I need to buy a zoom lens for action shots of soccer and other sports. I cannot afford a fast lens and have resigned myself to the fact that I will have to buy a f4-5.6 lens (unless I can pick up a used f2.8 for a steal). I own a Nikon camera body and am looking at all the 70-300mm possibilities. The new Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6D (ED glass) for $299 US The Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 for $220 The Sigma 70-300

Are there any direct lens comparisons anyone knows of? (besides PhotoZone?

Any experiences from people who have used BOTH of these lenses? Thanks.

-- malquades red (cosone@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999

Answers

Ahh nevermind.. Im going to reach deep into my pockets and buy the Nikon 80-200 f2.8.....

-- malqaudes red (cosone@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

If you are gonna get the 80-200, you are in for a treat because its a great lens.

There IS a reasonably priced alternative to the 80-200, however. Look for the older 70-210 f 4 AF lens. This is a constant aperture zoom, very sharp (definitely sharper than the 70-210 variable aperture zoom that Nikon brought out to replace it), light, and only one stop slower than the 80-200.

-- John Wall (john_wall@ncsu.edu), October 06, 1999.

I buyed the AF 80-200mm f/2.8 last december. What a lens! It is my favorite. I don't think you will regret it. For my the f/2.8 constant aperture is a must have.

lp

-- Louis-Philippe Masse (phisa@generation.net), October 07, 1999.

I fully agree with Louis-Philippe. Save a little longer for a 80-200/2.8: it's an investment for life. You'll save money in the long run. I've owned a 70-210/4 (Minolta), a Sigma 70-210/2.8, but if I had known better I'd bought the Nikon 80-200/2.8 straight away. Don't buy the overpriced AFS-version, stay with the excellent '2-touch tripod' version (AFD). Ivan.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), October 08, 1999.

Malquades, Good choice, to answer your first question try Photodo.com for lens reviews.

-- Charles Barbato (ChasBarb1@msn.com), October 10, 1999.