Can You Narrow My Search?

[Markw]

Hi all.
I am looking for a sub-$1000 lens that can shoot sports well. Made it simple for you. It will be for my Nikon D90. I was looking at the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8. I would like something that got down to around F/2.8 and had a range superior to 150mm. I was looking at the sigma because of the good ratings and the use of the TCs on that lens. Id love it if you could offer some more lenses for me to choose from.

Thanks!
Mark

 

[chammer]

those two lenses i hear are great, but in different areas. it appears that the tamron beats the sigma hands down in image quality, but the af system on the sigma is pretty top notch. the tamron, based on reviews, is not really great for sports.

i own neither, but have researched both greatly as i was originally going to buy one or the other. so take what i say with a grain of salt!

 

[fiveoboy01]

I'd go with the Sigma out of those two choices, just on what I've read. You'd definitely want the better AF capability of the Sigma for sports. I've never actually owned nor used either lens.

Another cheaper option is the Nikon 70-300VR which is an excellent lens for the $550-ish price, of course it's not as fast though. Daylight presents no problems, but you'll have a tougher time with subject isolation due to the smaller max aperture.

Yet another option would be a used Nikon 70-200 2.8, far superior to either or the lenses you listed, you can find used examples in nice shape for around 1200-1400. This is a bit above your budget, but it's twice the lens of the Siggy or Tamron IMHO.

 

[Markw]

I agree with the nikon 70-200 2.8. Ive used a friends before and it is an amazing lens, just dont hae the dough for it at the moment.

Thanks again!
Mark

 

[Dao]

According to this article, the AF system of the Sigma version is faster than Tamron. But the Tamron is optically better in DX format and especially in FF. Since it is going to be used in sports events, choosing a faster AF lens seems logical.

What about the "Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens"? It is about $1100 new in BH or Amazon and some used one listed in Amazon for $850 to 900.

 

[Craig J]

I use the Sigma 70-200, f2.8 and and I love it. The hyper-sonic-motor is a rocket and I use the manual focus while in auto focus for macros all the time.

$799.00

Craig

 

[dhilberg]

According to this article, the AF system of the Sigma version is faster than Tamron. But the Tamron is optically better in DX format and especially in FF. Since it is going to be used in sports events, choosing a faster AF lens seems logical.

What about the "Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens"? It is about $1100 new in BH or Amazon and some used one listed in Amazon for $850 to 900.

I second the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED. I own one and it is excellent. I couldn't stomach double the price for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Some people have complained on here about the AF being slow, but I have no trouble at all shooting my kid's sports with it on my D80. It keeps up without a problem. I shoot with it at f/2.8 all day and the images are sharp at all focal lengths.

Optically the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED is superior to both the Tamron and Sigma lenses, especially at f/2.8, but add a TC (mine is the Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300) and the AF becomes just short of abysmal for sports. The speed seems to get lost in the additional mechanical screw-drive linkage provided by the TC.

I wouldn't worry too much about using a TC anyway. The difference between 200mm and 280mm (with a 1.4x for example) is minor, and you can simply crop the image down to make up for the difference.

You can find them used in your budget. Brand new though, it's only slightly more than you want to spend.