Sigma 70-200 2.8 worth it over Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6
In what situation will I absolutely need the 2.8 aperture over 4.5-5.6?
Sports for one, the faster lens will offer a narrower depth of field which may be advantageous when taking portraits and wanting to isolate the subject against the background.
I have the 70-200/2.8 Nikkor that I use for photographing water polo and I am very satisfied http://www.pbase.com/windancer/waterpolo
Is it just low light fast action or anything low light like concerts?
It can be a huge help in this type of photography
Can I still shoot fast action in good light like birds and air shows?
Sure, your technique will be very important though.
I'm also not sure what do get 200+ if I go with a 70-200 lens.
Personally I have a Nikkor 300/4 to go along with my 70-200 and IMO this is a very good combo, once again see my water polo photos.
Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.
|Post (hide subjects)||Posted by||When|
|Mar 14, 2012|
|Mar 14, 2012|
|Quick by Fausto Zamparelli|
from An A to Z of Subjects- Week 17, Q
|Butterfly by sinigersky|
from Close up image without a macro lens