View Full Version : sigh of relief
phew. well after weeks of research on the offerings from Nikon and Sigma... i have finally made my order. it was probably the toughest decision for me to make, regarding the purchase of anything (including my car - that was easy :)). i had a guy offer me the 100-300 f4 for $600, in mint condition - which is a steal. i had also considered the sigma 70-200 2.8 because f4 was a little slower than i wanted. i really wanted to give my full trust to sigma and the optical quality of their glass, so i could also fund my bh-3 kirk head, extra platform, l-bracket, lens mount and bogen legs. in the end i couldn't do it. although i may have been completely happy with one of those two sigma offerings - i just couldn't help thinking in the back of my mind that i would regret it down the road. my other consideration was the nikon 300mm f4 af-s. but i couldn't justify purchasing a prime at this length before getting a 70-200 zoom first. and the f4 will have to wait until i get something faster. well, the final click almost gave me a heart attack - but i submitted my order to keh for the nikkor 70-200 af-s vr f2.8. please tell me i'm not the only one who's agonized over camera equipment. would you have chosen something else? did i make a good choice? i certainly think so. it's the only lens i could buy knowing i would not regret it.
Don't own the lens, but the sheer price tag of it is daunting. Had problems with spending that kind of money on the D70 itself, let alone a lens (although you can always use the glass later when an upgrade is in order). Been researching it and everyone who owns one won't part with it and it's predicted to go down as one of Nikon's legends.
Heck, if I had that kind of money, I'd consider it myself (I actually do, but the heavy price tag has me thinking real hard). Let me know what you think of the lens when you have it in your hands.
The 70-200 is definitely an essential to have for general purpose. As for Nikkor versus Sigma, that's something that only you can justify. For me, I prefer Canon over Sigma most of the time.
Cheers,
JerseyJay
01-31-2005, 9:09 PM
Hir0,
You made the best choice of you life :)
I was considering Sigma myself. $800 vs. $1,500. At the end of the day after testing both lenses, my choice was an easy one.
70-200VR will be one of the BEST lenses Nikon ever made.
Enjoy it. I know I do.
thanks for the replies, it made me feel better. it's really not that much $$, but it is substantially more than sigma's offerings. i just couldn't get over thinking that a month from now i would regret not buying the nikkor. you can't really regret getting the best one right? many think that it will become one of the nikkor legends. i'm sure when i have it in my hands, i'll forgot that i even spent money on it. :) and i really do think i needed the 2.8 for indoor events etc. so i'm happy with my choice. anyone have any first hand with this lens and a tc?
JerseyJay
01-31-2005, 10:48 PM
i just couldn't get over thinking that a month from now i would regret not buying the nikkor. you can't really regret getting the best one right?
This is not 20$ vs. 40$ where you can go ahead and buy another one next week. I knew that I wanted Nikon but I kept thinking about Sigma for $800 plus macro lens. I know myself and I would end up complaining a month after and trying to sell and buy Nikon.
anyone have any first hand with this lens and a tc?
This picture was taken with 70-200VR but without tc
http://www.greenstouch.com/images/gallery_fish/laetacara_curviceps.jpg
wow nice sharp photo jay. looks like results you'd get with a prime. i can't wait.
I knew that I wanted Nikon but I kept thinking about Sigma for $800 plus macro lens.
i know exactly how you feel, i'm gonnahave to hold out on my ballhead now :(
but i will say that my tamron 90mm is one of my most used lenses. i use it and my 50mm 1.8 as walk around lenses. i do use my tamron for macro as well, but seldom. it makes for a really super sharp headshot lens.
JerseyJay
02-01-2005, 2:21 PM
i do use my tamron for macro as well, but seldom. it makes for a really super sharp headshot lens.
I think you meant Nikon 50mm, seldom.
I'm still thinking about 105mm 2.8 vs. Tamron 90mm.
i use the tamron for walkaround along with the 50. the 50 gives me better than just headshots though. at 90mm i gotta be kinda far. but i like them both cause they are really sharp. i hope the 70-200 is close to their sharpness.
