Sigma 70-300 mm - f/4.0-5.6 DG Macro

[paulraymond]

Hello Everyone,

I would like to begin by saying thank you for all you help. I purchased my first camera a couple of days ago and really enjoying myself.
I have a question to ask:

Is the Sigma 70-300 mm - f/4.0-5.6 DG Macro a good lens??
I'm going to be shooting mostly sports (soccer shots) for my new blog (From The Stands) that I just recently started..
I'm debating between the Nikon 70-300mm that costs 600 bucks vs the sigma that costs 200 bucks.
I know that the sigma doesn't have VR, but I think it could be a good alternative for what I'm trying to shot..

What do you guys think?

 

[LaFoto]

Well, I've had that lens three times in a row ... all that within a time period of 12 years - which is to say: it never lasted me long.
It was good to have for the relatively low price to begin with, it reaches far, but for indoor sports you are unlikely to ever have enough light for that lens.
And with each and EVERY lens (!) at some point in time (after heavy use, I should add!) some glass went loose inside, and if only by fractions of millimetres, but that is enough to produce unwanted blurriness in part of the photos.

After that experience I'd recommend to anyone they better save up for a good tele-zoom than spend the relatively cheap money three times over on this Sigma...

 

[digital flower]

I agree with LaFoto. The Sigma is going to lead to frustration (and a lot of blurry pictures) for indoor sports. Even the Nikon is going to have some problems doing that.