# Arrgh! Can't make up my mind! (Lenses)



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

My sister (a professional photographer) said that I'd be better off going with the *Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras *rather than the 70-300mm 4-5.6 ED VR lens. She said she'd gladly give up the VR for the F2.8 and better glass...

Agree or disagree? She claims that even though it costs $300 more, I'd be happier. What do you think about Sigma lenses?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

I agree with your sister, however I was not happy with the one Sigma lens I bought (18-50 f2.8), and I ended up selling it and buying a Nikkor lens.

One non-Sigma option would be to buy a used 80-200 AF-S lens, which is what I did. I paid about $900 for mine on Ebay, coincidently from someone who later joined this site. Here is a current auction for this lens: link. I am extremely pleased with the image quality produced by this lens. Another option is the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D lens, which you can buy new for $915. But, since you're planning on shooting sports with this lens, I would consider AF-S to be a requirement.

edit: I see that B&H has a used 80-200 AF-S for $999 here: link. If I were still looking for this sort of lens, I'd probably be on the phone with them already.


----------



## Juke (Feb 5, 2005)

i haven't had good experiences with Sigma. i bought a 50mm f/2.8 macro by Sigma and thought color contrast and sharpness was 'alright', but build quality didn't hold a candle to Nikon ones. the 50mm was an EX lens, or something along the lines of being 'better made' but i could SEE that on the endge of the glass there was imperfections in cutting the lens sort of like when you have badly made glasses lens. This was a fairly cheap lens though, around 400cdn, so i'm not sure about the higher end ones 70-300.

if you do get it, post a review!

btw, sigma introduced a new lens at Photokina, 70-150mm f/2.8
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06081101sigma50-150dc.asp

ps. i traded the Sigma 50mm macro for a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro and i couldn't be happier! it's a superior lens in every way!


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Thanks folks!
I've heard that the Sigma has difficultings focusing with Nikon (loud motor, not as fast as the Nikor)

I just don't know what to do. My current 70-300mm Nikkor 4-5.6G just plain sucks at max range, I always have to back it off about 50mm to get a decent crisp picture.


----------



## Juke (Feb 5, 2005)

isn't there a new 70-300mm VR for DX format? retails 699cdn


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Juke said:


> isn't there a new 70-300mm VR for DX format? retails 699cdn


Yeah, I canceled my order for it. I was convinced to go for better glass than opt for VR.

I feel like I've gone full circle back to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom but I don't want to wait 3 months for it. Think I'll just chill and wait for now. I need to do some more research.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

The 18-200 is not going to equal the image quality produced by either the 80-200 AF-S or 70-200 AF-S.


----------



## e.biemold (Jul 11, 2003)

I can be mistaken but i believe you want to make pictures of your sons playing football. For that you don't need VR as far as my knowledge of VR goes. I won't even be suprised if you wont use VR at all. For making pictures of football I would prefer a fast lense so the 80-200 F2.8 would by my choice. My own experience with Sigma lenses are not that good. I do have a 5.6 400 of which the paint/coating has melted in a very bad way. Each time i use the lense if to clean my hands.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

e.biemold said:


> I can be mistaken but i believe you want to make pictures of your sons playing football. For that you don't need VR as far as my knowledge of VR goes. I won't even be suprised if you wont use VR at all. For making pictures of football I would prefer a fast lense so the 80-200 F2.8 would by my choice. My own experience with Sigma lenses are not that good. I do have a 5.6 400 of which the paint/coating has melted in a very bad way. Each time i use the lense if to clean my hands.


Actually, I want it for shooting sports in general, not just my sons (400 pics of Soccer shot on Sat and 1200 pics taken Sunday of 5 football teams!)

Cliff, you're right.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Ripsnort said:


> Cliff, you're right.


Well hells bells, I could have told you that right off!  

