Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hark" data-source="post: 134906" data-attributes="member: 13196">I own the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and doubt it would be much different than your Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. And I'm sure the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 would be a good alternative although I haven't tried one out personally.&nbsp; Have you considered the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED? Prior to buying my Sigma, I watched a Moose Peterson video where he said pros use it so I tried it out. It met my needs and it works great! It is definitely lighter than my Sigma, and although I can't achieve the bohek of an f/2.8 or f/4 with this lens, I do get more reach. It is sharp (a tad soft at 300mm though) and holds up well against my Sigma sharpness wise. It is @$800 less than the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, offers more reach, but won't offer the bokeh of the f/4. It all depends upon your needs which one might work best for you. Comparing the specs between Nikon's 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and Nikon's 70-200mm f/4, this (70-300mm) comes in @4oz lighter than the latter.Here is the video: <a href="http://www.moosenewsblog.com/2009/05/nikons-best-kept-secret" target="_blank">Nikon’s Best Kept Secret : Moose Peterson's Website</a>&nbsp;And here is more info on the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html" target="_blank">Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED 2161 B&amp;H</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="hark, post: 134906, member: 13196"] I own the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and doubt it would be much different than your Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. And I'm sure the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 would be a good alternative although I haven't tried one out personally. Have you considered the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED? Prior to buying my Sigma, I watched a Moose Peterson video where he said pros use it so I tried it out. It met my needs and it works great! It is definitely lighter than my Sigma, and although I can't achieve the bohek of an f/2.8 or f/4 with this lens, I do get more reach. It is sharp (a tad soft at 300mm though) and holds up well against my Sigma sharpness wise. It is @$800 less than the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, offers more reach, but won't offer the bokeh of the f/4. It all depends upon your needs which one might work best for you. Comparing the specs between Nikon's 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and Nikon's 70-200mm f/4, this (70-300mm) comes in @4oz lighter than the latter. Here is the video: [URL="http://www.moosenewsblog.com/2009/05/nikons-best-kept-secret"]Nikon’s Best Kept Secret : Moose Peterson's Website[/URL] And here is more info on the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6: [URL="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html"]Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED 2161 B&H[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification