While looking around at better quality zoom lenses for my Nikon D90 (see my list of lenses below*) I was looking at the Sigma f/2.8 - 70-200 (the newest version) http://tinyurl.com/6yfw8o4 and also at the f/2.8 - 80-200 Nikkor as both are about the same price new ($200 difference) and I can get through my local shop. I have tested the Sigma there just not the Nikon as they are getting one in this week or next.
I would also be looking at either brands teleconverter, the 2.0 is my first choice to add some distance for my shooting. I've mapped out my shooting ranges over the last year and I could also go with the Nikkor 1.7 and be just as happy.
Is it recommended that one buys a teleconverter made by the camera bodies brand or is it better to buy one that matches the lens brand?
My shooting is some nature in all types of lighting and during the winter in low lit hockey rinks where a flash would be frowned upon. The local soccer fields are very well lit around my area so I'm ok with that.
I know in the past some folks say the Sigma is a good solid choice if you can't afford the f/2.8 70-200 Nikkor, new or used and I do like the idea of the stabilization with the Sigma for those times when I need to hold the lens without the tripod or monopod.
So does anyone here have issues with the Sigma's they have used? I just want to make sure that by buying one, it will last under good care or if Sigma's tend to have more issues than the price is worth?
*I currently have and use: 16-85mm (I really like this lens), 70-300mm (thought it would be fine but I've has some shots that could have been much better).
Thanks for the help, input and replies
I would also be looking at either brands teleconverter, the 2.0 is my first choice to add some distance for my shooting. I've mapped out my shooting ranges over the last year and I could also go with the Nikkor 1.7 and be just as happy.
Is it recommended that one buys a teleconverter made by the camera bodies brand or is it better to buy one that matches the lens brand?
My shooting is some nature in all types of lighting and during the winter in low lit hockey rinks where a flash would be frowned upon. The local soccer fields are very well lit around my area so I'm ok with that.
I know in the past some folks say the Sigma is a good solid choice if you can't afford the f/2.8 70-200 Nikkor, new or used and I do like the idea of the stabilization with the Sigma for those times when I need to hold the lens without the tripod or monopod.
So does anyone here have issues with the Sigma's they have used? I just want to make sure that by buying one, it will last under good care or if Sigma's tend to have more issues than the price is worth?
*I currently have and use: 16-85mm (I really like this lens), 70-300mm (thought it would be fine but I've has some shots that could have been much better).
Thanks for the help, input and replies