Options
Racing: Nikon or Sigma 80-400mm VR? Plus snow racing pix.
Hello everyone -
I recently bought a used D70 that I'm going to be doing some motorsports photography with, more of as a hobby than any serious moneymaker.
Anyway, I see that both Nikon and Sigma make 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 lenses with image stabilzation (VR on the Nikon; OS on the Sigma). I have seen a Nikon go used for $900; I think the Sigma is like $999 brand new. Any comments or preferences with either of these lenses?
Also - anything else I should be looking at lens wise in the sub $1k price range? Personally I'd prefer closer to $500 but don't think there is anything down there.
Following are some samples, taken at MidOhio last weekend. This was a NASA club racing weekend that unfortunately coincided with an early April Ohio blizzard. I went out myself and track conditions were very slick in some corners.
Thanks in advance for the advice!
- Mark
I recently bought a used D70 that I'm going to be doing some motorsports photography with, more of as a hobby than any serious moneymaker.
Anyway, I see that both Nikon and Sigma make 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 lenses with image stabilzation (VR on the Nikon; OS on the Sigma). I have seen a Nikon go used for $900; I think the Sigma is like $999 brand new. Any comments or preferences with either of these lenses?
Also - anything else I should be looking at lens wise in the sub $1k price range? Personally I'd prefer closer to $500 but don't think there is anything down there.
Following are some samples, taken at MidOhio last weekend. This was a NASA club racing weekend that unfortunately coincided with an early April Ohio blizzard. I went out myself and track conditions were very slick in some corners.
Thanks in advance for the advice!
- Mark
0
Comments
I have the Nikon 80-400VR and love it. I get fine pics from it, its light and easily handholdable. The only drawback to the lens is its slow focusing. I've added the 300mm/f4 to my collection for bird in flight shots, etc.
You can get actions shots with the 80-400 but not easily and you will miss some shots.
Here's a recent action shot with the 80-400 and the Nikon D2h
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The Porsche pic was especially nice.
You said this was a hobby rather than a serious money maker. So save the bucks, buy the used Nikon. It is a better lens than the Sigma, and being used it is cheaper to boot.
My GF has that Nikon lens and likes it a lot. As noted, it is a touch slow on the AF. You can get around this by pre-focusing on the spot you want to take the picture. I know someone who does this with the Canon 100-400L for the same reason.
The other thing is to ask yourself what focal lengths you are shooting at often. Could you get away with a prime instead? Would be less money, more quality, at the sacrifice of flexibility.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
At least rent both and see if I'm full of it, trust me, you won't regret it. There's nothing more aggravating than being there at the right moment and not getting the shot because of the equipment...
hoping this message finds you well -Ian