Which Telephoto Lens...

[evader]

I have had my eye on the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lens for a while now…I've been saving my pennies and am about half way there. I'm just now wondering if I should be thinking about the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 instead…as it is a lot less money.

I'm currently shooting with a D60 and I'm starting to get more into sports photography and I'm finding my kit 55-200 lens is just too slow. Currently I'm shooting mostly my sons house league soccer and baseball but will be starting to shoot high school sport in the fall...both indoor and outdoor.

I'm just wondering if anyone has any experience with either of the lens's and what you think. What are the main differences between the 2? Is it just the VR and does the VR make a huge difference when shooting sports?

Is there another lens you would recommend instead of one of those two I mentioned?

Any help and or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

[Aegea]

I'm not familiar with either of those lenses, but on the VR question, I don't think it is really essential for sports. You will need to have a fast shutter speed anyway to freeze the action, so VR won't do much. In fact, IIRC Thom Hogan recommends turning VR off at high shutter speeds.

[kirbinster]

Yes but you won't always be shooting at high speeds, and VR can be a big plus, especially with a heavy lens like that. My Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR is my favorite lens - it is super sharp. I can't comment on that Sigma lens, but I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that I replaced with a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and the Nikon is far superior - I would imagine that to be the case with the 70-200 as well. As far as price, for a non-full frame sensor there is really no need for the new model - see if you can find a used VR-I version of the lense. You can find these for somewhere around $1400 - $1500.

[sk66]

IMO, if you get a good copy of the sigma the biggest difference will be VR. If you get the OS version, you'll have stabilization.

I have found that, at this level, there are differences between examples within any brand and between brands, but the differences in image quality are usually relatively minor. One might have a bit better contrast, different color cast, less CA in demanding scenes...etc.

This can be significant if working SOOC or to streamline your post workflow, for me it is mostly a non-issue.

I do prefer my better lenses, but I can get very good images from all of them with little effort.

[Shokinen]

One thing you can do is rent both lens and try them on the field.

You'll get a better opinion if the Nikon is really worth it for you. You will also have the opportunity to compare your images using your own equipment / software.

Yes you'll be losing a little bit of money but this is what I would do before spending that amount on 1 lens.

My 2 cents