Will be interesting to see how sharp the 70-200 is in regards to both the 50 and tamron 90. I just received the tamron 90 (non-di for half the price of a new Nikon 105) and haven't had much time to mess around with it yet (another manual lens...). I'll probably do some shooting with it and will decide to keep it or not.
the version i have is the di macro version. i love it. it is soooooo crisp. and the bokeh is very nice. i too cannot wait to see how the 70-200 measures against primes. i don't expect it to be as sharp as the tamron, but i will soon see.... tracking number shows it being delivered thursday. can't wait!
Yeah, gonna definitely take out the Tamron this weekend and see how it does. It's the non-di manual versoin. Talk about jumping in with both your feet (I usually shoot w/aperture priority on auto). Figuring how to use the SB-800 has been interesting to say the least (the manual commander mode works well off the camera...now just have to figure out the settings).
BTW, I talk to Radu on FM in regards to the Sigma 100-300 f/4, and it's no longer on Ebay. Got him to drop it to $550, and I should have it in my hands this Friday, according to the tracking info.
AWESOME! i'm glad you're getting it. Radu was very promt replying with me when i questioned him about that lens. $550 is a steal for it IMO. i can't wait till you get it. i was really excited about that lens. the only problem for me was the f4. i needed a 2.8 first. please tell me how it handles. i think i might go for primes when i'm in the market for 300+. anyways, i got my 70-200 nikkor today. i love it. i think the tripod mount alone is worth the price difference with the 80-200 af-s. here's a red footed booby i shot today with it.
http://www.pbase.com/michihir0/image/39369740.jpg
JerseyJay
02-04-2005, 10:42 AM
Beautiful shot Hir0.
Dang, nice shot, Hir0.
Can't wait to see more from you and that lens. The lens is coming later on today, and I can't wait for it (I found out that it was in town yesterday, but wasn't scheduled for delivery until today). Plan to make my way out to Vasona this weekend and test the lens on the birds (saw a blue heron there last time, but it was really sunny and the pictures came out overexposed w/my 70-210).
Reason why I picked up the lens was for birding and at that price, it was kind of hard to beat. It's a bit short, but I was thinking about attaching a 1.4TC to it. Also gonna see how it does on Tuesday. There's the SAP tournament (tennis) and I'm going to the Andre Agassi match. Not sure how the lens will do at night with limited amount of light, but we'll see.
thanks jay, ibn for the nice comment on my bird =) - yah the 1.4x sigma tc is supposed to work nicely with that lens. i've read you won't really see any degradation. yah night shots @ f4 might need an iso bump to stop any action. good luck with that.
be sure to post your shots!
Went out today to see if I can get another go at a blue heron (too bright last time and the pictures came out overexposed). Was overcast today, so the chances were better. Was able to tail the sucker for half and hour, but even w/the 300, it's a bit on the short side. I think that the 1.4x is definitely needed, since it wouldn't let me get too close to it. Here's a shot of the blue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v509/Ibn/heron.jpg
Here's a squirrel which happened to be in the branches overhead, where I was stalking the blue:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v509/Ibn/squirrel.jpg
Pics were taken w/the lens fully open at f/4.
good shots, despite the distance. were you shooting handheld? i shot a little bit handheld with the 70-200 and it got kinda heavy after a while. the sigma is slightly heavier but pretty much the same.
Both pictures were taken at the 300mm focal distance and handheld. The lens weigh twice as much as the camera, but wasn't too bad. If it had something like the VR on the Nikon lens, it would have been awesome...
The lens literally doubled the weight that I was carrying in my bag, but the results are worth it. Gonna see how it does under stadium light conditions. Those shots were taken at ISO 200, so will probably have to bump it up to a higher number...any thoughts on this?
Will most likely pick up the 1.4x for the lens. I've found differing info in regards to the TC. On the Sigma site, it said that w/the 1.4x, the lens was still capable of autofocusing, but also read that it wasn't elsewhere...
from everything i found (did quite a bit of looking) - it will retain autofocus with the 1.4x tc. i would say it would work. i haven't tried it personally, but i amextremely confident from the research i put into it. of course it will require adequate lighting conditions. i haven't had the chance to shoot anything under stadium lighting, but i plan to. stadium lighting, i'm sure will prove to be a challenge.
Results with the 100-300 f/4 under stadium light:
http://aquatic-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17822#post17822