I also use a 1.4 teleconvertor (tc14e) with my 80-200 that turns it into a 112-280 f4. This tc does not have an adverse impact on image quality, nor does it seem to affect the speed of the autofocus much. Highly recommended.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Cliff, whats your opinion on the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D? It is apparently 80% of that of the speed of AF-S...I could live with that. They retail for around $850....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

On my body (D2X), it might be OK. On a D70, I suspect it will be slow. For sports, AF-S is a compelling feature. Seriously, I'd be all over that used 80-200 AF-S that B&H has.

edit: FWIW, I prefer Bjorn Rorslett's lens reviews to Ken Rockwell's. Rorslett forms an opinion after using the lens, not before.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.htmlhttp://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

At this point, if I ordered a lens over $1000 ($999 at B&H) I'd have to consider moving out into my RV garage for a month until the wife calms down.  Perhaps I'll just wait until after football season when my business brings in a few more bucks, I'll just live with my current 70-300mm and clean up photos as usual.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Ripsnort said:


> Cliff, whats your opinion on the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D? It is apparently 80% of that of the speed of AF-S...I could live with that. They retail for around $850....
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm


I have that lens.
I got it on ebay and paid about $720 in mint condition. :thumbup: 
Had to watch and wait for about 2 months to find it, though.
It does everything I need it to do for sports shoots, except that sometimes I find I need a bit more than 200mm.
The reviews recommend that you step down a notch from wide open (f/3.5 on down is preferred). But I've taken many shots at 2.8 and I don't notice any issues (perhaps if I were shooting buildings or a target sheet, but not in soccer...). I think that being a full frame lens and my SLR only using the sweet spot in the center has a lot of advantage.
The only thing I don't like about it is the weight. I think the 70-300 VR is more suited for vacation shoots, like Yellowstone and the 18-200mm is for city shoots, like NY or so.
Neither would be good for sports, where you'd need a monopod. And Nikon recommends you turn the VR off with monopods anyways...


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

In the meantime, you might want to keep an eye on Ebay and Fred Miranda.com to see if any bargains appear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used lenses.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Cliff3 said:


> edit: FWIW, I prefer Bjorn Rorslett's lens reviews to Ken Rockwell's. Rorslett forms an opinion after using the lens, not before.
> 
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.htmlhttp://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html


Yeah, but on that particular review, Rockwell wrote it *after *he used it.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Ripsnort said:


> At this point, if I ordered a lens over $1000 ($999 at B&H) I'd have to consider moving out into my RV garage for a month until the wife calms down.  Perhaps I'll just wait until after football season when my business brings in a few more bucks, I'll just live with my current 70-300mm and clean up photos as usual.


How about getting her a swimming pool first?  :rofl:


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Boile said:


> Yeah, but on that particular review, Rockwell wrote it *after *he used it.





Ken Rockwell said:


> ...I have only shot with it a couple of times...
> ...I'm unsure if it is free from the ghost problem flawing the 80-200 AF-S....
> ...I see little reason to get the AF-S lens over this, even though I got stuck with the AF-S version myself. I'd really like to get some more stick time shooting with this lens...


versus


Ken Rockwell said:


> I'm going to poke a lot of fun at my 80-200 AF-S here, but remember that this is probably the sharpest zoom Nikon has ever made and it works like a dream. Don't let my whining distract you. It is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, zoom or not, period. It consistently delivers fantastic results that continue to impress me even after using this lens for five years.


The guy can't even keep his opinions straight. He's entertaining, but that's about it.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Boile said:


> I have that lens.
> I got it on ebay and paid about $720 in mint condition. :thumbup:
> Had to watch and wait for about 2 months to find it, though.
> It does everything I need it to do for sports shoots, except that sometimes I find I need a bit more than 200mm.
> ...


Thanks for the review. I use a monopod when shooting sports (and I sit on a home depot bucket turned upside down! )


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Boile said:


> How about getting her a swimming pool first?  :rofl:


----------

