80-200 f/2.8 vs 100-300 f/4

[Slide]

I don't really find the lack of VR an issue, I've got good shots as low as 1/80th(low success rate), but anywhere from 1/100 to 1/160th produce sharp shots. If you are going to be making money off the lens you'd be crazy to go past 70-200vr though.

[Slide]

Well guys sorry to drag up an old post but I can offer some closure on this topic as I now own both.

The short of it is my 80-200 is no longer sitting in my camera bag. If you like to shoot in the extremes the sigma is hard to go past without spending alot more money.

I will hopefully get around to doing a side by side review one day.

[arthurking83]

Hope you get some good results with the Siggy Slide, 'tis a good lens.(big!!.. but good).

I suspect that when you want a telephoto lens, the minimal difference between 80mm and 100mm is not going to be noticed(missed) .. but the difference between 200mm and 300mm is going to be a lot more obvious.

I found that when I wanted nice sharp shots, my 80-200/2.8 was a bit to soft, or lacking in contrast at f/2.8 and over 150mm(or thereabouts), below that it was excellent in sharpness/contrast/bokeh/colour etc. My only reservation with that lens was at the longer focal lengths.
I found that at f/4 it started to work a lot better.

.... actually what I need is a 200-400mm zoom

[muli]

These 80-200 F/2.8 any good for sports e.g surf photography?

[Slide]

It's Probably going to be a bit short for that, you might be better with the 80-400 nikkor or the 100-300 sig + 1.4tc or one of the other super sigmas... unless you have deep pockets.

[beedee]

These 80-200 F/2.8 any good for sports e.g surf photography?

80-200mm you can get away with some sports, if you are close to the action, like club football where you can be on the sidelines.. It is ok to use say, Australian Open Tennis, enclosure courts and even stadium courts like Margaret Court Arena..

300mm or longer is best for major sporting events.