HS Football C&C

I also have D90 I can throw another lens on but I wasn't that happy with it's ISO performance. It had a lot of noise and getting good results with lightroom noise reduction was difficult sometimes, hence the D700

The D700 is a great camera.. You will love it when you start shooting games at night.

If it was me... and i had a few bucks to spend... I'd probably start thinking about selling the 80-200 f/2.8 and picking up a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for the focus-speed-upgrade you'll notice.

Then you can start thinking about a longer lens :)
 
I also have D90 I can throw another lens on but I wasn't that happy with it's ISO performance. It had a lot of noise and getting good results with lightroom noise reduction was difficult sometimes, hence the D700

The D700 is a great camera.. You will love it when you start shooting games at night.

If it was me... and i had a few bucks to spend... I'd probably start thinking about selling the 80-200 f/2.8 and picking up a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for the focus-speed-upgrade you'll notice.

Then you can start thinking about a longer lens :)
Is a VRII really necessary considering I shoot on a monopod. I think VRI would be more attainable. I have been considering one of those for the compatibility with teleconverters

I also have some other stuff of mine I could get some more lens money, so this goal might be attainable:D
 
Last edited:
I also have D90 I can throw another lens on but I wasn't that happy with it's ISO performance. It had a lot of noise and getting good results with lightroom noise reduction was difficult sometimes, hence the D700

The D700 is a great camera.. You will love it when you start shooting games at night.

If it was me... and i had a few bucks to spend... I'd probably start thinking about selling the 80-200 f/2.8 and picking up a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for the focus-speed-upgrade you'll notice.

Then you can start thinking about a longer lens :)
Is a VRII really necessary considering I shoot on a monopod. I think VRI would be more attainable. I have been considering one of those for the compatibility with teleconverters

I also have some other stuff of mine I could get ~$1000 for, so this goal might be attainable:D

The VR isn't what you would want, it's the focusing speed mentioned. Don't forget about the cheaper alternatives. I have the $1300 Sigma 70-200mm OS and it is incredible. Extremely fast focus and very sharp wide open.
 
During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3. Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless. During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.
 
The VR isn't what you would want, it's the focusing speed mentioned. Don't forget about the cheaper alternatives. I have the $1300 Sigma 70-200mm OS and it is incredible. Extremely fast focus and very sharp wide open.

Correct... Nikons 70-200 f/2.8's are super fast to focus.

The VRI is an awesome lens (and the one i use). I shoot DX so i don't really notice its weaknesses... You can get a 'like new' or refurbished for around $1700 and a nice used one for ~$1.5k. The newer VRII is still the king and better then the VRI.

I spent a year with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II (non-os).. I would recommend that over the newer OS model. For $1.3k you are very close to the price of a used Nikon VRI. I've played with the Sigma OS model.. and while its a nice lens it's not in the same league as Nikon's version. (im a big fan of sigma lenses so that hurts me to say :) )
 
During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3. Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless. During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.

Can i ask why you shoot 5.6 and 6.3 during the day?
 
The VR isn't what you would want, it's the focusing speed mentioned. Don't forget about the cheaper alternatives. I have the $1300 Sigma 70-200mm OS and it is incredible. Extremely fast focus and very sharp wide open.

Correct... Nikons 70-200 f/2.8's are super fast to focus.

The VRI is an awesome lens (and the one i use). I shoot DX so i don't really notice its weaknesses... You can get a 'like new' or refurbished for around $1700 and a nice used one for ~$1.5k. The newer VRII is still the king and better then the VRI.

I spent a year with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II (non-os).. I would recommend that over the newer OS model. For $1.3k you are very close to the price of a used Nikon VRI. I've played with the Sigma OS model.. and while its a nice lens it's not in the same league as Nikon's version. (im a big fan of sigma lenses so that hurts me to say :) )

I disagree completely here.

How is in a different league? And for $1.3k you are getting a brand new lens with a 3 year warranty. If you want to buy used, you can find this lens used for $1000. I did a ton of research and testing before I bought this lens.
I was going to go with Nikon, and almost bought a used VRI from someone on here, but for a brand new lens of competing quality I couldn't be happier for the price. Also, the non OS is an inferior lens.
 
During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3. Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless. During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.

Can i ask why you shoot 5.6 and 6.3 during the day?

rhymes with carpness, montrast and duller paturation
 
During day games I shoot between 5.6 and 6.3. Shooting at 2.8 during day games is pointless. During games at night, I'll try and get 3.2-3.5 out of the images.

Can i ask why you shoot 5.6 and 6.3 during the day?

It still gives enough separation between the players and the backgrounds while allowing for more sharpness. At 2.8 on a bright day you'd have to be shooting at 100iso and 2000th second. 5.6-6.3 allows you to shoot 200-400iso at between 800-1000th.
 
I disagree completely here.

How is in a different league? And for $1.3k you are getting a brand new lens with a 3 year warranty. If you want to buy used, you can find this lens used for $1000. I did a ton of research and testing before I bought this lens.
I was going to go with Nikon, and almost bought a used VRI from someone on here, but for a brand new lens of competing quality I couldn't be happier for the price. Also, the non OS is an inferior lens.

I was very happy with my Sigma, and it sounds like you love yours also.

However.. The Nikon's (vr and vrII) are built better (all metal, not plastic), weather sealed, and have better optics. I'm not a Nikon fanboy... but the Sigma 70-200 OS (while a good lens) isn't a Nikon 70-200. There is a reason a used VRI sells for ~$200 less then it did new when it came out in 2002.

