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

Looks like the D90 is out of the picture now. Just seen the price of them!

Unless someone wants to do a straight swap with me.......

:D
 
andy_fozzy said:
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?

:)
Click to expand...

If higher shutter speeds is what you want, then the D300/D90 route will give you that, and lose you nothing.

F/2.8 will only give you an extra stop and a half, plus you lose the 300mm option and have a ton of glass to heft around. I would also find the reduction in depth of field an unwanted side effect most of the time.

Upgrade the camera :)
 
I owned the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and sold it - replaced it with a 300/4, which I miss now and again... but I wouldn't part with the 70-300VR now.

In my opinion, telephoto zooms are all about reach, and if you're after the long end, you'll miss the extra 100mm like you wouldn't believe. Of course, you can add a 1.4x TC, but then you're at 300/4 - there's only a stop difference between that and your VR.

At 300mm, even f/5.6 is wafer-thin DoF, and for best sharpness/depth you're stopping down to f/8-ish - that's the same whether it's an f/2.8 or an f/5.6. And, the VR will give you back that stop easily enough.

If you really want action-stopping shots at telephoto lengths, the old 'fast glass' argument isn't applicable when we now have cameras that give you useable ISO 6400 [although I'm sure your wallet doesn't want the D700 in its reach...]. Doubling the ISO halves the shutter speed at the same aperture, without sacrificing depth of field.

Folks who go on about f/2.8's for stopping action are using the old film argument, which the Nikon FX sensor [and to some extent even the newer D90/D300, with their nice ISO 1600] has rendered obsolete. There are a hundred good reasons to go with an f/2.8 lens, but that isn't one of them anymore.

If you can, have both around for a decent overlap period.
 
danbroad said:
At 300mm, even f/5.6 is wafer-thin DoF, and for best sharpness/depth you're stopping down to f/8-ish - that's the same whether it's an f/2.8 or an f/5.6. And, the VR will give you back that stop easily enough.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll have to disagree on that one. This argument is simply wrong. As a rule of thumb, you get the best sharpness out of a lens when you use 1-2 stops smaller aperture than its maximum. So, for an f/2.8 lens, you'll get the sharpest results at around f/3.5-f/4, whereas with a lens with max aperture of f/5.6, then you indeed need to step down to f/8.

I had a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG f/3.5-5.6 as my first tele lens. I know it doesn't come near the Nikon VR equivalent in terms of IQ, but if I stopped it down to f/8 and used it at around 275mm, I did get some decent results. I took the plunge and went for the 120-300mm EX f/2.8, and I must say, that the difference in IQ, versatility, AF speed, contrast, built quality, and the pure wow-factor of a solid-colour background, was beyond my belief.

Fast tele-lenses are expensive because they do what they are supposed to. I never tried the Sigma 70-200 2.8, but if it's anything like my 120-300, then I would say that you will never regret going for a 2.8 lens. I would never hesitate using mine at f/2.8. The results are just great. And if I stop down to f/3.2, they are even better.

As for the weight, you do get used to it. I remember the first time I got out and about with the 120-300, at the end of the day I couldn't lift the lens to eye-level, and I could feel it in my arms the next day. But now, I can carry it for a whole day and never notice it's there, and I am talking about a lens that's near the 3kg mark. And the weight is something that I learned to welcome, because it helps to stabilise the camera. It's the same thing with holding an SLR and a p&s camera. Have you noticed how wobbly it is to hold a small camera, compared to the weight of an SLR? Well, its the same with lenses. I get consistently good results hand-held at shutter speeds as low as 1/150 sec at the 300mm end, due to good technique aided with the extra weight.

Have to warn you though, as you might have noticed with your wide zoom, it is a slippery slope once you got your first fast lens.

I would say go for either the Sigma or the Tamron. I've too read some great reviews on both, and you wont be disappointed.
 
Stylgeo, sorry to say I don't agree with most of that. First of all danbroad is talking about "sharpness/depth" when referring to f/8 so of course that does not change between lenses.

Then you are comparing your modest Sigma zoom (which as you say is certainly not in the same league as the Nikon 70-300 VR) with a £2.5k mega lens. I think the superiority you are seeing there has more to do with the cost rather than it being f/2.8.

I don't understand your comment about weight being an advantage. It just isn't. But IS is.
 
HoppyUK said:
If higher shutter speeds is what you want, then the D300/D90 route will give you that, and lose you nothing.

F/2.8 will only give you an extra stop and a half, plus you lose the 300mm option and have a ton of glass to heft around. I would also find the reduction in depth of field an unwanted side effect most of the time.

Upgrade the camera :)
Click to expand...

I think this is what I'm going to do actually......

