Thinking of getting this lens

minnnt said:
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.
Click to expand...


lovely pictures minnnt
they make my attempt yesterday look terrible lol

DSC_0230 by mathew whitlock, on Flickr

but it was taken with a £70 sigma 70-300mm,
 
inyourface said:
thanks Jules

so am i right in thinking this should be decent


http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...s/sigma-70-200mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-nikon-fit-1
Click to expand...


If your thinking of upping your budget slightly then you can buy the Sigma new with a three year warranty for £68.00 more compared to the used one at MPB with a six month warranty. You can use camerpricebuster to see current prices of new lenses.

CPB > http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/...gma-70-200mm-f2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Nikon-Fit-Lens
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
A brand new one from DR is £639.00. You'd probably get a tenner knocked off if you asked in the DR thread on here. I'd choose that over a used one from MPB.
Click to expand...
But do you get warranty? Amazon.de or.it often come up with good prices and sigma honour the first 12m warranty in the UK. Tamron honour the 12m and extended warranty if bought in the EU.
 
snerkler said:
But do you get warranty? Amazon.de or.it often come up with good prices and sigma honour the first 12m warranty in the UK. Tamron honour the 12m and extended warranty if bought in the EU.
Click to expand...

Well DigitalRev offer a 1 year warranty, is brand new and is £639.00 (probably £629.00 after discount) whereas the one the OP linked to from MPB is £649.00, used and comes with a 6 month warranty... Not rocket science to work out which one is the better deal from those two...
 
minnnt said:
Well DigitalRev offer a 1 year warranty, is brand new and is £639.00 (probably £629.00 after discount) whereas the one the OP linked to from MPB is £649.00, used and comes with a 6 month warranty... Not rocket science to work out which one is the better deal from those two...
Click to expand...
Nope, it's not now I know you get 12M warranty :p
 
Potentially yes. BUT they refund them for you. They have a section on this forum. If you have any questions then you can either ask them in there or send them a private message. Here is the thread for you to ask for their best price on the lens: CLICKY
 
Thanks David for posting your pictures they are very good. Just one overlooked point, . As you say you are using a 70-300mm lens the subject presumably is further away which will seem slower. Try doing that with a fast flying bird at only a few feet away and see the difference.
 
Well i asked the missus about ordering the 70-200 2.8.
she said wait till your birthday, anyway it turns out she has bought me a new lens but its the sigma 150-600 contemporary.
she said she asked the man in the shop and told him i wanted to do sports and wild life and he suggested that lens.

but im concerned wont 150-600 be to far for football, unless i put my 24-70 on my d300s and take both.

also i saw a video on youtube and the bloke didnt have any thing good to say about the lens, are they really that bad?

trust the missus to throw a spanner int the works lol, but she did say i can take it back to the shop as the sales man said


mat
 
inyourface said:
Well i asked the missus about ordering the 70-200 2.8.
she said wait till your birthday, anyway it turns out she has bought me a new lens but its the sigma 150-600 contemporary.
she said she asked the man in the shop and told him i wanted to do sports and wild life and he suggested that lens.

but im concerned wont 150-600 be to far for football, unless i put my 24-70 on my d300s and take both.

also i saw a video on youtube and the bloke didnt have any thing good to say about the lens, are they really that bad?

trust the missus to throw a spanner int the works lol, but she did say i can take it back to the shop as the sales man said


mat
Click to expand...
That lens is a very very good lens, and imo not too long for football, although I use FF rather than crop. Still think it should be OK though. It also gives the benefit of getting close shots which really add to the shots imo. Worth getting the sigma dock for it too so that you can fine tune it. TBH, this would be my choice over the 70-200mm for this kind of sports.
 
snerkler said:
That lens is a very very good lens, and imo not too long for football, although I use FF rather than crop. Still think it should be OK though. It also gives the benefit of getting close shots which really add to the shots imo. Worth getting the sigma dock for it too so that you can fine tune it. TBH, this would be my choice over the 70-200mm for this kind of sports.
Click to expand...

thats good to know

im getting a d610 of the wife at xmas so will be using it on there.
now im just trying to get her to let me have the lens early lol
 
can i use any sigma teleconverter on it, reason i ask is ive got a couple days at silverstone coming up and i read somewhere that a teleconverter is ideal there, may not be true though i dont know
 
snerkler said:
TBH, this would be my choice over the 70-200mm for this kind of sports.
Click to expand...

for an under 9s football pitch at f5 shortest end and f6.3 at longest and thats wide open so not gettng the best out of it.

i will say this.. its a prezzy so not much you can do about it.. you will need a monopod and a bright sunny day.. even a cloudy winters day is going to cause you problems.. it will be usable as is any lens at the end of the day.. but for an under 9s football match the 70-200 2.8 would be miles better .. i cant understand why snkler woukld say otherwise for a small pitch like under 9s.. unless his advice is based on guesswork ?
 
KIPAX said:
for an under 9s football pitch at f5 shortest end and f6.3 at longest and thats wide open so not gettng the best out of it.

i will say this.. its a prezzy so not much you can do about it.. you will need a monopod and a bright sunny day.. even a cloudy winters day is going to cause you problems.. it will be usable as is any lens at the end of the day.. but for an under 9s football match the 70-200 2.8 would be miles better .. i cant understand why snkler woukld say otherwise for a small pitch like under 9s.. unless his advice is based on guesswork ?
Click to expand...


