Sigma 70-200 F2.8?

[Ratpack]

Anyone have any real life experience as an amateur photographer? I am thinking of getting it to compliment my 17-50 F2.8. My plan would be to leave the 17-50 on the camera to walk around with and then as needed have the 70-200 in our backpack for the safaris and any other long distance shots we need. Is it worth the price for this?

 

[mom2rtk]

I've heard very good things about it.

But I do recommend that you find somewhere to pick one up and test it out before buying. The 2.8 zooms are a beast to carry around. Some don't blink an eye at it, but after renting one a couple times, I finally decided I just wouldn't like carrying one around.

 

[Ratpack]

I understand they are heavy, but since it would be in a backpack most of the time, I think I could deal with a the weight short term (hopefully). Some days I might not even carry it. My other reason for looking at this one is my daughter takes dance and during her recitals, the 17-50 just doesn't have the reach I need to photograph her.

 

[havoc315]

I can't address that lens specifically, but think twice about a 70-200/2.8. It is big and heavy, even in the backpack. If you need the 2.8 aperture, then it's a great lens. There are three compelling reasons to consider a 2.8 telephoto zoom:
1 -- Maximize background separation. particularly for portraits
2 -- Low light, when you need the extra aperture
3 -- If you really need to maximize shutter speed, for sports. Where you need to shoot 1/2000 in mediocre light.

But for daytime safaris? I don't see the need. You could get a high quality 70-300... it would weigh less than the 70-200/2.8 and give you more reach.
You could go with a 100-400 or 150-600, size will be similar to the 70-200/2.8, with a LOT more reach. For a safari, telephoto reach is a higher priority than fast aperture, IMO.

 

[Ratpack]

I can't address that lens specifically, but think twice about a 70-200/2.8. It is big and heavy, even in the backpack. If you need the 2.8 aperture, then it's a great lens. There are three compelling reasons to consider a 2.8 telephoto zoom:
1 -- Maximize background separation. particularly for portraits
2 -- Low light, when you need the extra aperture
3 -- If you really need to maximize shutter speed, for sports. Where you need to shoot 1/2000 in mediocre light.

But for daytime safaris? I don't see the need. You could get a high quality 70-300... it would weigh less than the 70-200/2.8 and give you more reach.
You could go with a 100-400 or 150-600, size will be similar to the 70-200/2.8, with a LOT more reach. For a safari, telephoto reach is a higher priority than fast aperture, IMO.

Thanks for the info, your reason #2 is the main reason I am looking at this lens. I mentioned in an earlier post about my daughters dance recitals. I have to have the 2.8 aperture due to the low light. And since that is my main reason, I didn't want to buy another lens for walk around and longer zoom, so that is the why I was asking about it for the safari ride and other shots at WDW. I also have a 18-105 F3.5-5.6 that I can use as well for some zoom shots and save weight. I think my solution is to become independently wealthy and then buy all the lenses I think I need.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for the info, your reason #2 is the main reason I am looking at this lens. I mentioned in an earlier post about my daughters dance recitals. I have to have the 2.8 aperture due to the low light. And since that is my main reason, I didn't want to buy another lens for walk around and longer zoom, so that is the why I was asking about it for the safari ride and other shots at WDW. I also have a 18-105 F3.5-5.6 that I can use as well for some zoom shots and save weight. I think my solution is to become independently wealthy and then buy all the lenses I think I need.

Each lens does have a specialization. In my experience, most people who own a 70-200/2.8, also own a 70-300 or something similar for more generic walk-around purposes.
A 70-200/2.8 and 70-300 may be just about the only "popular" lenses that I don't own. To much weight, for too little reward, for my purposes.
I do have a 24-70/2.8. My telephoto zoom is 70-200/4. Gives me a manageable weight, only 1 stop slower than the 2.8, and equivalent image quality.