As for warranty... My sigmas 'rubber' paint started to peel after a few months... Sigma (and their '3 year warranty') wouldn't cover replacing it, they called it normal wear and tear. Do a search.. you'll see its common with sigmas coating. My 6 year old VRI is just as smooth/tight as the day it left the factory.

One is a 'PRO' lens... The other is a consumer lens..
 
I disagree completely here.

How is in a different league? And for $1.3k you are getting a brand new lens with a 3 year warranty. If you want to buy used, you can find this lens used for $1000. I did a ton of research and testing before I bought this lens.
I was going to go with Nikon, and almost bought a used VRI from someone on here, but for a brand new lens of competing quality I couldn't be happier for the price. Also, the non OS is an inferior lens.

I was very happy with my Sigma, and it sounds like you love yours also.

However.. The Nikon's (vr and vrII) are built better (all metal, not plastic), weather sealed, and have better optics. I'm not a Nikon fanboy... but the Sigma 70-200 OS (while a good lens) isn't a Nikon 70-200. There is a reason a used VRI sells for ~$200 less then it did new when it came out in 2002.

As for warranty... My sigmas 'rubber' paint started to peel after a few months... Sigma (and their '3 year warranty') wouldn't cover replacing it, they called it normal wear and tear. Do a search.. you'll see its common with sigmas coating. My 6 year old VRI is just as smooth/tight as the day it left the factory.

One is a 'PRO' lens... The other is a consumer lens..

You didn't have the OS though, you had the HSMII. Different lenses.

I guess this is an agree to disagree here, because in direct comparison the Sigma is a direct competitor to the Nikon.
The AF is incredible, the optics are excellent and it's build is great. The Nikon does have a better build but is not worth the extra $1000.

As for the weather seal, not really a concern for me. One could easily slip a plastic sleeve over the lens in the rain. None of my lenses are weather sealed and I've never had
an issue with not having it.

The peeling paint is not something I would expect to be covered under warranty. VRIs are very hard to find at a decent price.

I've had this lens for a couple of months, used it for outdoor and indoor sports and I always push it's limits and am never disappointed.

It's very hard to find a used VRI under 1500. Amazon has the Sigma OS used for around 975, that is if used is your thing.
 
You didn't have the OS though, you had the HSMII. Different lenses.

I guess this is an agree to disagree here, because in direct comparison the Sigma is a direct competitor to the Nikon.
The AF is incredible, the optics are excellent and it's build is great. The Nikon does have a better build but is not worth the extra $1000.

As for the weather seal, not really a concern for me. One could easily slip a plastic sleeve over the lens in the rain. None of my lenses are weather sealed and I've never had
an issue with not having it.

The peeling paint is not something I would expect to be covered under warranty. VRIs are very hard to find at a decent price.

I've had this lens for a couple of months, used it for outdoor and indoor sports and I always push it's limits and am never disappointed.

It's very hard to find a used VRI under 1500. Amazon has the Sigma OS used for around 975, that is if used is your thing.

I have shot with both of the sigma 70-200's. The original and the OS version and I have also shoot with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.
I'll tell you that the 70-200 f/2.8OS by sigma is a VERY different bird than the non OS version. It is a metal build and is considerably sharper and faster to focus than the other. The NON OS version is a macro lens as well-which are generally slower to focus. So is the Tamron.
I much preferred the tamron over the original Sigma 70-200 in terms of sharpness, although I believe it was a bit slower than even the sigma to focus. I managed sports with it. It was not IDEAL, but it did work for me. The NEW Sigma? Made my life so much easier. Focus is awesome on it, silent and it is also sharper than the Tamron.
 
You didn't have the OS though, you had the HSMII. Different lenses.

I guess this is an agree to disagree here, because in direct comparison the Sigma is a direct competitor to the Nikon.
The AF is incredible, the optics are excellent and it's build is great. The Nikon does have a better build but is not worth the extra $1000.

As for the weather seal, not really a concern for me. One could easily slip a plastic sleeve over the lens in the rain. None of my lenses are weather sealed and I've never had
an issue with not having it.

The peeling paint is not something I would expect to be covered under warranty. VRIs are very hard to find at a decent price.

I've had this lens for a couple of months, used it for outdoor and indoor sports and I always push it's limits and am never disappointed.

It's very hard to find a used VRI under 1500. Amazon has the Sigma OS used for around 975, that is if used is your thing.

I have shot with both of the sigma 70-200's. The original and the OS version and I have also shoot with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.
I'll tell you that the 70-200 f/2.8OS by sigma is a VERY different bird than the non OS version. It is a metal build and is considerably sharper and faster to focus than the other. The NON OS version is a macro lens as well-which are generally slower to focus. So is the Tamron.
I much preferred the tamron over the original Sigma 70-200 in terms of sharpness, although I believe it was a bit slower than even the sigma to focus. I managed sports with it. It was not IDEAL, but it did work for me. The NEW Sigma? Made my life so much easier. Focus is awesome on it, silent and it is also sharper than the Tamron.

Yeah the OS is definitely a tough competitor.
 
I have used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS... I shot an indoor swim meet, pee-wee football game and a High School basketball game (indoors) with it. My PERSONAL opinion was image quality was the same as my non-os HSMII. It also fogged up like crazy at the swim meet.. to the point i thought i'd have to pay the owner to get it fixed :blushing:.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is a great lens.. It was/is my opinion that for sports (like the subject of this thread) the OS version is priced too close to a used Nikon 70-200 vri (I can point you to a few right now for $1400 - $1600).

All of this is my opinion.. and everybody on the internet has one :)

However... calling it just as good as Nikon's 70-200? I would like you to find me one 'professional' review that says that. I can find you 100's that say Nikon's 70-200 (both vr1 and vr2) are the benchmarks.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top