Sigma 70-200 or Nikkor 70-200... Or other???

[wwall]

I have the Nikon D3100 with the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200.

I am looking into getting a new lens for this upcoming football season. My little brother plays HS football and I have the opportunity to be on the sidelines getting shots. This won't be for money just for practice and for him and his friends to get some decent pictures out of it.

I've been looking into the Sigma 70-200 (which is more in my price range) and the Nikkor 70-200 (which I would have to keep saving for) ....is it worth it to get the Sigma lens, or wait and get the Nikon? OR is there a better lens for this....?

Even though it's just for fun, I want to get the sharpest images possible. I don't have a lot of money to throw around so I don't want to invest in something that I will need to upgrade soon.

Any input will be greatly appreciated

 

[Stutterfly]

I have the Sigma. I use it for concerts, live music. Works fine. I have no intentions of moving to the Nikkor equiv.

I'm sure if you reviewed them side-by-side (DPreview is good for this) they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and the Nikkor probably comes out on top in the end, but is it worth nearly double the price? Not in my humble opinion.

 

[mrpink]

Is the only reason for this lens the football games? If so, get the sigma.

If you plan on taking photography further, I would suggest saving for the VRII.






p!nK

 

[wwall]

Is the only reason for this lens the football games? If so, get the sigma.

If you plan on taking photography further, I would suggest saving for the VRII.






p!nK

Well football games are my specific reason for purchasing right now, but like I said I don't want to invest in something that will not suffice elsewhere. I am working on the "taking photography further" part, so I don't want to buy equipment for just a hobby and then need to upgrade to "pro" equipment later (with the exception of my D3100, which I know I will have to upgrade).

I see you have the Nikkor 80-200... That is another one that I was looking at. How would that compare?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I purchased a 24-70 f2.8 Nikon lens after ALMOST purchasing the Sigma and other 3rd party equivalents. My wallet is thinner but I am so happy with my decision its incredible.

 

[Dao]

I see you have the Nikkor 80-200... That is another one that I was looking at. How would that compare?

I do not own the Nikon nor the Sigma lens. However, just based on the AF speed and using it for football. I may gear towards the Sigma (based on price and assume similar optical performance)

By the way, it is on sale in newegg now (sold by 47th St. Photo)
Newegg.com - Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens for Nikon

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I see you have the Nikkor 80-200... That is another one that I was looking at. How would that compare?

I do not own the Nikon nor the Sigma lens. However, just based on the AF speed and using it for football. I may gear towards the Sigma (based on price and assume similar optical performance)

By the way, it is on sale in newegg now (sold by 47th St. Photo)
Newegg.com - Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens for Nikon

I suspect he is looking at the OS version instead of the macro? And your assuming "same" optical performance?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689579-REG/Sigma_589306_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

 

[Dao]

When OP want to pick a Sigma 70-200mm lens to compare the 80-200mm, I believe he was comparing with the NON-OS version.

As for SIMILAR optical performance Sigma 70-200mm vs Nikon 80-200mm. Yes, I assumed SIMILAR based on the reviews.

Photozone optical performance: (cropped body)
Nikon: 3 1/2 stars
Sigma: 3 1/2 stars.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

When OP want to pick a Sigma 70-200mm lens to compare the 80-200mm, I believe he was comparing with the NON-OS version.

As for SIMILAR optical performance Sigma 70-200mm vs Nikon 80-200mm. Yes, I assumed SIMILAR based on the reviews.

Photozone optical performance: (cropped body)
Nikon: 3 1/2 stars
Sigma: 3 1/2 stars.

I apologize, I got stuck on his main point in 1st post "I want to get the sharpest images possible", and I think we can agree that would be the 70-200 VRII regardless of stars and such. My bad.

 

[wwall]

When OP want to pick a Sigma 70-200mm lens to compare the 80-200mm, I believe he was comparing with the NON-OS version.

I apologize, I got stuck on his main point in 1st post ...

SHE... HER...


Thanks guys...
I know that the Nikon version will get me the "sharpest images possible"... just can't decide if the difference in quality is worth the difference in price.
I will keep doing my research, and eventually I will just have to make a decision. Thank you for the help though!

 

[Dajuan]

Hands down the sharpest would be the Nikon 70-200 VRII. I don't shoot sports, but would think the shutter speed you'd need to stop the movement would render the VR aspect moot. If true, and you don't need THE sharpest lens in the focal length, I'd opt for the 80-200mm. You can get those used for a really great price.

 

[ghache]

If you have the money get the vrII.
However, the the sigma HSMII non-os is a nice lens for the money, i love mine, does everything i need.

 

[ulrichsd]

I see you have the Nikkor 80-200... That is another one that I was looking at. How would that compare?

If you are considering the 80-200, you'd probably be looking at a used AF-S version on e-Bay or cragislist since it is no longer in production. Nikon still makes the AF version, but it won't focus on your D3100, which would be frustrating for sports photography.

 

[wwall]

Update: I ended up picking up the Nikon 80-200 AF-S f/2.8. I think it is going to exceed expectations! It is a lot heavier than my little 18-55 and 55-200, so that will be an adjustment! It also completely dwarfs my D3100. I am happy with it though and I can't wait to take it out and really play with it!

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

If you want the sharpest, and you are shooting from the sidelines ( as in not too far away ) I would go with a fast prime lens. You would get faster AF regardless of which Aperture you used, and would have the option to lower the ISO and drop to F/2 to gain a stop ( or faster if the DOF wasn't too short ). Your camera body probably doesn't handle ISO noise too well. I know Derrel has some experience with this and being that he drools over Nikon conversations, he should ring in any minute. Not sure which focal length would be the best choice though.