[Dave]

I'm after a decent low light level zoom around the 70-200mm range. Ideally I would like to use inside without flash. Now I would love the f/2.8 Nikon VR version but the price is a bit

For about half the dosh (£619) I can see the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM . Anybody got one ? Can you share your thoughts please. I'm especially interested to know how heavy this lens is in the real world....eg out taking shots.

Any other lenses I should consider ?

Also I've forgotten the site where you can see comparisons between lenses...can anybody remind me please

[RobertP]

Can't help you with the weight.

The Canon 70-200 F4 is pretty light. It's more the size that makes it a bit more awkward than std lenses. I know you are Nikon but the idea is the same.

I have used the F4 indoors with no flash quite successfully in the past - hand held and in tungsten lighting.

FM has reviews but you probably know that.

Another bookmark I have with lens reviews - not sure how good it may be.

My bookmarks are mainly Canon only

[Steep]

The Sigma is £459 inc delivery here DJW

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catal...products_id=45

[RobertP]

I believe kerso (where I got my 100-400) does Sigma as well as Canon. Can give you email addy if you need it.

[P-E]

I recently purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG HSM.

Not really had a chance to use it as yet but just shooting around my home I can tell you it is fast and sharp.

As for the weight I have it on a D2Hs body.........It is heavy but I do manage to walk around ok with it........if I happened to ask the missis to hold it then she wouldn't be able to for to long.

[Dave]

Thanks for replies & to Steep for great price (should have checked there as I bought the 50mm there ).

Got even more confused when I started chucking a S/H Nikon 80-200 ED f2.8 D AF zoom lens into the equation. One went for £360 yesterday on EBAY here.

Not sure which would be a better lens for the dosh now

[fingerz]

70-200mm Indoors? How big is your house, man?

Comparing an f/2.8 to an f/4 is a bit pointless. The f/2.8 will always be a fair bit heavier. The 16-35mm f/2.8L I rented the other weekend was pretty chunky. However I think the 17-40mm f/4L is pretty light, isn't it?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by fingerz

70-200mm Indoors? How big is your house, man?

:lol: Was actually thinking about being able to get tight crops at wedding receptions etc without being noticed (eg. natural poses). Ref f/4, both the Sigma & Nikon lens are f/2.8.....but you are right about the weight...might be an issue

[CT]

I used to cover weddings almost exclusively with a 28-80mm zoom which was great for most of the shots. For larger groups and interior shots I used a 24mm prime and never felt the need for anything longer or wider.

Edit ... that was using film.

[Dave]

I don't take the normal shots though I really like the tight crops of faces etc.

For anyone who is interested I got some detailed replies on the same query on FM here . Result is Sigma is best deal for those who cannot view link.

[evilowl]

I've got the Sigma 70-200 and it's excellent. It's about 1.2kg off the top of my head so with the camera attached it's not light but I can still use it handheld all day and not really get tired.

I would have liked the Nikkor 70-200 but i just couldn't justify the extra £££

[Dave]

Cheers. Jessops haven't got it in stock at the moment, but are getting one in for me. Will have a play & see if I like it.

[fingerz]

See, here's what I want to know... If Sigma can make an 18-50mm F2.8*, a 70-200mm F2.8 and also an 18-200mm F3.5-6.3...

Then why can't they make an 18-200 F2.8? I'd have that like a shot.

Like. A. Shot.

* Which I ordered yesterday :]

[evilowl]

Why not mail them and ask? If you don't ask, you don't get....