big decision. (lens)

[terribleclio]

I have 2 lenses in mind. Will be shooting sports (motor/water)
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (i'm worried that there won't be enough length with this)
Sigma 100-300 f/4 ex HSM

Both will probably be 2nd hand and cost round about the same.
Which do you suggest.

Nikon fit btw.

 

[planetx]

me personally would get the 70 - 200 mate....its quicker for starters.
Admittedly you lose some range....but you can always set iso 1 stop lower allowing a little less noise for a tighter crop on the pc ( or mac) afterwards.

And no I am not a noise creeper or pixel peeper

Get yourself a 1.4 x converter if need be...bit more flexibility.

 

[unofficialPete]

How much do you need the extra stop?

Throwing in a 1.4xTC and you can have 280mm f/4 vs 420mm f/5.6

 

[ADY 554D]

i would go for the 70-200 i have one in canon fit and the 2x converter and on a cropped sensor body you will have more than enough length.

 

[planetx]

its really down to the distance you expect to work at and the image size you require.

The 100 -300mm will be limited to use.
The 70 -200mm will do more than just sport.

1stop can be the difference between getting the shot and not...

 

[terribleclio]

I guess the 70-200 is a more flexible lens and the more sensible option. Still not 100% sure though.
Any other suggestions?

 

[ukaskew]

Get the Sigma 70-200 and add a 1.4x in future if needs be (the Sigma ones are cheap compared to the Nikon ones)

You will be able to use it for far more than sports, they are great for portraits, animals etc.

 

[Rich]

I got a 70-200 be it a Canon and then soon added a 1.4X, but doing mostly m/sport work I soon added a 300mm prime to it, would not be without either though.

 

[unofficialPete]

I got a 70-200 be it a Canon and then soon added a 1.4X, but doing mostly m/sport work I soon added a 300mm prime to it, would not be without either though.

Do you ever use a 1.4TC with either? If so how much more reach do you feel you have with 280 vs 420mm?

Looking to add the 300 F4IS sometime this year along side my 70-200 f4..

 

[Spammy]

I have the 100-300mm and can't fault it! Depends what range you're after!

 

[ukaskew]

I got a 70-200 be it a Canon and then soon added a 1.4X, but doing mostly m/sport work I soon added a 300mm prime to it, would not be without either though.

Do you ever use a 1.4TC with either? If so how much more reach do you feel you have with 280 vs 420mm?

Looking to add the 300 F4IS sometime this year along side my 70-200 f4..

The difference is massive, I've only used my 300+1.4 once (at Castle Combe) but the extra length was really noticeable. I would say the difference feels much bigger than 200 - 300 (I know it is, but it feels much bigger!)

 

[dick]

id go for the 70-200 f2.8.

you can add a 1.4 and go to 98-280 f4 but then still have the f2.8 qhen extra speed needed.

70-200 imo.

 

[Rich]

I got a 70-200 be it a Canon and then soon added a 1.4X, but doing mostly m/sport work I soon added a 300mm prime to it, would not be without either though.

Do you ever use a 1.4TC with either? If so how much more reach do you feel you have with 280 vs 420mm?

Looking to add the 300 F4IS sometime this year along side my 70-200 f4..

Used it a fair bit on the 70-200 until I got the 300mm, worked well. Used it a few times on the 300 as well, nice added reach.

 

[unofficialPete]

ukaskew & Rich, thanks, it can stay on my shopping list after all the other gear I want :S

 

[Leeds_VTO]

id go for the nikon 80-200 f2.8 second hand.

 

[dunganick]

i litterally got the 100-300 f4 today, so far im very impressed, there is a testing day at brands tomorrow, so we will see what happens.

Hopefully it will knock my socks off.

I intend to have a 1.4tc at some point, but after today, money is an issue.

I will post some of my efforts tomorrow.

 

[terribleclio]

id go for the nikon 80-200 f2.8 second hand.

have you seen the prices of 2nd hand nikon 80-200 f2.8s? still in the region of £800

 

[planetx]

nikon 80-200 f2.8....got 86 sat on the shelf in work lol...hardly ever get used

 

[terribleclio]

haha. fancy getting one cheap for me?

 

[Leeds_VTO]

nikon 80-200 f2.8....got 86 sat on the shelf in work lol...hardly ever get used

How come, its not like there crap lenses

 

[terribleclio]

probably because the sigma is just as good and half of the price.

 

[planetx]

nikon 80-200 f2.8....got 86 sat on the shelf in work lol...hardly ever get used

How come, its not like there crap lenses

too small, and they won't work too well with a TC20e

 

[terribleclio]

where do you work?

 

[planetx]

for the Queen

 

[Leeds_VTO]

probably because the sigma is just as good and half of the price.

nahh cant see that

 

[dunganick]

As promised some samples with my new 100-300 f4 sigma

I have been to two test days at brands, heres a few random ones to be getting on with while i sort the good from bad.

The good news is i was getting about a 40% keeper rate, which is considerably better than i used to (poor compaired to some people...... but im new to this game)

My absolute fav:

More to follow.......

More.... or larger versions at my flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/dunganick/

 

[Leeds_VTO]

Look good you can realy tell the sharpness that the f4 lens gives you.

 

[dunganick]

im chuffed, all i will say is tht at f4 it isnt as sharp as i would have hoped. However in the grand scheme of things its a budget lense.

still over the moon, ive taken about 1.5K of pics over 2 days, only just starting to get used to it.

Also my fav spot at brands was closed for work, so been shooting in odd places to me.

 

[terribleclio]

i think i'm going to go for the 70-200 f/2.8, i won't be able to afford it for when i'd hoped so i think i may end up renting one for a week.