Sigma 135-400mm APO DG

[Dman]

Any good?

I'm looking for a nice telephoto for sports, mainly running and football. I know it's not fast enough for floodlit football but my current 55-200mm f/4.5 lacks in length and I simply cannot afford a 2.8 zoom.

My main concern is it being a bit soft at the longer end as with the 70-300mm equivalent. Just wondering whether to get this or hold out and get the 70-300 Nikon VR.

 

[pete.rush]

Have a look at the sigma 120-400mm instead, its about £600. Not my favour lens, but it has its supporters on TP and is a better option than the 135-400mm which isn't a good lens.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-120-400mm-f4-5-5-6-dg-os-hsm-lens-nikon-fit/p1025303

 

[Dman]

Have a look at the sigma 120-400mm instead, its about £600. Not my favour lens, but it has its supporters on TP and is a better option than the 135-400mm which isn't a good lens.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-120-400mm-f4-5-5-6-dg-os-hsm-lens-nikon-fit/p1025303

Thanks, it's too far out of my price range though. I was offered the Sigma as an exchange for a D60 body which is why I was weighing it up, otherwise I'd just get cash and buy the shorter Nikon lens.

 

[Mike.P]

I had one for a while and its pretty good for large objects such as boats, cars, motorbikes and such. Not so good for pictures requiring fine detail such as birds.

 

[towershot]

Dave, I have a Sigma 170-500 and a Nikorr 70-300 VR . I find that with a 1.4 sigma converter on the Nikkor I get sharper pics.
IMO I would get the 70-300.