Anyone know of a great deal on a 2.8 zoom for nikon?

[llamallama]

I currently own the sigma 10-20, 35 1.8, and the 55-200 4.5-5.6. After searching the interent for a good week I still cannot find a faster zoom for less than $1,000 (being a student I really have to watch how much i spend). I've looked up sigma and other off brand companies but none seem too compelling. So, i was wondering if you guys know of a great deal for a fast zoom. Thanks!

 

[molested_cow1]

what focal length range?

 

[llamallama]

what focal length range?

Hmm, up to 200mm should be plenty. Maybe 300, but i doubt it would be less expensive than the 200. I'm mainly looking at a lens for sports pretty much, so anything you know of that would suit that would be perfect!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The new Sigma 70-200 OS ain't bad...a little awkward to use with the zoom ring so far up, but optically it's not bad.

 

[lonewolfsx]

If you're only using it for sports, don't bother with the OS version. Find the older Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro HSM, it focuses mad fast, super bright at f/2.8, and pretty darn sharp. It's not amazingly sharp (and a little soft at 200mm f/2.8), but it's super awesome stopped down a little and overall an awesome lens. Stabilization isn't necessary for sports. The older one goes for around $650-700 in good condition, but I think the lens is catching on, going up in price recently. Which sucks, I sort of want one I just have to accomplish some other purchases first.

People look down on Sigma a bit, but my 24-70 2.8 (the older non-HSM version) is crazy awesome sharp at any reasonable aperture, still solid at 2.8, built very well... pretty much professional level stuff except for the lack of weather sealing. The 70-200 I used in high school so frequently (I've mentioned it in way too many posts on this very forum..) was one of my favorite experiences ever. I liked it just as much as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2.0x TC I rented for a surfing trip in hawaii.

Check out this review of the lens:
Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO - Review / Lab Test Report

And curveball, and recently getting more and more expensive, but look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 HSM. If you don't NEED the 2.8, it's even better optically, and gets you a little extra reach.
Here's a review of that lens:
Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM APO - Review / Lab Test Report

Q: What body are you using? I'm assuming a crop body, so I picked those reviews.

 

[llamallama]

The new Sigma 70-200 OS ain't bad...a little awkward to use with the zoom ring so far up, but optically it's not bad.

Yeah, I would love to get my hands on that lens but just too pricey. I know, i have some tough requests, haha.

 

[llamallama]

If you're only using it for sports, don't bother with the OS version. Find the older Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro HSM, it focuses mad fast, super bright at f/2.8, and pretty darn sharp. It's not amazingly sharp (and a little soft at 200mm f/2.8), but it's super awesome stopped down a little and overall an awesome lens. Stabilization isn't necessary for sports. The older one goes for around $650-700 in good condition, but I think the lens is catching on, going up in price recently. Which sucks, I sort of want one I just have to accomplish some other purchases first.

People look down on Sigma a bit, but my 24-70 2.8 (the older non-HSM version) is crazy awesome sharp at any reasonable aperture, still solid at 2.8, built very well... pretty much professional level stuff except for the lack of weather sealing. The 70-200 I used in high school so frequently (I've mentioned it in way too many posts on this very forum..) was one of my favorite experiences ever. I liked it just as much as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and 2.0x TC I rented for a surfing trip in hawaii.

Check out this review of the lens:
Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO - Review / Lab Test Report

And curveball, and recently getting more and more expensive, but look at the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 HSM. If you don't NEED the 2.8, it's even better optically, and gets you a little extra reach.
Here's a review of that lens:
Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM APO - Review / Lab Test Report

Q: What body are you using? I'm assuming a crop body, so I picked those reviews.

Wow, tried adorama, b and h, and such with no real luck. Do you have a link perhaps?

