care if I make any $, just want to be sure I get good use out of the lenses I purchase.

[T06]

good glass is not necessarily convenient.

This has got to be the best quote I have ever read here. Oh, if you get the 70-200 Nikkor, your expectations of 'all' lenses will rise & just about everything outside of the aperture of 2.8 will not suffice.;)