Nikkor 80-700mm f/2.8 vs Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 - any input?
I'm looking to buy a new lens for my D80 that will give me better results for dusk/indoor sports shots.
I thought about the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR but I have been told I need an f/2.8 or better to get the shots I'm looking for. (I currently have a Tamron 70-300mm which is fine but struggles in the late afternoon soccer games).
The Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 have been recommended. I'm looking for any input on these two lenses. I'm taking soccer photos so I'm curious if one will focus faster. Also, I would like the option to add a 1.4x teleconverter -- does one work better with one than the other?
I've also ordered the book Understanding Exposure and I hope to really dive in & play with the manual settings to see if I can do a better job than the sports mode I've used to date.
Thanks, once again......
Both are very good optically, the Sigma with its HSM will focus faster.
Both will work equally well with 1.4x TC.
Even an 1.7x TC from Soligor would do well.
Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30
I don't have experience with either lens but, for the price I'd rather have Nikon glass infront of my sensor! AF speed is one thing, but IQ is what I'd ultimately use as my deciding factor. So, if IQ happens to be in favor of the Sigma, then by all means go with that one. resale value will be higher on the Nikon too - brand name thing - so when that 70-200 VR calls your name.
Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I came very close to pulling the trigger on the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 last spring. But I didn't realize I needed to write uncle sugar (uncle sam) a big check on April 15th , so my new lens got put on hold.
I read more, saved up a few more "gifts" (oh honey, I don't want anything for anniv, or my birthday...just a nice lens for Christmas), and I went with the 70-200mm VR from santa!
Wonderful lens. Highly recommmend. Not that the 80-200mm is bad, but the 70-200mm VR is probably the most highly recommended lens I've ever researched. Better be for almost twice the cost of the other.
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D
SB-800 (x2), SU-800
Nikon D300 - for sale
Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX - for sale
Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX - for sale
Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)
I would go for the Sigma.
The two lenses are very close optically. Perhaps the Nikon is slightly better (especially at the long end of the lens), but when will you really notice?
However, in terms of autofocus, the Sigma noticably faster and quieter. The gain in autofocus speed can be the difference between getting the shot and missing it. Furthermore, the Sigma can focus closer than the Nikon, which can also come in handy.
Either way, whatever you chose, you can't really go wrong here. Both are great lenses.
// Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 VR // Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8
// Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ...// Nikon SB-600
// Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6......// Nikon Series E 135 mm f/2.8
// Kiron 105 f/2.8 Macro....// Manfrotto 190XPROB + 488RC4
// Nikkor 35 f/1.8..........// Sigma 500 mm f/8
My website: http://www.dennisdolkens.nl