Thinking of getting this lens

Messages
472
Edit My Images
Yes
just wondered if any one could tell me if this lens was any good.
im in need of a 70-200 for my lads football and my wife has booked up some photography experience days and they said a 70-200 was a good focal range to take

but i wondered if anyone had any experience with this paticular lens


many thanks
 
I guess it depends which 70-200 you are looking at? It is a good focal length but it depends what you have already? Might be worth providing a bit more info!
 
70-200 on a crop should work well. When my lad moved up to 11 a side I found that it was too short generally and got something longer but at this age and these size pitches it should be fine.
 
Sorry guys whats IQ

also will the lens i linked to be reasonably sharp ?im not looking for world class pics just a half decent lens for me lads footie games
 
the tamron 70200 might be a touch better, but not sure if that gets on with teleconverters
 
cheers all, i guess the sigma will also autofocus on my d5200
sorry for all the questions but its the most ive ever spent on a lens so want to get it right
 
cheers all, i guess the sigma will also autofocus on my d5200
sorry for all the questions but its the most ive ever spent on a lens so want to get it right

The Sigma can be good or very bad especially wide open make sure to buy from somewhere you can return it too in case of any issues.

The Tamron 70-200vc is a better lens the image stabilisation is better but there can also be copy issues with it too and it can't take teleconverters the Sigma can. Might be worth also having a look for the Nikon 70-200 vr the older version can be picked up at decent money there is also an 80-200 af-s which will also a.f on on your body but has no vr which probably wouldn't be an issue for football anyway.
 
Last edited:
who would have thought getting a lens would be so complicated, never had an issue in Point and shoot days lol
 
Looking at that link, that's one of the very early versions and I don't think will focus in live view on your camera (I had the one 2 generations on from that and had issues). Normal focus through the viewfinder should be fine though.
On later versions you can get the firmware updated on the lens to allow it to work properly but I'm 99% sure you cannot on that version.
For an early version it seems a bit pricey to me but I guess LCE have to make a profit.
 
I'm also pretty sure that version does not have the updated lens coatings optimised for digital cameras.
 
I echo the comments above, I think you'll be surprised how little reach you get even on your crop body.

The Nikon and Tamron are also slightly better lenses, but the Sigma is still very very good. That being said I tried two sigma 70-200 f2.8's and both suffered such bad front focus that even micro adjusting couldn't fix it so I returned them for the Nikon.
 
Looking through Flickr i see alot of under 9 are shot with 70-200mm i think its because the pitch is so small, i did take my cheap sigma 70-300 there and didnt need to use full zoom
 
Fair enough, sounds like you know what focal length you need. Are you tied to a budget as the OS version is better? That one you posted looks as though something's peeling off to me (but only viewing on the phone), plus I'd want to know if the collar is included.
 
Fair enough, sounds like you know what focal length you need. Are you tied to a budget as the OS version is better? That one you posted looks as though something's peeling off to me (but only viewing on the phone), plus I'd want to know if the collar is included.

think im going to up my budget to around £500-600 but that is gonna put me back a month, i think i would be better of spending abit more andd getting something that i will be happier with
 
think im going to up my budget to around £500-600 but that is gonna put me back a month, i think i would be better of spending abit more andd getting something that i will be happier with
At the end of the day both are excellent lenses, but for me the image quality in terms of contrast, sharpness and overall rendering of the OS version is better. Plus you get the benefit of the OS (optical stability).
 
Agreed - I've had the HSM 2 version and while it was ok, my current OS version is way sharper and the OS is brilliant.

OS is Sigma
VC is Tamron
VR is Nikon
 
when you say OS is that the Sigma?
As above OS is sigma. You should be able to find a used OS version within the 500-600 budget. I don't think you'll find a used Tamron in that price tbh but you never know.
 
Agreed - I've had the HSM 2 version and while it was ok, my current OS version is way sharper and the OS is brilliant.

OS is Sigma
VC is Tamron
VR is Nikon


I too have exactly the same lens still (not OS version), the HSM 2 version and used it on my Nikon D300 . It all depends on distance your shooting at. I used it at a raptor center and happy with the results see pic below.
A lads football team would not be so fast moving so should get even better pictures


 
Last edited:
I too have exactly the same lens still (not OS version), the HSM 2 version and used it on my Nikon D300 . It all depends on distance your shooting at. I used it at a raptor center and happy with the results see pic below.
A lads football team would not be so fast moving so should get even better pictures





thanks for the reply, your right about them not being as fast moving,
nice pic by the way, i was at a raptor centre today, loved it
 
The Nikon and Tamron are also slightly better lenses, but the Sigma is still very very good. That being said I tried two sigma 70-200 f2.8's and both suffered such bad front focus that even micro adjusting couldn't fix it so I returned them for the Nikon.
Sadly this was my experience too and a trip back to Sigma didn't fix it. I subsequently moved on to a Nikon 80-200 AF-S which is much better, if more expensive. Having said which, Sigma have come a long way in recent years but I would make sure you have a decent return policy in case it's not for you.
 
No offence @realspeed but that photo isn't doing the lens any favours. Looks like it was taken with a bridge camera or even worse, a phone. Not exactly showing off a £750.

There is (or was!) a Tamron 70-200 in the classifieds for under £600. A bargain imo.
 
David
What is wrong with it then? it is ok to criticise a photo ,I don't mind, but only polite to explain what you find wrong with it. Don't know if you have every done birds in flight when they are moving very fast but it is not easy.
Maybe you could put up a similar example you have taken as a comparison?
 
Last edited:
Really? Maybe it's my eyes but it looks like a blurry mess to me. Poor feather detail, no real clarity, no edge sharpness to the wings etc.

I'm far from an expert, probably not even an amateur but that would have gone into the bin tbh. Sorry if this sounds harsh. :confused:

I've never photographed BOP's and appreciate that they're super quick and probably quite small in the VF so it must be tough.

I have a few shots of Gannets and Gulls in flight so hardly in the same league as Raptors as they're just cruising compared to a BOP in full flow.


Gannet
by David Raynham, on Flickr


Bempton Cliffs 2014
by David Raynham, on Flickr


Bempton Cliffs 2014
by David Raynham, on Flickr

All with a D7000 and Tamron 70-300 vc. I appreciate that the smaller aperture isn't ideal for sports, especially through the dull winter months but it's a 200 quid lens at the end of the day.
 
Back
Top