 

[Spork3127]

I do a lot of wildlife photography as a hobby. Large MM primes are out of my price range, so I use the new Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L. While waiting on that mythical lens to be announced and produced, I used a Canon 70-200 f/4 L and then a Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 L. I found that both didn't have enough reach for my likes. While both performed very well, they were tiding me over. If you're set on a 70-200 2.8 and want the versatility to photograph the safaris, I'd recommend adding a teleconverter. For example, Sigma has a 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter that would attach between the camera body and lens. The 70-200 would be the equivalent of 98-280 with a 1.4 and 140-400 with the 2.0. You would need to confirm if Sigma's teleconverters would be compatible with your setup though. You'll have to step down your f stop with the teleconverter, but it would give you the extra reach and when shooting outdoors in good light, stepping down shouldn't pose much of an issue.

 

[Ratpack]

I may look at the teleconverter as an option. The main reason I want the 70-200 2.8 is for the reach and low light capability. Long range primes are almost as expensive as the zoom lens, so it only make sense to get a zoom. I do wish it was a 70-300 2.8 but I am sure that cost would then be outside my price range. I love my 17-50 2.8 and I have the Nikon 18-105 F3.5-5.6 which is a great general lens, but I need a little more reach in both normal light (outdoors) and low light (indoors). The 70-200 would give a good reach and low light capability and if I can add the teleconverter, then it may satisfy all my current needs.

 

[havoc315]

I may look at the teleconverter as an option. The main reason I want the 70-200 2.8 is for the reach and low light capability. Long range primes are almost as expensive as the zoom lens, so it only make sense to get a zoom. I do wish it was a 70-300 2.8 but I am sure that cost would then be outside my price range. I love my 17-50 2.8 and I have the Nikon 18-105 F3.5-5.6 which is a great general lens, but I need a little more reach in both normal light (outdoors) and low light (indoors). The 70-200 would give a good reach and low light capability and if I can add the teleconverter, then it may satisfy all my current needs.

There doesn't exist a 70-300/2.8. The physics would make it much too big. Long primes are great, I use a 300/4.... The image quality blows away zoom lenses. I love using the prime for sports and wildlife, but I occasionally lose a shot due to not being able to zoom out.

 

[elmoandzoey]

I just took the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS to Disney. Yes, it's heavy but I didn't regret taking it at all! I primarily used it at AK but I also used it for the shows. Last time we were at WDW, I took at 70-300 on the safari and yes, while it's daytime, you still need a reasonably fast shutter speed because the truck bounces around a lot! Also, Pangani Forest Trail and Maharaja Jungle Trek are both rather dark as well, especially if you want to take pictures of the gorillas - that area rarely sees any sun during the day because of the vegetation. At first I was wary about missing the extra 100mm on the Sigma but I was SOOOOO glad I had that lens with me! I confess, it's a heavy beast and the first time on the safari I had a problem holding it up after a while because I had a middle seat (meaning nowhere to put my elbow). After that, I always took the seat at the end so I could put my elbow on the side railing. Then it was really easy to hold it up and steady (well, as steady as possible because of the bouncy truck). For shows, I just used my tripod as a monopod while seated if I needed to, worked like a charm. I haven't processed any of the photos yet that were taken with the Sigma but if you want, I can send you the link to pics of the safari both taken with my Tamron 70-300 and my Sigma 70-200 when I have them up so you can see for yourself.

 

[Ratpack]

Yes, please send me the link to take a look at. I am almost convinced to get a 70-300 and the 70-200 F2.8. I had almost forgotten about the shows. Never have gotten good shots of FOTLK, maybe this is the year.

 

[Ratpack]

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...nses/af-zoom-nikkor-80-200mm-f%2f2.8d-ed.html

Any thoughts on this lens verses the Sigma one? I realize it loses from 70 to 80, but that isn't too bad and the VR is not there, but is that something I would really miss? The reason I ask is this would be a Nikon lens verses and aftermarket for about the same cost.