70-200 Decision making!

but if your doing fast moving action photography i would probably go for the f4 as its light, the sigma is good but compared to the canon which has ultra quick AF you might be a little disheartened...

Its all down to choice, go see both lenses, hold them, have a play then make your mind up....

I dont think you will go wrong with the f4 IS or not and the 300mm... :thumbs:
 
no its not slow at all.... just not as fast as the canons :D
 
I can second that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 isn't slow. It is not as light as the Canon though (but appears to be built to withstand a direct hit from a small nuclear device).

Image quality is fine though.
 
Personally, for me, the extra weight of the Canon 2.8 actually helps whilst panning, kind of like a momentum thing. 2.8 all the way:thumbs:
Dean:)
 
I've just had a look on EBay for the price of a second hand Sigma 70-200mm (Nikon fit) and it seems there are 2 different versions. The person selling the older 'non-macro' version claims this is by far the better of the 2 versions as the newer macro version is quite soft at f2.8 and even at f4 where as the older version is pin sharp at all apertures and through the zoom range.

Anyone got any knowledge of this to advise which is the better lens to purchase for use on a D300?
 
-Rob- said:
I've just had a look on EBay for the price of a second hand Sigma 70-200mm (Nikon fit) and it seems there are 2 different versions. The person selling the older 'non-macro' version claims this is by far the better of the 2 versions as the newer macro version is quite soft at f2.8 and even at f4 where as the older version is pin sharp at all apertures and through the zoom range.

Anyone got any knowledge of this to advise which is the better lens to purchase for use on a D300?
Click to expand...

Try this:-

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=37&page=3&sort=7&perpage=12&stype=

The non macro scores much higher ;)
 
Hmmmm this might be thinking to far out of the box but............if you do`nt mind weight then you could look at the sigma 120-300 2.8 a touch more expensive than both the 70-200 f4 and 300 f4 together but cheaper than the 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4.........just a thought.

Or go for the sigma 100-300 f4 for the price of the 70-200 f4 alone :D


Glad to help :lol: :lol:


(get back to that drawing board :lol: :D)
 
Woodsie said:
Hello,



It's between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the f/4 IS, I will be shooting all sorts such as motor sport, aircraft, maybe a bit of sports such as football and ice hockey. Eventually I would like to try my hand at some wedding photography/portrait work.
!
Click to expand...


This is by no means a scientific survey, but I have had a look at the EXIF data on 10 random motor sports shots on this forum. Of these ten shots, the fastest aperture was shot at f4, about half were f4 to f7, and the rest smaller.

Unless you want the 2.8 aperture for other creative shots, I would say go for the F4 IS. It will be cheaper and lighter.

Are you going to be using a Monopod?
 
I dont think it really matters what aperture the shots were taken at really, the 2.8 just gives more possibilties. Brighter veiwfinder, faster autofocus. More light into the camera means better choice of shutter speeds and lower iso.

Dean:)
 
I have decided to purchase the 300 f4 L IS and the 1.4x and take more time making this decision, now the sigma is in the equation
 
I've got the f2.8 IS L and dont regret my decision for a second. If I'd bought the f4 version I'm sure I would have always wondered...
 
oldgit said:
I've got the f2.8 IS L and dont regret my decision for a second. If I'd bought the f4 version I'm sure I would have always wondered...
Click to expand...

Could you link to some example photos from your 40D?
Thanks


There is too many choices to make, IS or not, 2.8 or 4, sigma or canon.
Might wait until payday and then just take the hit and get the 2.8IS!
 
Discussion about which 70-200 to buy

Kryptix said:
......
Where is f/2.8 useful? To this day, I've never needed f/4 so I can't imagine needing f/2.8 unless you're shooting on a very, very dark day?
Click to expand...


Post in the for sale forum yesterday for a 70-200/2.8

Kryptix said:
Would you consider a 70-200mm f/4 L and cash?
I doubt it, but you never know!
Click to expand...


:thinking:
 
70-200 2.8 is my next lens,if i can find decent one ,at decent price,
 
I recently bought a 70-200mm F2.8 (non-IS)
Absolutely love the lens, always on the camera, only downside for me at the moment is the lack of focal length, really need 300-400 ish lens aswell. But 100-400mm F4-5.6 is on the xmas list :)

Hope that helps
 
J4MIE_P said:
I recently bought a 70-200mm F2.8 (non-IS)
Absolutely love the lens, always on the camera, only downside for me at the moment is the lack of focal length, really need 300-400 ish lens aswell. But 100-400mm F4-5.6 is on the xmas list :)

Hope that helps
Click to expand...

Make sure you get a sharp copy of the 100-400, I was looking at that but read there are a few soft copies around.

Re: the 70-200 what types of things do you shoot? (ie do you miss the IS?)

Just wondering if I could do without the IS by having the 2.8
 
may have one lined up bob,
also wasnt they that price back in 06
 
Pretty much settled now, been looking at the photo sample threads from another forum and found the 2.8IS to be less sharp then the non-IS.
Since I won't be using this indoor as a dedicated lens any time soon I will be going for the 2.8 (non-IS). The things I shoot will be good for the faster shutter but situations when IS would be of no major use.
With the money saved I intend to put it towards a fast prime :)
Thanks for all the opinions guys. :)
 
Whoops wrong thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top