Should I trade my 70-300 VR for a Sigma 70-200 F2.8?

andy_fozzy

andy_fozzy

SPAM Merchant
Messages
7,450
Name
Andy!
Edit My Images
Yes
Just thinking about it.......
I love my 70-300 VR, and nothing wrong with it, apart from I would like to use faster shutter speeds, and lower ISO to avoid noise processing time on the PC!
Currently have to use at least ISO400 on the D200 (which aint pretty!!!) to get a decent shutter speed.
And I pretty much always use F8 to get the best from this lens.

Any advice?

:)
 
what aperture would you be using the new lens at? If what you're shooting remains the same, and your style of shooting stays the same, then what is the point of being able to use f2.8 apart from possibly more accurate focusing?
 
Whilst I don't have any experiences with the 70-200 sigma, I do know that it has had pretty decent reviews.

If you do decide to get rid of the VR, please let me know as I'm extremely interested in one. Well, more than interested actually.

Thanks

Dave
 
Chumpalot said:
Whilst I don't have any experiences with the 70-200 sigma, I do know that it has had pretty decent reviews.

If you do decide to get rid of the VR, please let me know as I'm extremely interested in one. Well, more than interested actually.

Thanks

Dave
Click to expand...

I most certainly will, thanks Dave :thumbs:
 
andrewc said:
what aperture would you be using the new lens at? If what you're shooting remains the same, and your style of shooting stays the same, then what is the point of being able to use f2.8 apart from possibly more accurate focusing?
Click to expand...

I'd like to use it at 2.8, if there's such thing as a 70-200 which is still very sharp at F2.8!!!

It would be used for wildlife and aircraft, bit of motorsport perhaps, where I need a faster shutter speed.

The main problem is the horrid noise on the D200. If I had a faster lens I could knock the ISO down somewhat......
 
just do it, you won't regret it, the sigma is an excellent lens, combined with the 1.4TC you get a 280mm F/4

the only downside is the extra weight,it's not light
 
wack61 said:
just do it, you won't regret it, the sigma is an excellent lens, combined with the 1.4TC you get a 280mm F/4

the only downside is the extra weight,it's not light
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that is one of the other reasons I'm thinking about it.

BUT, the weight bit puts me off a bit.
Is it really that heavy :baby:
 
They are quite weighty, but assuming you have access to a monopod for extended sessions then you'll be fine. I can vouch for the sharpness though, a good copy still has acceptable sharpness at f2.8 but you naturally have to keep an eye on the DOF as it's still quite easy to miss the focus point and blame the lens ;)
 
Why not go for a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8? A very viable and perhaps preferable alternative to the Sigma you are considering? You could always get a Kenko TC to use with it if you so wish...
 
I went from the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM to the 70-200VR AF-S then to the 70-300VR; and I had them all on the D200 at one time.

The thing is, the Sigma is too heavy for me. I thought the Nikon's counterpart (70-200VR AF-S) would do me better since it has the VR; but it too was too heavy for me. Hence, I moved to the 70-300VR and love it.

Yes, I miss the fast glass .. the lovely bokeh, super-fast focusing etc. etc. etc.; but nothing beats the weight / range / performance of the 70-300VR.

That said, the Sigma is a fantastic piece of glass, especially for it's price; but as has been said, why not look at Nikon's 80-200 AF-D / AF-S .. they are superb too :shrug: and very competitively priced.
 
sdb123 said:
Why not go for a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8? A very viable and perhaps preferable alternative to the Sigma you are considering? You could always get a Kenko TC to use with it if you so wish...
Click to expand...

:plusone:

I would go for the 80-200 f2.8 ahead of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8, great lens.
 
Thank you all for your replies.
I have read and considered every reply, although I won't answer all individually!

Certainly given me something to mull over.......

The only thing I think which is going to stop me getting the 80-200 is probably the price. I'm guessing this is a very expensive piece of kit?

I'm estimating I''d have about £400 to play with.....
 
Don't rule out the tamron 70-200 f2.8 either. Not the fastest, but pretty damn sharp according to reviews. Just to throw a spanner in the works.

I actually went the 70-300VR to sigma 70-200 and finally the 70-200VR and love it.
 
Paulie-W said:
Don't rule out the tamron 70-200 f2.8 either. Not the fastest, but pretty damn sharp according to reviews. Just to throw a spanner in the works.

I actually went the 70-300VR to sigma 70-200 and finally the 70-200VR and love it.
Click to expand...

That is very much out of the picture, sadly :'(

Didn't think about the Tammy....
Hmmmm......... :nuts:

Not that worried about AF speed, but it must be bloody annoying!!

Pete Dangermouse had/has one didn't he.....
Must give him a shout, see just how slow it was!
 
andy_fozzy said:
That is very much out of the picture, sadly :'(

Didn't think about the Tammy....
Hmmmm......... :nuts:

Not that worried about AF speed, but it must be bloody annoying!!

Pete Dangermouse had/has one didn't he.....
Must give him a shout, see just how slow it was!
Click to expand...