No Kipax, missus has said if another lens would be more suitable i can take it back, she said now she wishes she asked first but wanted to get me something nice, i would like to keep it as you say its a prezzy.
What about for full size football pitches, cricket rugby etc
 
inyourface said:
No Kipax, missus has said if another lens would be more suitable i can take it back, she said now she wishes she asked first but wanted to get me something nice, i would like to keep it as you say its a prezzy.
What about for full size football pitches, cricket rugby etc
Click to expand...


I was trying not to make you feel bad if prezzy from the missus :)

For full size footy.. to be honest I still wouldnt touch it ... focul length sounds perfect.. its the apperture and you would be sorry when the weather isnt all but sunny... yes you lose focul length witht he 70-200 but if your covering one team then it will be better and it would take a converter better.. I often do youth games with the 70-200 and 1,4 converter on a canon ff

for cricket it sounds perfect as usualy play in decent lighting and aperture not as important with the background being half a mile away :) I say sounds perfect.. i can't comment on the quality..
 
also consider this.. with variable aperture changing from f5 to f6.3 when zooming which you will do a lot.. then you can't use manual exposure.. you will constantly be on semi auto..nothign too wrong with that but on some occasions you may want more control .. a 70-200 with fixed aperture throughout means you can use manual exporure
 
Kipax i appreciate your advice, it has given me something to think about.
I think as its going to be used for small pitches u9's then i will take it back and swap for the 70-200 2.8
if i get the sigma then i can use the teleconverter

may get the 150-600 after xmas.
I have alot or friends who play cricket football and rowing etc and they have suggested taking pictures for their clubs and event days, thats why i asked about them.


thanks again
 
KIPAX said:
also consider this.. with variable aperture changing from f5 to f6.3 when zooming which you will do a lot.. then you can't use manual exposure.. you will constantly be on semi auto..nothign too wrong with that but on some occasions you may want more control .. a 70-200 with fixed aperture throughout means you can use manual exporure
Click to expand...

and this is why i have so much to learn as that never crossed my mind and yet is so obvious, buying a lens is a bit of a nightmare lol
 
A converter on a 150-600 .. I ahve no idea if it will fit BUT .. then lens wont be great quality at 600-f6.3 add a converter which will always lessen the quality.. and up the apperture.. so your going to be wide open at over f8 so may have focus issue.. the shutter speed and iso you will need to achive for this feat shooting sports will be very high.... I can only guess at this but would imagine you would be very dissapointed putting a teleconverter on a 150-600 for anything other than wildlife ...
 
KIPAX said:
for an under 9s football pitch at f5 shortest end and f6.3 at longest and thats wide open so not gettng the best out of it.

i will say this.. its a prezzy so not much you can do about it.. you will need a monopod and a bright sunny day.. even a cloudy winters day is going to cause you problems.. it will be usable as is any lens at the end of the day.. but for an under 9s football match the 70-200 2.8 would be miles better .. i cant understand why snkler woukld say otherwise for a small pitch like under 9s.. unless his advice is based on guesswork ?
Click to expand...
Fair enough, don't have kids so don't know how big a pitch we're talking but assume it must be about 6 a-side sized then with what you're saying? As pointed out though I shoot I FF which makes a difference, and also makes a difference with not having to worry about light so much.

I have both the 70-200mm f2.8 and 150-600mm and the 70-200mm is my favourite lens. However, it still surprises me how little reach you get with 200mm. I guess it depends on what you want to shoot though, whether you want a wider field of view or close up action. I prefer close up, but appreciate that the OP might not. Also, without trying for myself I don't know if 225mm at the short end is too long for the OP. On a 6 a-side sized pitch 105-300mm eq probably would be better so I stand corrected.

I shoot manual, but with auto ISO. Not sure whether you class this semi auto?
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
I was trying not to make you feel bad if prezzy from the missus :)

For full size footy.. to be honest I still wouldnt touch it ... focul length sounds perfect.. its the apperture and you would be sorry when the weather isnt all but sunny... yes you lose focul length witht he 70-200 but if your covering one team then it will be better and it would take a converter better.. I often do youth games with the 70-200 and 1,4 converter on a canon ff

for cricket it sounds perfect as usualy play in decent lighting and aperture not as important with the background being half a mile away :) I say sounds perfect.. i can't comment on the quality..
Click to expand...


Kipax, if i got the 70-200 2.8 and added a teleconverter what would that make the aperture ?
 
Depends which converter you got...

A 1.4x would make it f4 and a 2x would make it f5.6.

I think 200mm (effectively 300mm) would be ok tbh. You're going to be picking out action on a 50m x 30m pitch from the touchline... F2.8 will be of more use than extra reach in winter. Just my opinion though. ;)
 
minnnt said:
Depends which converter you got...

A 1.4x would make it f4 and a 2x would make it f5.6.

I think 200mm (effectively 300mm) would be ok tbh. You're going to be picking out action on a 50m x 30m pitch from the touchline... F2.8 will be of more use than extra reach in winter. Just my opinion though. ;)
Click to expand...


makes sense minnnt, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top