| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/21/2005 02:44:04 PM · #1 |
I already have 2 nikon lenses for my D70. I may become a sports photographer in the future. I'm in college right now for photography and I was going to get a telephoto lense in the upcoming month.
Should I go for...
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG APO OS (Optical Stabilizer) Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-
//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=389507&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=384938&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D -
//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=151555&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Or should I get a nikon one that will be more expensive. Can someone help me out please...
I will be taking pictures at football, soccer, baseball games as well as drag racing events.
Thanks!!!!
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:52:01 PM · #2 |
...
Message edited by author 2005-09-21 14:55:21. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:53:21 PM · #3 |
| nikon 80-200, vr if you can afford it, but you dont need it. you will appreciate how crisp the nikon 80-200 is, its worth it, my personal preference is to stay away from off brand lenses, some people would call me an idiot for that but whatever. If you can get on the field its has a good enough reach most of the time... It's mostly what I use to shoot sports here at university of illinois. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:54:06 PM · #4 |
| I have the Nikon 80-400 VR lens and it is ranked much the same as the Sigma 80-400 OS. Problem is the focus is too slow though the VR is really helpful I think you would be frustrated. The Nikon 70-200 is ideal for what you want though it is alot more expensive. I have read repeatedly that the Sigma 70-200 is as good quality glass though you'll be lacking the VR. Overall for the biggest bang for your buck, I'd go with choice number 3 because in decent light the VR wont be that much of an asset at full 200mm. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:57:31 PM · #5 |
Stick with a fast lens, like f/2.8 or better. I wouldn't buy a lens that was any slower than that, except for maybe the 200-400 VR lens. But I would stick with petrakka on the 70-200 VR lens for now.
I used a 105 mm lens this past week for a football game, and it was OK. But is was f/2.8, so that was when I set my determination to not get anything slower. I spoke with another photographer that said he is going to be getting the 200-400 f/4 lens for soccer games. It will allow him to not miss action on the far side of the field. The slower lens is a little unfortunate, but most soccer games are during the middle of the day with plenty of light also. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 03:18:10 PM · #6 |
| Thank you so much for each and everyone of the comments. It helped me out a lot. That was fast also. I love this website!!! |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 03:35:22 PM · #7 |
yup go with the 70-200mm VR. I have the 80-400mm and it would be wayyyyyyyyyy too slow for sports. and you can't go wrong with the f2.8 This lens rocks!! Super sharp.
Remenber, bodies change but lenses don't so it's worth waiting and getting one you'll have for a very very long time.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:33:51 PM · #8 |
| I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8, which I'm using with a 1.4x teleconverter... I have a bunch of sports shots in my portfolio if you want to see some examples. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:36:52 PM · #9 |
I would suggest the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED; it's quite a bit cheaper tha tthe VR. It's fast lens and sharp. It focus quite fast, so for action it should be usable. The 70-200 VR is an excellent lens, but I don't think the VR is very usefull for action. You want fast shutter speed for action, not slow shutter speed. VR is all about getting good result at slow shutter speed. If you can't stop action at f2.8, VR won't help you out.
Of course, I would have bought the 70-200 VR if I had the money, but I am poor :). |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:51:12 PM · #10 |
| Go for the Nikon Lens its fast and has great quality. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 05:17:15 PM · #11 |
I use the 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikkor lens quite a bit. It's not only a very good lens for sports, but it also makes a very good portrait lens as well. As others have said, glass doesn't change, get the best you can afford to avoid having to go out and get better later if you feel that your current lens selections no longer fit your needs. It's not a matter of bragging about having expensive f/2.8 glass, it's about having the lenses that most fit your need. Night time sports will require the wider aperture that an f/2.8 offers. The Sigma would provide the same 'speed', so if you're looking to save some money, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 would be my second choice.
-danny |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 05:34:10 PM · #12 |
Another vote for staying wiht Nikon lenses and the 70-200 2.8. I agree that if money is an issue you could eliminate the VR and go with the 80-200 2.8. Here is a guy who reviews Niklon lenes:
Nikon Lens Review |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 07:53:54 AM EDT.
