Dear Friends, Sigma has a fairly new lens out, a 70-200mm f2.0 made for digital cameras. I simply cannot afford a Nikkor of similar values. So, here is the situation and a request for your advice. Please note, in years past I used fairly nice rangefinder cameras and even the SLR concept of digital is new to me. (I must say, the sound of the shutter click of a digital SLR is refreshing, even if the rangefinder was quieter.) Considering the Sigma lens, does anyone have advice on this particular lens? Most importantly, in choosing a telephoto for nature images which I love, some advice is dearly needed. Most of my shooting is from perhaps 30ft to 100 ft (9m 31m), from experience. I am looking for a lens to bring me closer. The 200mm lens is close to about 300mm in 35mm format; this tells me the magnification factor is about 6x. This is magnification as in a binocular and not the zoom factor. From this I beleive visually through the lens to get about 5ft to 17ft of the image object? (1.5m -5m) If so, 200mm(with digital factor of 1.5x) is ideal for me. I have not used a telephoto lens before. I need something decent and affordable and at the same time not too, too bulky. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Any thoughts on telephoto will be appreciated. Thanks for ANY input. TomDart.

One thing to keep in mind that using a different brand name will slow the focus down. This is what I have been told anyway. That on my D70 if I get a Sigma the focus on the camera would be slowed down. Never did a check so I trusted the guys word. More than just one person told me that. I have seen shots on the walls in that camera store that were done with a sigma telephoto as you describe and they looked very impressive. I was just there on the weekend so that was a topic of my discussion too.

Dear dBgrafix, Thanks for the reply. I will look for your discussion. Your images are impressive..as an older guy on a new bend, this is the kind of stuff I need to see along with that of the other really good ones here. Thanks again, Tom.

I've always been pleased with my Sigma lenses. In this 70-200mm focal length, I do own the Canon L lens, which is very nice, but also expensive and heavy. It is my favorite "zoo" lens, but truthfully it would be nice having a little farther reach. A 200mm on a digital camera (200mm X 1.6 = 320mm) may be perfect. The real Canon lens (and I'm guessing the same would be true for a Nikon), does focus extremely fast. However I've never really been discouraged by the Sigma's focusing maybe a little slower. Depending on the cost difference, the Sigma could be a very nice buy.

By seeing Mishas gallery I would take that advice anyday!

I brought the Sigma 28-300mm when I got my Canon body (just to get me up and running at the time)...gave me some nice shots... also have the Sigma 105mm Macro and Sigma 15-30 wide angle. Gradually changing over to Canon lens's, for the optics and speed. I guess its not fair to give comparisons but the wrong lens on good body is like driving a ferrarri with the handbrake on..!!! Good luck in your choice :)

I have only Sigmas fro the same reason. money. I will admit that they are great lenses. I will tell you though, don't go by the magnification factor. If you need 300mm in 35, then get 300 in digital too. It will save you from wanting later. I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM and I will be honest it is a great bang for the $800, but I find myself wanting 400-500mm often when shooting nature. The 2x converter helps but cuts the 2.8 to 5.6 and that hurts. Overall, Sigma = great lenses Magick Michael

A medium telephoto? You can get a lens to take photo's of GHOSTS?!? Wow. Whatever next? (",)

I've got the Sigma 70-300 Super Macro.. I like it so far.. great bang for buck so to speak. Overall I've been pleased with the Sigma lenses I have. It isn't slower than the Nikon 70-300 I have, but it is sharper.

Sigma user. They make a great lens.