sigma 70 200 2.8

[damien]

im looking to buy this lens as i wish to get into sport photography, I was wondering if anyone has got or owned one and can tell me the up side and the down side of this lens if there is any

i would like the nikon version however the cost is just to much

thanks

[Manfred M]

I looked at this lens before going for the Nikkor f/2.8 70-200mm. I tend to shoot wide open, so this was a very important consideration to me. The Sigma is noticeably softer at the edges than the Nikon and has to be stopped down a couple of stops to get closer in image quality. The build quality is okay, but does not come close to the Nikon's. If I remember correctly, the zoom ring worked worked in the opposite direction from Nikon. I think it weighed a tiny bit less than the Nikon. I tested on a tripod, and did not do a lot of hand-held shots with it.

I don't do sports photography, but at 200mm I suspect is probably going to be far too short for that type of work. I use my for portraiture and mid-range telephoto work, but use considerably longer (and slower) lenses for the bit of wildlife photography that I do. I do own the Sigma 150-500mm, and from a build quality, it is the only lens that I own that has been back to Sigma twice for repairs within the past year.

[NikonFL]

im looking to buy this lens as i wish to get into sport photography, I was wondering if anyone has got or owned one and can tell me the up side and the down side of this lens if there is any

i would like the nikon version however the cost is just to much

thanks

Hi Damian, I bought the Sigma EX 70-200 HSM F2.8 when it first came out about 13 years ago. I viewed it as a portraiture lens, yet rarely used it because of its size. I'm not sure what you mean by sports photography. If you're going to be outside, daylight, on the sidelines you may do as well with a Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250 with their versions of "VR" which can be handheld. Preferred lens is the more expensive, but superior Nikkor 18-300 VR-II.

When you move indoors, lighting changes everything. You should not use pre-flash or flash. I'm sure the Sigma 70-200 is ok if you use a tripod, but I would experiment with "newer" lenses with VR.

Gil

[Melkus]

im looking to buy this lens as i wish to get into sport photography, I was wondering if anyone has got or owned one and can tell me the up side and the down side of this lens if there is any

i would like the nikon version however the cost is just to much

thanks

I know what you mean but you get what you pay for. Many will never think of using a 3rd party lens but some like me do because of the cost.

[Hazeb1]

Aloha,

I'm interested in this lens as well. I'm considering it for the same reasons. I'd be using it on a crop sensor body (for the extra reach). I've recently bought a Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8, and love it. I'm conflicted as to whether I should hold out for the Nikkor or go for the Sigma at < half the price. Here is a link to a review that seems pretty favorable.

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogra...-world-review/

In a nutshell, echoes most reviews in saying it's a really good lens, just not as good as the nikkor.

[Hazeb1]

...Another thing to muddy the waters.. Checking E-Bay, I've noticed the Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8G VR AF-S Lens (VR 1) going for about the same price as a new Sigma. Hmmmmm....

Anyone know the "real world" advantages of the VR II over the VR I? Any info would be helpful

(PS. Sorry for hijacking this thread)

[Manfred M]

From what I can tell, Nikon is claiming an additional capabilities stop in VRII versus VRI and some additional sharpness in the lens. That seems to be about it. The new f/2.8 70-200mm is supposedly a bit sharper than the old version, which was already an incredibly sharp lens according to someone I know who shoots one all the time.