Old question, but which lens..........

kevinb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
398
Name
kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
Did my first cricket game today and it proved that i needed more length than my 70-200 f2.8 + 1.7x, i am shooting Nikon d700, my question is which one would you go for

Nikon 300 f2.8 Afs or Sigma 120-300 f2.8 DG HSM EX as both are for sale on eBay at the moment. I have a sigma 2x teleconverter already so i am leaning towards the sigma but would love your thoughts. Or is there another option i am missing.

I shoot mainly football but have been asked to take pics for a local cricket team this summer, budget is max 1500.
 
have you though about a 500?

My 400 + 1.4 plus a good crop can be a bit short for some grounds.
 
Did you consider the Nikon 80-400 AF-S lens? It can be bought for within your budget from Hdew.
 
both good shouts, 500 would be good I must admit as I could use it for wildlife on the odd occasion I have chance to go to RSPB Minsmere. 80-400 would give me more flexibility, but not as fast if combine with 1.7x. thank you for your thoughts.
 
had the 120-300, its not bad - at the risk of being obvious it gives you versitility but found I was using it mainly at 300 (actually 420 with a 1.4 tele).
Then got the 300 vr2 - AF so much faster, its almost my favourite lens - behind the Sigma 85mm....
 
Also have the 80-400G (new one) - haven't got on with it yet. but find it to be a very different beast to the 300.
 
Oh & the 300mm almost always has a 1.4 tele bolted on.
 
Would love the 300 vr but sadly out of price range thats why I thought maybe the 300 f2.8 Afs would be a compromise
 
Never used it - but I'm sure it would be good.

I'm guessing that if you get a 300 it will also have a tele on it...
Didn't like the 2.0's (Nikon or Sigma) but both 1.4's are excellent.
 
I have a 1.7x nikon, but I have a 2.0x sigma which is why I considered the 120-300 sigma.
 
if you got the 80-400mm you probably wouldn't fix a tele to it - never tested it on mine...
 
Back
Top