Anyone use Sigma 70-200 f2.8 os for sports/motorsports?

D

D-pearce92

Messages
2,115
Name
Dex
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening everyone

I'm thinking of upgrading my 70-200 f4 non is which I use for motorsport and have got some cracking images from it but I really fancy a change and have found the sigma going for more than £200 cheaper than a used 70-200 f4 is and 70-200 f2.8. I've looked on photography on the net and people highly rate the lens but from looking through the picture samples no one seems to use it for sports etc.

Does anyone have any experience with the lens in particular with autofocus etc and some pictures you've taken would be good to see? Have any of you upgraded from this lens to the L equivalent and what made you do it and what differences have you found?

Many thanks for your help
Dex
 
i used to have the non OS version the APO HSM Nikon fit and used it relentlessly for MX work and found it very good, not so good wide open or on very dull days but get it in the mid f's and it was awesome..

changed to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and theres not that much in it to be honest, wide open the Nikon kills it but most other times there close..


CW8_3529 by harrylessman, on Flickr



CW8_8875 by harrylessman, on Flickr
 
Hi I used 1 for the last couple of years only just upgraded to Nikon 70-200 F2.8
1
7764266980_ccb26fd51d_z.jpg

2
7015162585_d4de953c42_z.jpg

3
5537479033_b1db3aaee9_z.jpg


Had some great results with it.
 
Hi, how do you think this lens (Sig.70-200 2.8 ) would go at indoor equine events and late afternoon rodeos?
 
Hi Janna, the Sigma is a decent lens but has its limitations and indoor under poor lighting is one of them, the AF struggles in lower light situations, that's not saying its not a decent lens but if you re read the above posts there's a theme going on here and that is everyone seems to have upgraded to the Nikon 70-200mm, now might be the best time to buy once because as sure as eggs are eggs you will at sometime become frustrated with the Sigma buy the Nikon.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Hi Janna, the Sigma is a decent lens but has its limitations and indoor under poor lighting is one of them, the AF struggles in lower light situations, that's not saying its not a decent lens but if you re read the above posts there's a theme going on here and that is everyone seems to have upgraded to the Nikon 70-200mm, now might be the best time to buy once because as sure as eggs are eggs you will at sometime become frustrated with the Sigma buy the Nikon.
Click to expand...

I'm a Canon girl....
 
On canon I borrowed the 70-200mm f2.8 for a day and I did like it, but it's a heavy old lens and in good light outside the f2.8 in my opinion is not needed, I went away and bought the 70-200mm f4 L instead and could t be happier :) lighter, faster AF (all again in my opinion) although the lack of IS is the only issue, but so far is hasn't bothered me much. Hope that helps
 
Gary Coyle said:
Hi Janna, the Sigma is a decent lens but has its limitations and indoor under poor lighting is one of them, the AF struggles in lower light situations, that's not saying its not a decent lens but if you re read the above posts there's a theme going on here and that is everyone seems to have upgraded to the Nikon 70-200mm, now might be the best time to buy once because as sure as eggs are eggs you will at sometime become frustrated with the Sigma buy the Nikon.
Click to expand...

I use mine regularly for indoor show jumping and dressage in some very poor lighting, I've never had any issues with the AF.
 
Used to use the earlier (non OS) version at Castle Combe but always preferred using the 70-300 VR. Not so much for the extra length as for the reduced weight. Being a relatively fair weather photographer, I find that the slower VR lens still allows me to keep shutter speeds high enough for panning in conditions when I'm happy to be out in them!
 
D-pearce92 said:
Evening everyone

I'm thinking of upgrading my 70-200 f4 non is which I use for motorsport and have got some cracking images from it but I really fancy a change and have found the sigma going for more than £200 cheaper than a used 70-200 f4 is and 70-200 f2.8. I've looked on photography on the net and people highly rate the lens but from looking through the picture samples no one seems to use it for sports etc.

Does anyone have any experience with the lens in particular with autofocus etc and some pictures you've taken would be good to see? Have any of you upgraded from this lens to the L equivalent and what made you do it and what differences have you found?

Many thanks for your help
Dex
Click to expand...

Hi Dex

You've got the Canon 70-200 F4 and are very pleased with your results, you say you fancy a change - why ? what are you after your lens doesn't do ?

Obviously, there is the F2.8 or the IS - do you feel you've missed either of these or is there something else ?

As Jamez says the F2.8 is a heavy beast and the 70-200 F4 is a belter of a lens ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top