Indeed, Pete has a whole thread on it somewhere. If AF speed isnt a worry for you i'd go this route then.

Found it clicky
 
Puddleduck had one of the Tamrons. Apart from the slow auto-focus he thought it was better than the Sigma in terms of IQ .. 2nd to the Nikon VR.
 
Wail said:
Puddleduck had one of the Tamrons. Apart from the slow auto-focus he thought it was better than the Sigma in terms of IQ .. 2nd to the Nikon VR.
Click to expand...

Indeed.....

This is now sounding very tempting.
Apart from the bloody price :razz:
 
Love my Siggy 70-200mm on the D700 :)

3337361811_c923e76b89_o.jpg


I looked at the 70-300mm when i was buying and i needed something 'faster'. The 70-200 VR, whilst good is (in my opinion) not worth the extra over the Siggy 70-200mm. My sample is sharp throughout and is sharp wide open.

Yes it is heavy, but as it has been pointed out, quality lenses are heavy.
 
andy_fozzy said:
Indeed.....

This is now sounding very tempting.
Apart from the bloody price :razz:
Click to expand...


Did Pete ever sell his one. I know he put all his kit up at one stage?
 
Chillimonster said:
Love my Siggy 70-200mm on the D700 :)

3337361811_c923e76b89_o.jpg


I looked at the 70-300mm when i was buying and i needed something 'faster'. The 70-200 VR, whilst good is (in my opinion) not worth the extra over the Siggy 70-200mm. My sample is sharp throughout and is sharp wide open.

Yes it is heavy, but as it has been pointed out, quality lenses are heavy.
Click to expand...

Great shot, and a great example.

I'm just noticing that I'm needing faster glass.
The idea of losing 100mm and VR is what's putting off somewhat right now.
I'm sure it would be fine though!

Price-wise, I may be looking more towards the Siggy.......
 
dellipher said:
I love my D300 - found it so much better when shooting Ice Hockey, will now even use my 70-300VR when shooting at 3200 ISO ;)
Click to expand...

3200?
what's that?

:razz:

:lol:

Chap I bought my new 18-50mm F2.8 EX has a 300 he wanted to PX for something cheaper. But he declined my offer, and before I had chance to think about making a better offer, it sold on ebay :'(

Never mind, I still :love: my D200
 
Have you thought about the D90, is a good £300 cheaper than the D300 and has the same outstanding high ISO performance ?
 
Defiance said:
Have you thought about the D90, is a good £300 cheaper than the D300 and has the same outstanding high ISO performance ?
Click to expand...

Oh sodding hell. More idea's to do my head in :razz:

:D Only joking!
But seriously, I have thought very briefly about it, and I'd feel as though I'd be taking a step back.

I'm prolly being stupid.....
 
I can see why you'd think of it as a step back. It will feel different to handle and probably not quite as solid (assuming it's built like the D300), but in terms of image quality and useability it's outstanding...best bet is try one in the shop of course.
 
Defiance said:
I can see why you'd think of it as a step back. It will feel different to handle and probably not quite as solid (assuming it's built like the D300), but in terms of image quality and useability it's outstanding...best bet is try one in the shop of course.
Click to expand...

And at the end of the day, it's image quality that I crave.
As I'm sure we all do!

Thanks allot, you have thrown a HUGE spanner in all the works now :bang:

:D

:thumbs:
 
andy_fozzy said:
The weight bit puts me off a bit.
Is it really that heavy :baby:
Click to expand...

I noticed you traded your 24-70 because it was too heavy. The 70-200 weighs in a bit more, but having said that, I spent a day at Richmond park humping my one around and was fine. You do get used to it.
 
I'm in a similar dilema. Really need a 70-200 2.8. Using my D300 and mainly for football. Speed isnt that much of an issue, but I really need the 2.8 for a shallower depth of field.
There are just too many on the market and too many decisions to make!
 
Paulie-W said:
I noticed you traded your 24-70 because it was too heavy. The 70-200 weighs in a bit more, but having said that, I spent a day at Richmond park humping my one around and was fine. You do get used to it.
Click to expand...

I don't mind heavy, as such. But my issue with the 24-70 was that there's no point in it being big and heavy. Why does a 24-70 lens need to be so huge, when my 18-50 F2.8 is very small and compact, and LIGHT :D

If I was shooting 200mm @ F2.8, I could live with heavy!!!!!
 
alex_m90 said:
I'm in a similar dilema. Really need a 70-200 2.8. Using my D300 and mainly for football. Speed isnt that much of an issue, but I really need the 2.8 for a shallower depth of field.
There are just too many on the market and too many decisions to make!
Click to expand...

Aint there always mate?!!! :D
Drives ya mad don't it?!!!
 
andy_fozzy said:
I don't mind heavy, as such. But my issue with the 24-70 was that there's no point in it being big and heavy. Why does a 24-70 lens need to be so huge, when my 18-50 F2.8 is very small and compact, and LIGHT :D

If I was shooting 200mm @ F2.8, I could live with heavy!!!!!
Click to expand...

Must be something to do with the range i would guess, as i think the Nikon is a bit of a lump too :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top