Nikon 70-300mm VR or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

djaphoto

djaphoto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,528
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Need your expert advice on something that's gotten me stumpped!

Looking to a new Telephoto for Motorsports and a bit of Nature.

Really fancied the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 APO HSM EX, can pick them up quite cheap used and wide open will help me in the dull forests when Rallying (the newer DG HSM II is bit too much for me price wise).

But...I had forgot about the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Can get them new on eBay now with 1 years warranty for £350, and got the bonus of VR so allows me good pictures handheld if need be. Alos, the 300mm is going to offer more for a bit of Nature when required, as a pose to the shorter 200mm of the Sigma.

So, my burning question to you is...which would you recommend?

Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or Nikon 70-300mm VR?

Thanks in advance,
 
Hi Dan

Not a hugely helpful reply but I've been mulling a similar issue myself. I've plumped for the 70-200 2.8 and once I've saved a few pennies (or sold some kit!!) I'll get the Sigma 1.4 tele converter. That will give me 280mm at F4.

So to my logic I get the best of both worlds. For me I seem to shoot more and more on a tripod as my hands are so flippin shaky so Vr is of little use to me in the real world.

Hope that helps if only a ickle bit.

Barney
 
70-300VR gets my vote.

Unless you have a serious pile of money to spend (ie 1000 quid) you won't get much better than that. Don't be put off by the apparent cheapness, it rocks.
 
Barney: That's a good response, thankyou very much.

I shoot my Motorsport on monopod, so am I right in thinking that VR would become useless in this situation as it needs to be switched off?

Hadn't thought of the convertor...that would be good having 280mm, can't groan at f4 either can you.

Looking at that reply, the 70-200mm 2.8 would be better then wouldn't it!

At least wide open in the forests I am getting good a good opportunity for decent shots still ;)
 
Why on earth do you use a tripod??!

Dump that as a starter for ten in making your motorsport better!
 
Thanks Destanik ;)

As per my reply above, doesn't the Vr need to be switched OFF when mounted on a monopod? I'd loose the initial benefit of the lens if no VR is used, so thinking being wide open at 2.8 allows me a better quality of shot on the 70-200mm?
 
I've used both the 70-300VR and the Sigma 70-200 2.8... the 70-300VR is better for motorsport by a fair bit. Yes, technically the Sigma should be nicer, but its not. In fact its quite frankly horrid.

Better than the 70-300VR for motorsport would be in this order:

Sigma 100-300 f4 (just short of a grand)
Nikon 70-200 2.8 (1200-1800 quid)
Nikon 300 2.8 (3000-4500 quid)

Thats the order in which you should be looking... I'm sure now loads of people will come along and say "but I've got a XYZ and its great for motorsport" and then post an example shot... but just *maybe* I know a little bit about motorsport specifically.... ;-)
 
desantnik said:
Why on earth do you use a tripod??!

Dump that as a starter for ten in making your motorsport better!
Click to expand...

I can't comment on motorsport specifically I've never even been to a motorsport event let alone taken a photograph :)
Although I think my Dad took me to see Poole Pirates at Speedway when I was a weeeeee lad.

Barney
 
desantnik said:
I've used both the 70-300VR and the Sigma 70-200 2.8... the 70-300VR is better for motorsport by a fair bit. Yes, technically the Sigma should be nicer, but its not. In fact its quite frankly horrid.

Better than the 70-300VR for motorsport would be in this order:

Sigma 100-300 f4 (just short of a grand)
Nikon 70-200 2.8 (1200-1800 quid)
Nikon 300 2.8 (3000-4500 quid)

Thats the order in which you should be looking... I'm sure now loads of people will come along and say "but I've got a XYZ and its great for motorsport" and then post an example shot... but just *maybe* I know a little bit about motorsport specifically.... ;-)
Click to expand...

Helpful reply mate, thanks very much :thumbs:

So the VR sounds better for Motorsport, will if fair good for Nature too then?

I'm guessing it will seeing as its got better focal distance, does the sharpness suffer any at 300mm?
 
Its reasonable at the long end, although you will notice that above 210mm there is a drop off - below 210 its really pretty good indeed - as i said, far more than you would think for the price.
 
I've used a 70-300 VR for over a year now, both on a D80 and more lately on a D300 - its a cracking lens.

I occasionally use it on a monopod...........and have always left the VR on, but on a tripod I turn the VR off.

Most of my bird photos (see my Flikr) have been taken with this lens and I have also used it for a day out at a Moto-Cross meet and at a Fly-in at Popham airfield (also on my Flikr).

Of late, I've been feeling that I need something longer for my bird shots and in low light conditions you need to bump up the ISO - but that's not a problem with the D300!

I can't comment on the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, but as I can't afford the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR, I've also been thinking of getting this lens as a "walkabout".

Hope this helps.
 
Have you considered the older 80-200mm f/2.8 nikon lens? Hard to come by second hand but some places are still offering them new for about $6-700. You could also add a TC to this setup.
 
Thanks for the replies.

Thinking the VR is going to be my best bet...I think I'd miss the 300mm on the Sigma, and for the price it seems a very good purchase.

Crusher, your flickr bird pictures look good, I'd be pleased with those ;)

Fuudge, thanks mate, I'd seen one on eBay earlier and it went for £450+ I think...but as oyu say hard to come by
 
in dimly lit forests you need all the speed a lens has to offer so forget the VR lens as its simply way, way too slow
 
I'd agree up to a point... but the focus speed is the most important thing (in motorsport) to start with, then wide apertures afterwards. No point in having a wide aperture and not being able to focus fast enough.