And I get what your saying about the DOF.
For DOF reasons, I'd probably shoot at F5-F8 anyway.
For speed reasons, I'd really love to shoot at F2.8-F4!

If I can get a decent body that lets me shoot at F8/ISO400-800 and is stabilized, then I think I may settle with that.
 
Thanks for your input guys.
It's very interesting to read, but please don't fall out on my account!!

There's some very good points. Some of which are surely down to personal preference.....
Some folk may like a heavy lens, some may not. I'm not over keen on having a heavy, but perhaps I'd get to like it :shrug:

The 70-300 is ideal really. It's a stabilized 300mm lens, nice and light, good results at F8 ish!
I think perhaps it's my body that is letting me down (heard that before somewhere :lol: )
If the D90 can let me use a high ISO without causing too many issues, then I'm interested. It also has a few other features that are seriously interesting me.....

Thank you all for your replies.
It's been a very educational thread!
 
andy_fozzy said:
Thanks for your input guys.
It's very interesting to read, but please don't fall out on my account!!

There's some very good points. Some of which are surely down to personal preference.....
Some folk may like a heavy lens, some may not. I'm not over keen on having a heavy, but perhaps I'd get to like it :shrug:

The 70-300 is ideal really. It's a stabilized 300mm lens, nice and light, good results at F8 ish!
I think perhaps it's my body that is letting me down (heard that before somewhere :lol: )
If the D90 can let me use a high ISO without causing too many issues, then I'm interested. It also has a few other features that are seriously interesting me.....

Thank you all for your replies.
It's been a very educational thread!
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on this, I'm not a Nikon expert, but doesn't the D300 have the pro-spec AF and high-speed frame rate? These might be useful to you.

I think it's been said already, but the 'fast glass' solution often talked about in relation to these problems is, IMO, rather an old school film-based argument when anything over ISO400 was simply hopeless and out of the question. I can't tell you how awful colour film shot at IOS800 was :eek:

We are going to see even more 'digital' solutions than 'optical' ones in future.
 
Plus, with film you couldn't just 'double the ISO' when you needed to, at least not without sacrificing the rest of the roll of film. So, you were grateful for the faster stops - at least you could open up the lens and get the shot when the light changed for the worse. Now, we can keep our precious depth of field, and still get sharp shots in low light.

Let's say you're at f/8 on ASA200 film, shooting for sharpness - then the light goes. With film, you can reclaim three stops by going from f/8 to f/2.8. With digital, you can reclaim those same 3 stops by going from ISO200 up to ISO1600, and still shoot at f/8 for depth of field. [With a D700 in this situation, you could reclaim 5 stops to 6400 - the equivalent of a 300mm f/1.4!!]. Now, even a couple of years ago, ISO 1600 was a no-no, grainy and noisy. Now it's perfectly printable at most common sizes.

Stylgeo, I think we're agreeing on many points. I don't want unnecessary weight myself, but "IQ, versatility, AF speed, contrast, built quality, and the pure wow-factor of a solid-colour background" is a very reasonable request. IQ is often better on the high end lenses, which carry a larger maximum aperture; MTF charts demonstrate this, though MTF charts aren't useful for a blurred shot. Build quality is inarguable - the Sigma is a very well made lens indeed. Remember though that AF speed is a body feature, not a lens feature; however, I concede that a brighter lens enables quicker AF adjustment. Versatility depends very much on the individual - in my own opinion, the lighter weight, wider back end and VR make the 70-300 more useful than my 300/4, and the extra reach more versatile than the 70-200. Still, you hit upon the most subjective and important reason to get a fast lens - it's a well-made beautifully engineered joy to own, and if that inspires, then it's worth every penny.
 
Been following this thread with interest, What does everyone think of the older Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO, not the macro one. Is it as sharp?
 
The Sigma 70-200 isnt a heavy lens, much better than the 70-300 VR IMO, go get one, you wont regret it
 
HoppyUK said:
Stylgeo, sorry to say I don't agree with most of that. First of all danbroad is talking about "sharpness/depth" when referring to f/8 so of course that does not change between lenses.

Then you are comparing your modest Sigma zoom (which as you say is certainly not in the same league as the Nikon 70-300 VR) with a £2.5k mega lens. I think the superiority you are seeing there has more to do with the cost rather than it being f/2.8.

I don't understand your comment about weight being an advantage. It just isn't. But IS is.
Click to expand...

Fair enough mate, just sharing opinions here, but I do believe that we have a case of misunderstanding on terms here. Sharpness is one thing, depth of field is another. Yes, you would get the same depth of field at the same focal length with the same aperture used, but I was referring to sharpness instead.

