advice needed - please

TheThistle

TheThistle

Messages
1,556
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Your help would be most appreciated-

Two Lenses:

a) Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM (non macro)
b) Sigma 100-300mm APO DG F4

If you HAD to buy one, which one would you buy

Thank you for your time in this matter

Graham. :thumbs:
 
I will never buy Sigma 70-200 for my Nikon camera... because there are at least three Nikon better options: 70-200 VRI; 70-200 VRII and 80-200.

But I'd be tempted to go for 100-300mm f4.
 
mishu said:
I will never buy Sigma 70-200 for my Nikon camera... because there are at least three Nikon better options: 70-200 VRI; 70-200 VRII and 80-200.

But I'd be tempted to go for 100-300mm f4.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mishu :thumbs:
 
uniquegardens said:
Your help would be most appreciated-

Two Lenses:

a) Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM (non macro)
b) Sigma 100-300mm APO DG F4

If you HAD to buy one, which one would you buy

Thank you for your time in this matter

Graham. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Maybe a late post on this but if it helps - I've got the 100-300mm f4 & I've used it with both Sigma 1.4x & 2x TC's (althou its now the 1.4x)... Used it with the D60, D90 & now the D300s

Are you after one then ?
 
I'd never buy a Sigma either, but the focal length I'd go for would be 70-200...it'll be better optically, no matter who makes it, plus it's faster and so more use in the real world. 100-300 is too much of a reach IMO...
 
micloi said:
You are not into birding I assume ...
Click to expand...

Optically - if you want 300mm get a 300mm...if you want 600mm get a 600mm...
But a 100-300 is too much of a stretch, optically - it's a huge compromise in lens design.
It'll be OK, but that's all - OK... not brilliant...

Whereas the 70-200 is less of a struggle, optically for designers to manage...

You might even find that a good 70-200 and a 1.4 or 1.7TC would outperform the larger lens...
 
grumpybadger said:
Must say Rob I'm not sure I agree. 70-200 is a zoom range of 2.86 times whereas the 100-300 is 3 times, so very similar.
Click to expand...

Rob is right that, in general, less of a zoom range is better and, in general, I would agree that the 70-200 might have been better than the 100-300.

But, there is goes!, in this case Sigma did a much better job designing the 100-300 than the 70-200 and it is a better lens, something said by most reviews as well as most of its users.
 
I recently purchased a used 70-200 off here and I couldn't be more happy, it is astonishingly sharp, even wide open where it does exhibit slight CA in awkward light. I can't vouch for the 100-300 never having tried, but I'm having difficulty believing anything could be sharper than the 70-200 (mine's a MACRO by the way). I hope this helps.
 
micloi said:
Did you even own the lenses mentioned? I did, have tried them and compared them (along with another dozen of lenses).

The Sigma 100-300 is one of the best zoom lenses you can get and I am not the only one saying that:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103
Click to expand...

a quote from your fred and miranda post

Trully bad at 250-300mm, if wide open, unuseable images. Needs stopping down to f8~f9 to clear the images.

dos,nt sound like a great lens to me :shrug: f8/9 is virtually unusable now 2.8 with a converter would give you much more range in the f/stop department :thumbs: hth mike
 
micloi said:
Rob is right that, in general, less of a zoom range is better and, in general, I would agree that the 70-200 might have been better than the 100-300.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with that, more that the zoom range is very similar to other lenses:

70-200 2.9:1
100-300 3:1
24-70 2.9:1


Personally, I wouldn't buy one due to my personal experience with Sigma lenses but that isn't down to the zoom range...
 
grumpybadger said:
I'm not arguing with that, more that the zoom range is very similar to other lenses:

70-200 2.9:1
100-300 3:1
24-70 2.9:1
Click to expand...

I stand corrected - however my personal experience with lenses of that focal-range (100-300 and 80-400) has not been good...

But thinking about it, there's no reason it should be so...maybe because the 70-200 is such a popular length, more are sold thus generating more revenue, thus prompting manufacturers to spend more in developing that lens...
Whereas sales of 100-300 are less and not worth spending so much money on research...
Maybe?

I'd still buy a 70-200 f/2.8 as I feel it's more versatile, but if you only need it for one specific subject and can live with f/4 as a maximum aperture, then maybe it's the better option...
...or maybe a good 'old' non-VR 2nd-hand 300mm f/2.8...
 
Thank you all for all of your feedback, it is very much appreciated.

Wildlife photography will be at my forefront. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top