Need lense opinion: I'm looking at a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that does not have image stabilization. Has anyone used this lense and how much of a dis-advantage would no OS be if this...

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

I'm looking at a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that does not have image stabilization. Has anyone used this lense and how much of a dis-advantage would no OS be if this lense were used primarily for night and indoor sports photography.
Here is the lense total description Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO.
The price is right for $700.00 but it has to do the job.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Not happy to throw a negative so quickly at your question but indoor sports ask a lot of a lens. Certainly f2.8 is a bonus but so is IS especially for hand-held indoor sports.

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

Bones are OK. Thats why I posed the question.
Thought...with the higher shutter speeds is no OS still a HUGE factor?

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Jimbo9948 wrote:

Bones are OK. Thats why I posed the question.
Thought...with the higher shutter speeds is no OS still a HUGE factor?

Jimbo, there have been a lot of posts about basketball in gyms recently. Do a search here on the Hog and see what others have found. In most indoor venues you will struggle even at 2.8 to maintain at least 1/320 to 500 shutter speed and a relatively low ISO so if IS can buy you a stop or two somewhere in the exposure triangle it is a bonus but not necessarily a game changer. You don't say what camera you are using so I have no idea what a comfortable ISO is for you.

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

Db7423 wrote:

quote=Jimbo9948 Bones are OK. Thats why I posed t... (show quote)

D-7000.

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

I'm Thinking about a shorter lense or just a nifty-fifty for B-Ball. Had this 2.8 penciled in for Football, Soccer and Baseball night games

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Jimbo9948 wrote:

I'm looking at a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that does not have image stabilization. Has anyone used this lense and how much of a dis-advantage would no OS be if this lense were used primarily for night and indoor sports photography.
Here is the lense total description Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO.
The price is right for $700.00 but it has to do the job.

Jim:
FYI - Nikon claiming new prime lenses with VR can give up to four stop advantage.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Jimbo9948 wrote:

I'm Thinking about a shorter lense or just a nifty-fifty for B-Ball. Had this 2.8 penciled in for Football, Soccer and Baseball night games

Unless you plan to do a lot of cropping the nifty fifty won't be good for baseball. The 70-200 2.8 would be much better. At least my experience. Come to think of it a lens that goes to 300mm would be even better for all the sports. Even with the 2.8 night sports will be a challenge. Hopefully your camera can give good photos at high ISO. Taking photos of action sports at night will pose numerous challenges to overcome. And will require an investment in the right equipment.

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

charles brown wrote:

Jimbo9948 wrote:

I'm Thinking about a shorter lense or just a nifty-fifty for B-Ball. Had this 2.8 penciled in for Football, Soccer and Baseball night games

Unless you plan to do a lot of cropping the nifty fifty won't be good for baseball. The 70-200 2.8 would be much better. At least my experience.

Nifty-Fifty assignment was Basketball. sorry for the confusion and thajks for the input. Overall CB, based on the price would you pull the trigger on the 70-200?

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The D7000 can deliver good results at higher ISO's so you could maintain 320 or so at f2.8 - 3.2 at an ISO >1600 and < 4000 depending on the specific lighting at the venues you mentioned. For basketball the 50 1.8 is great if you are covering at one end or the other at The corner or under the basket.

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

Db7423 wrote:

The D7000 can deliver good results at higher ISO's so you could maintain 320 or so at f2.8 - 3.2 at an ISO >1600 and < 4000 depending on the specific lighting at the venues you mentioned. For basketball the 50 1.8 is great if you are covering at one end or the otherat he corner or under the basket.

That's sort of what I was thinking. I have covered Basketball for a local weekly newspaper with a 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 at 6400 ISO and got away with it. But then again thats newspaper print LOL.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Jimbo9948 wrote:

quote=Db7423 The D7000 can deliver good results a... (show quote)

If the 70-200 is for photos for the same newspaper go for it. If you are not happy with the results you can sell it and try again.

Jimbo9948 Loc: Zephyrhills, Florida

Db7423 wrote:

quote=Jimbo9948 quote=Db7423 The D7000 can deliv... (show quote)

Good idea Db. That's probably what I'm going to do.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

I must admit am reluctant to say yes to the purchase of a lens because it doesn't have VR. You don't say what you will be doing with the photos, and that can make difference. Now that I think about it would say no despite being a good price. And that you would eventually regret if and be sorry you didn't get VR.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Jimbo9948 wrote:

I'm looking at a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that does not have image stabilization. Has anyone used this lense and how much of a dis-advantage would no OS be if this lense were used primarily for night and indoor sports photography.
Here is the lense total description Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO.
The price is right for $700.00 but it has to do the job.

I use this very lens regularly for sports shooting. I bought the non-OS version primarily because I have never used OS in the range of this lens anyway, and I have never regretted that decision. It works for me. And what did we all do BEFORE OS was invented? Personally I always found a way to brace myself if needed, or use a tripod or monopod when required. From 300mm out I do like the OS capability when not on a tripod, but I never shoot over 500mm without a tripod anyway.