leewoolery Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
georgms wrote:
Lee, I can understand and second your thoughts/feelings about this lens. My first copy was completely unusable, the second great for static and pretty close subjects, but not for sports. AF was not too slow, but unpredictable. In terms of IQ I've found the AF-S 200/2 with TC-14 and TC-17 to be much better than the Sigma.
The focal-length-range coupled with f/2.8 of the Sigma is ideal for a lot of sports, let's see if the latest version proves to be more or less trouble-free...
I hope the new Sigma 120-300 lens is a success...
That focal length is perfect for rodeo, horse shows, ice hockey, figure skating, volleyball and basketball from the opposite end of the court to the top of the key at the near end of the court.
Maybe Nikon or Canon could up with a similar range f/2.8 lens and it would be incredible...but probably expensive and would take away business from those of us who have also purchased f/2.8 70-200's as well as 300-400 primes and 2-4 bodies for covering some sporting events.
There are some times I'd like to cover an event with one lens and camera body with emergency-only spares in my bag and a 100-300 f/2.8 mm lens, with a matched 1.4 teleconverter, would do the trick for most everything but golf, soccer, football and motorsports.
Barrel racing and figure skating are two sports I cover extensively where you are following one subject, at a time, with a very predictable path of movement and zoom in and out as needed but a 70-200 is just too short at the second and third barrel and a figure skater at the far end of the ice rink with a D3/D3s or D4 in FX.
The 200-400 is one fantastic lens but there are times when the lighting is such that a f/2.8 lens is minimum and 80-400 has a variable aperture which eliminates it from indoor or under the lights events.
...just my thoughts...
Lee Woolery
Speedshot
|