 

[lonewolfsx]

Here's that APO Sigma 70-200mm I'm talking about, it's the older non-macro model so the focus distance will be 1.8 meters instead of 1 meter, but that's no biggie. No way it's going to go for the price its at now as it already has bidders, but just for reference:


SIGMA EX DG APO HSM IF 70-200mm F/2.8 LENS FOR CANON 085126568542 | eBay

If I see another one anywhere, I'll be sure to let you know. I also checked KEH, they don't have one right now either but they did a month or so ago.

 

[llamallama]

Here's that APO Sigma 70-200mm I'm talking about, it's the older non-macro model so the focus distance will be 1.8 meters instead of 1 meter, but that's no biggie. No way it's going to go for the price its at now as it already has bidders, but just for reference:

SIGMA EX DG APO HSM IF 70-200mm F/2.8 LENS FOR CANON 085126568542 | eBay

If I see another one anywhere, I'll be sure to let you know. I also checked KEH, they don't have one right now either but they did a month or so ago.

Thanks!

 

[molested_cow1]

Have you considered the 70-300mm VRII? It's not F2.8 or considered fast, but for $600 it's quite a bang for the buck.

For under $1000, it's really hard. You probably need to look into used third party lens.

 

[lonewolfsx]

The 70-300mm VR is probably a little sharper than the Sigma at 200mm plus you get a little extra reach, but that's why I asked what body you were using. My old camera maxed at 1600 ISO, which was so insanely limiting for night time football games I used to shoot, I pretty much NEEDED f/2.8 and even then I struggled and had to lighten up raw files later in post just to keep a decent shutter speed.

I mean, f/5.6 is a full two stops slower, so if you were using 1600 ISO at f/2.8, you'd need to use 6400 ISO at f/5.6 to keep the same exposure. For me, that'd be a deal killer, unless you have something like the D7000 which is pretty good at 6400 and can go way up to 25600... though remember, even if the Sigma isn't quite as sharp you'd be saving a lot of noise since you could shoot at 1600 instead of 6400..

so many decisions!
ps, I'm a student myself, so I'm with you on money. I live on those $5 Little Caesar's pizzas to afford the stuff I have now.

 

[llamallama]

The 70-300mm VR is probably a little sharper than the Sigma at 200mm plus you get a little extra reach, but that's why I asked what body you were using. My old camera maxed at 1600 ISO, which was so insanely limiting for night time football games I used to shoot, I pretty much NEEDED f/2.8 and even then I struggled and had to lighten up raw files later in post just to keep a decent shutter speed.

I mean, f/5.6 is a full two stops slower, so if you were using 1600 ISO at f/2.8, you'd need to use 6400 ISO at f/5.6 to keep the same exposure. For me, that'd be a deal killer, unless you have something like the D7000 which is pretty good at 6400 and can go way up to 25600... though remember, even if the Sigma isn't quite as sharp you'd be saving a lot of noise since you could shoot at 1600 instead of 6400..

so many decisions!
ps, I'm a student myself, so I'm with you on money. I live on those $5 Little Caesar's pizzas to afford the stuff I have now.

Yeah, i'm shooting with the D90 which at H2 i think it equates to 3200 iso. Maybe i'll save up the money put away for the zoom and put it towards a d7000. I've been contemplating that for a while.

 

[llamallama]

Have you considered the 70-300mm VRII? It's not F2.8 or considered fast, but for $600 it's quite a bang for the buck.

For under $1000, it's really hard. You probably need to look into used third party lens.

Unfortunately i am really looking for a fast lens. Maybe i'll settle down for a little less range though. Do you have any reccomendations for a fast mid-tele?

 

[1hawaii50]

How fast? Any current Nikon f/2.8 zooms are going to cost you. You can look for a nice used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8...I think that may be in your price range. I had the Nikon 70-300mm VRII lens and I sold it and bit the bullet. I now have the 70-200VRII. If you are shooting indoor sporting events and your gyms are anything like mine, then the 70-300 will NEVER cut it. Even with my 70-200VRII, I'm sometimes hitting ISO6400 trying to keep the shutter speeds up.

 

[CouncilmanDoug]

maybe look at some older longer primes?