If you want to take seriously good wildlife photos you really need longer than 300mm and ideally f2.8.

The two things are kinda at odds to each other in many respects.
 
desantnik said:
I'd agree up to a point... but the focus speed is the most important thing (in motorsport) to start with, then wide apertures afterwards. No point in having a wide aperture and not being able to focus fast enough.

If you want to take seriously good wildlife photos you really need longer than 300mm and ideally f2.8.

The two things are kinda at odds to each other in many respects.
Click to expand...

The focus speed on the older non Marco is superbly quick, his main use is for Motorsports with a "little" nature, in dimly lit forests and at 300mm the VR lens is a staggeringly slow f/5.6 lens which is a whole 2 stops slower than the superb and proven Sigma 70-200, add an extender to this and you still get a 280mm f/4 lens which is super quick to focus and still 1 whole stop faster
 
There you go then, two different points of view....
 
Although not used for motorsport i use my sigma 70-200 (its the mkII macro and i picked it up on this forum for 400) for snowports and on my d2hs it snaps in focus right away even in areas with little contrast its extremley fast and i can pick up a boarder almost instantly, not tried it with the 1.4tc but would be tempted
 
I use the 70-300 VR for wildlife and for the money it is a fantastic lens and punches well above it's price tag. Good quick focus even in lowerish light on the D40 which can only push the ISO so far :thinking:. I have used it for the odd trackday but that was decent light.

Hope this helps in some way :shrug:
 
Thanks guys, as expected we have split opinions which isn't a problem but offers me scope for both lenses.

Ideally the lens will be used 80% of the year in dimly lit welsh forests for rallying...where at present I'm using a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6, and often having to up the ISO with high noise and the use of my flashgun. Nature wise it's just a bit of fun that I do in the local forest where I actually use my car as the hide and sit 5 foot from the birds, so for now I can suffer 200mm if it means me getting better Rally shots the other 80% of the time.

So thanks for all the input...very much appreciated. Who knows, a bit more over-time at work and I could have both lol.

For now I think I will opt for the Sigma 70-200mm...if my choice doesn't work out then it can be easily swapped for the 70-300mm VR ;)

Will keep you posted as to how I get on with it in the coming weeks!
 
Good choice, I used to have the Nikon but sold it as I got hold of the sigma 100-300. I found very little difference between my copy of the sigma 70-200 and the nikon 70-300 for focus speed and quality. I agree with desantnik as he knows his motorsport :D but not with his opinions on the sigma 70-200.

Example

 
foggy4ever said:
Good choice, I used to have the Nikon but sold it as I got hold of the sigma 100-300. I found very little difference between my copy of the sigma 70-200 and the nikon 70-300 for focus speed and quality. I agree with desantnik as he knows his motorsport :D but not with his opinions on the sigma 70-200.

Example

Click to expand...

Sorry to hijack but thats a cracking shot that:nuts:

As for the lens issue i had both on my Nikon setup(so want it back)......anyway i got shot of the VR for a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 but the autofocus was real slow on this, i then got the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and loved it over the VR lens infact so much i bought one for my Canon setup...
 
Nice pic!

I've studied Desatnik's web link and he has some stunning images, I can't fault him for his knowledge on Motorsports...just having spent the last year busy in the forests struggling with light, I thought the Sigma 2.8 would be worth a try but wanted some opinions first before I cocked up.

As it is it appears both are cracking lenses in their own right. For me I have to choose one and I opt for the Sigma 2.8 :)

I respect any post given on here, there's a great bunch of fellow enthusiasts and I thank everyone for giving their input, it has been most helpfull!

Happy New Year to each and all!
 
djaphoto said:
I've studied Desatnik's web link and he has some stunning images,
Click to expand...

Just for the record, that's not just me... thats between the three of us... the other two muskateers being Gribbsy and Blzeebub :D
 
I have and use both the lenses under discussion and the 70-300VR gets more use, especially when shooting motorsport. However, I only shoot motorsport out in the open in reasonable light, and I use a D700 so upping the ISO doesn't introduce too much noise.

When shooting with the VR lens, I shoot handheld since it's nice and light and the VR works so well even when panning. The Sigma is a fairly heavy lump though so gets monopod mounted.
 
Nod said:
I have and use both the lenses under discussion and the 70-300VR gets more use, especially when shooting motorsport. However, I only shoot motorsport out in the open in reasonable light, and I use a D700 so upping the ISO doesn't introduce too much noise.

When shooting with the VR lens, I shoot handheld since it's nice and light and the VR works so well even when panning. The Sigma is a fairly heavy lump though so gets monopod mounted.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Nod, much appreciated ;)

My D50 struggles when upping the ISO so really think I'm going to benefit from the Sigma for Rallying, and in the near future maybe the VR can do me for my taste for Nature every now and then :)

Happy New Year!
 
desantnik said:
Yes, technically the Sigma should be nicer, but its not. In fact its quite frankly horrid.
Click to expand...

I've shot a lot of Motorsport using a Sigma 70-200 and I'm 100% happy with it.

However I use it with a Canon 30D / 50D so maybe Nikons just aren't good enough.....




;)


From what I remember I used a Sigma 70-200 for all the track shots in this album. It's just a web dump from the day, no PP other than a resize for the web
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top