Sigma 120-300 2.8 or Nikon 70-200 vr 2.8

[d_morrison]

I am looking at these lens for some wilflife and baseball both are in my budget

range, which would be better on my D80 ?

 

Dwight

[mark_chappell]

What do you mean by 'wildlife'? In general, for most birds, mammals, lizards, etc, you need

all the focal length you can get (and usually more), so for that the Sigma lens is the obvious

choice.

[d_morrison]

I was thinking deer and turkey, I have hunted for years, now I have put down the gun picked up the camera, not into brids.

[dave_hoffmann]

The 70-200 will be too short for wildlife, and also for baseball. If you were shooting softball, then you may be happy with a 70-200.

[d_morrison]

Should I look at nikon 80-400 or other lens in my price range about 2500.00?

[Mike D]

I use both the 120-300 F2.8 and the 80-400. The 80-400 is a great carry around lens for nature that will get you images that you might not otherwise get. It is a little slow but you quickly learn to prefocus and turn on the focus limiter switch and it's OK. The 120-300 is great for sports like football, especially at night. Set the 120-300 to F2.8, jack up the ISO on your camera body, and your're good to go.

[lauren_macintosh]

If your not in a rush go sigma site and check out their on the 50-500mm lens they are up-dating and improve-ing you just might Like it:

I just got myself a 200-500mm Tamron lens and am happy with it: I run 200-400 ISO with it to get those fast ones:

good luck

[ricardovaste]

I dont think 200 is too short. I use my Minolta 200/2.8 APO HS G on an A100 and it works pretty well for sports and even small birds at times. Its as fast as it gets focus-wise, its incredibly sharp, with beautiful colours and bokeh... even better, it fits in the palm of your hand (light and small :). It would be better on an D80 I'd think, I'd prefer it on a caemra of that build anyway... its meant to have a better VF too.

 

Is there not a similar lens like this by Nikon that you could consider?

[michael_riggs]

I use the Sigma 120-300 for wildlife and it is great. It's versitile and produces good images. It's weight without IS/VR requires a monopod/tripod, and the short hood allows for light to hit the front glass element more than it should - ruining the occasional shot. The new version comes with the upgraded tripod collar and has improved lens coating. If you use a camera with a 1.6x sensor factor, slap on a 2x converter and you get a 960mm 5.6 lens for under $3000 with minimal distortion.