Another lens dilemma

Discussion in 'Sports Photography' started by JMartin, May 14, 2007.

  1. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    Hey guys, need some advice/suggestions from those that know more than me, yet again!

    After borrowing Mitchell's Nikon 300 F4 a few weeks ago, I had my mind made up that was the lens I was going to buy until I can afford the Nikon 300 2.8 VR. I would have had the F4 two weeks ago, but in my haste misread the calendar and how the checks fall.

    Well, today I received an unexpected check in the mail and Jen called me at work to drop the good news. While it's a nice amount, it's not enough to let me get the Nikon 300 2.8 VR. So my question is, do I go on as planned and get the 300 F/4 or should I get the Sigma 300 2.8 until I can afford the Nikon 300 2.8?

    Thanks in advance guys! I really need help making up my mind... I am going nuts thinking about this!
     
  2. eng45ine

    eng45ine

    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    Joseph....if you buy the Sigma, you will probably find that the Nikon 300mm VR isn't necessary. The Sigma 300mm f/2.8 is a fabulous performer and built like a tank. I doubt that you will be dis-satisfied with the Sigma. Something tells me that you will be disappointed with the Nikon 300mm f/4 lens though, just my two cents!
     
  3. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    Thanks for the feedback, Frank.

    I think I agree, just tend to like to stick to Nikon glass. In this instance though, I have been shooting quite a bit in the evening and think the 2.8 of the Sigma is a must, as this is where I have been having to keep the 70-200 Vr.

    Jen has given me the go ahead, so I will order first thing tomorrow and should have it for the tournament games this weekend :biggrin:
     
  4. eng45ine

    eng45ine

    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    Joe, I think that you are making a sound decision....will Jen okay a 1.4 TC? I bought one with my 300mm VR and can't take it off because I like the extra reach. Now is the time to buy since you'll be saving on the shipping costs.
     
  5. I recently purchased the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. In my research I ran across several posts which claim it is sharper than the Sigma 300 f2.8. I can't verify that but I would suggest looking at it. I'm not an experienced sports shooter like Frank and others, but having the range of 120-300 (and adding a 1.4 or 2.0 TC) find it very useful in most athletic situations, birds and outdoor activities.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Rich
     
  6. twig

    twig

    745
    May 23, 2005
    If you are shooting sports the 120-300 will be better for you, unless you like using two bodies. The Sigma is quite sharp, though you should buy new to use their service as the only complaint with that lens is QC. IT als otakes sigma TC's quite well.

    A VR lens is no use in sports. If you want a Nikon lens, get a used AF-S I.

    If you want the best lens for your money, and are absolutely serious, save up 4k and buy a used 400/2.8
     
  7. Stick with the 300VR.......It's worth the wait.

    GenoP

    Nikon D2x ,Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
    1/350s f/2.8 at 300.0mm iso400
    original.
     
  8. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    Thanks for the replies all.

    I have a Nikon 1.4 TC already, but it doesn't seem to work well on the 70-200 VR. I had thought about the Sigma 120 - 300, but thought that would be too much overlap with the 70 - 200 VR or am I wrong (like that would be a surprise)?

    So now the question is, Sigma 300 or Sigma 120-300, sigh.
     
  9. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    As much as I would love to wait, I really want to get something I can use now, and if I have to, I can sell it later. It will just be a REALLY long time until I can afford the 300 2.8 VR.
     
  10. Then I would look for an AF-S I or II. They are around, and you can find good deals on them. I had the 300 4, and I often miss it, but in no way does it compare to a 2.8 lens.

    GenoP
     
  11. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    I definately plan on buying new. Will the Nikon 1.4TC work on the Sigmas (300 or the 120-300) fine?

    Haha I would love a 400 2.8, but that is definately out of my range for some time... I am still paying on the first daughter's pre-paid college fund and have another to go.
     
  12. twig

    twig

    745
    May 23, 2005
    no the nikon TC will notcooperate, you want a sigma TC (which is cheaper anyway).

    There is no reason to buy new for Nikon glass unless you like the idea of depreciation. You do not need a VR lens under any circumstances. Used Nikon glass is just fine, and built to last

    3rd party lenses I would only buy new, and from a US dealer so you get the extended warranty (Sigma gives you an extra 3 years if you buy authorized).
     
  13. I have the 70-200VR and, alone it is superb. My experience is the TC 1.7 and 2.0 yield hazy shots unless it is stopped down well, obviating the whole idea of 2.8. I'm not tying to provoke, that's just what I see very time I try it.

    Thanks, Rich
     
  14. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    Thank you all for the very valuable feedback!

    The deed is done and I am now feeling very sick to my stomach! :Sick:

    That was more money than I have ever thought I would spend on a single lens in my life and it wasn't the Nikon 300/2.8 VR. I am very excited to get it though and I will post some photos later this week when I get it.
     
  15. i would never buy a sigma lens new...depreciation is brutal.
    I got a sigma 300/2.8 w/ the 1.4 & 2.0 TC plus free ship and PP for $1500 here...the lens new is $2500...
    the copy i got is mint and works great.
    Normally i don't buy used but considering how quickly the price of a new sigma 300/2.8 drops no way I'd take the loss...just my opinion
     
  16. I respectfully disagree with respect to the 120-300. This model is brand new and has a new chip and electronics. If you buy a used one you are buying one which is inferior to this new one released this spring. There is a significant difference in price between last fall's model and this spring's one. You can track the quality by checking out the post history at Fred Miranda; the further back you fo, the poorer the quality. This model is superb. You can veryfiy that at B&H Photo. I purchased it through Amazon and one of their sellers for $2289 while B&H Photo wants $2689 for the same model. The older model goes for well under $2000. If you wait long enough you will likely eventually get a used spring 2007 model...but good luck.

    Thanks, Rich
     
  17. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    Thanks Randy and everyone else for your opinions on this. I truly appreciate everyones input in helping me decide. This is why I love this forum so much.

    I typically agree, but in this case, I don't foresee me selling this lens any time soon so the extra warranty may prove invaluable. And... if this lens is as good as I have been told, I may not think of ever unloading it.

    Rich is right as well in his post. I found the same lens that I bought elsewhere cheaper, but found out it is the older version that they are trying to unload.
     
  18. So, Joe, which lens did you buy? 300mm f/2.88 or the 120-300mm f/2.8?
     
  19. JMartin

    JMartin Guest

    Yes! :wink:
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Another ball on bat shot Sports Photography Sep 29, 2015
Another HS Girls Hoops Game Sports Photography Jan 26, 2014
HS Football - Another Day Game Sports Photography Oct 28, 2013
Another shot of Gretzky Sports Photography Feb 26, 2013
It's just another lens Sports Photography Jul 28, 2008