As for the weight, of course, if I could afford to get the Canon 300mm IS, I would defo get it, just for the IS, but from personal experience, the weight DOES help with camera movement a lot. It all has to do with inertia, and you could understand it when you use a heavy lens at the same focal length as a lighter one!

As for the f/2.8 argument, well, yeah, there is simply no comparison between the Sigma 70-300 with the Nikon VR one, and not to mention with the 120-300 one. But what do you mean it has to do with the price instead of the 2.8? Why do you think it's so expensive, if not for the constant 2.8 aperture?
 
Must say that this has been quite an informative thread to read, I have never really put too much thought into this comparison between film and digital in that sense. To be honest, I personally will always put fast apertures as a priority over ISO, because in what I do most, which is wildlife, a shallow DOF is the holy grail when it comes to birds in particular, and I would always prefer to use the lowest ISO setting possible to get a clean photo. But that's just me, and I do have a 400D, which can only be used up to ISO 400 and get a good photo. At ISO 800 the photos need a lot of cleaning and at ISO 1600 it's just unusable. But I tend to use my gear to get all the utility I can get before I move on, and I haven't seen the reason to move to a higher end camera because I am happy with what I have. Needless to say that CT's posts about how amazing the 50D is are not helping there because upgratidis is quite contagious but I am trying to wait until summer before I burn that hole in my pocket (and if lens prices go down again, my pocket will get even lighter with that 600mm I've been after for some while :thumbs: ).

Back to the original question, one final thought from me regarding weight. In the end it comes down to personal preferences. Last time I was in Brandon marsh, I met this guy with his wife (lovely couple, wish I meet them again). They had the 100-400L and the 400/5.6 L. I tried both of them, and they tried my 120-300. The guy thought that the weight was a good thing, it made the lens feel more solid, he said that he felt that it balances better on his camera than his 100-400. The wife on the other hand, as soon as she took it in her hands went "Oh my God, get this thing back, how can you carry this thing?". As for me, well, I thought the 400/5.6 was a bit too light for my taste and that I couldn't hold it still (no IS), whereas the 100-400 felt a bit more solid and the IS was godsend for that lens. So, weight is definitely something subjective and you wouldn't know what works for you best unless you try it.
 
stylgeo said:
...Back to the original question, one final thought from me regarding weight...
Click to expand...

That's a fair point stylgeo, about weight having its upsides.

While you don't see many folks strapping bricks to their lenses, it has always been a good idea to put a beanbag (full of heavy beans, not poly balls) on top of a long lens when on a tripod, to dampen vibration.

On the depth of field question, I find f/2.8 to be too shallow for most (smallish) birds, and in many of the pictures on here you hardly ever see a frame-filler close up of a bird where the whole critter is actually sharp. And they jig about so much, I'm forever chasing sharp focus, shifting it a few mm back and forth, and that's at f/5.6.

You could argue that bokeh is better at f/2.8, but I would settle for a higher hit rate that a bit more depth gives. The background is still massively OOF.

The thing about upping the ISO as an alternative to fast lenses is a very new option. If was always an impossibility with film, but even with digital it is only in the last couple of years that ISO1600 was even remotely feasible, and even now I think it is only Nikon with the D3 and D700 on full frame where you can seriously consider it as good solution. Of course, high ISO and fast apertures are still going to win out ultimately :)
 
HoppyUK said:
On the depth of field question, I find f/2.8 to be too shallow for most (smallish) birds, and in many of the pictures on here you hardly ever see a frame-filler close up of a bird where the whole critter is actually sharp. And they jig about so much, I'm forever chasing sharp focus, shifting it a few mm back and forth, and that's at f/5.6.

You could argue that bokeh is better at f/2.8, but I would settle for a higher hit rate that a bit more depth gives. The background is still massively OOF.
Click to expand...

Fair point there mate! :thumbs: When I do occasionaly get the opportunity to fill the frame with a small bird (a bit hard with just 300mm at your disposal, since my TC went back to Sigma for recalibration), I use f/4 and still get half of its body OOF.

Could people please stop talking about the merits of high ISO, because I can hear that 50D calling for me :D
 
This thread has been fantastic!
And I've learned a few things along the way....
I really think I can/will be able to get used to the extra weight, and now even use it to my advantage. (Plus it gives me a good excuse to get a decent monopod!!).

I've decided I'm going to give the 70-200 a try. I'll probably miss the 70-300 like crazy, but you gotta try these things! That's what photography is all about to me, trying new bits of kit.

Got somebody interested in a PX/trade with my 70-300, so I'm sure I'll update the forum on what happens :D

Thanks for the replies and input to the thread everyone.
But really great reading all the messages.

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top