In a quandry

Messages
4,440
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, here's the scenario: I find I have upto £1000 to spend on a lens and I really want to buy a 70-200 f/2.8. Obviously I can't get a new one within the budget - and no, the budget can't be increased - so I'm thinking either a Nikkor with VR1 or a Sigma with OS.

I've read the reviews of both at DPReview and they get similar ratings. I feel like I should stay brand loyal but I already have a Sigma lens in the bag which I'm really happy with so don't feel compelled to go with Nikon.

Why a 70-200 f/2.8? Well I shoot a lot of judo, which is always indoors and in dimly lit halls/arenas so the bigger aperture is needed. In the UK I can usually get mat-side which means the Sigma 28-70 I already have is fine, but at European competitions they're not so willing to have people standing at the side of the mat and I need to shoot from the gallery - hense the 70-200.

So folks, which do I buy, and why? Should I be looking at any others? Why is life so hard?
 
The trouble with Sigma is the QC. You may get the sharpest lens ever made, or it might be a pile of cack. With that sort of money, I think Id be going for a second hand VR1 which is a beast of a lens.
You should get one under your grand quite easilly. With the money saved you can invest in some protein shakes..
You'll need them.
 
Any reason why you wouldn't be considering a s/h mk1 70-200L. Despite the improvements seen in the mk11, the mk1 is still a very capable lens.
 
i'd love to see that, desperately trying to get his 70-200L on a D90..
 
Any reason why you wouldn't be considering a s/h mk1 70-200L. Despite the improvements seen in the mk11, the mk1 is still a very capable lens.

What Ian said :razz:

Made me laugh though :clap:
 
Should be able to get a 70-200 VRI for a little under a grand, alternatively there is the 80-200 f2.8 ... no VR but cracking sharp lens and a bit more change.
 
There is a 70-200 in the classifieds here for under a grand
 
Back
Top