How does the sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens perform on a nikon d3000?
I have been shooting for over a year now and use a d3000 an 18-55 kit lens and a 35mm f1.8. I want something with more range to use for portraits, and eventually photographing school sports events. I was considering the sigma 24-70 f2.8, but don't think there's enough range for down the road if I want to shoot football. I know the d3000 isn't the best body to be shooting sports with, but will it do with the 70-200? Is it worth spending more to buy the APO or OS version (I'm on a low budget)?
The Sigma 70-200 will work nicely on your D3000, auto-focus and all.
If you're worried about reach for football, quality telephoto lenses like the 70-200 can take a 1.4x tele-converter for 280mm @ f/4, or a 2x TC for 400mm @ f/5.6. The image quality with a 1.4x TC is still good, with a 2x TC not so much. Also invest in a monopod with this kind of reach.
Between the older Sigma design ($800 retail) and the new OS version ($1700 retail), get the old one. Sigma must be smoking crack if they think the new version will be a huge seller at THAT price.
Between the Sigma 70-200 and the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, get the Sigma. If focuses a tiny bit faster - obviously very welcome for sports photography.
Between a new Sigma and a used one, get a used one. If you can afford $800, you can also afford $1000 for a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. Or perhaps even $1350 for a used Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR l.
And do you really want to pay for f/2.8 at all, or is the $450 Nikon 70-300mm VR good enough? Or perhaps even better, with the extra reach and VR included in that $450 price tag. (For night time games, f/2.8 is a no-brainer. For day time games, f/5.6 could be good enough.)
Finally, after all of this, consider something completely different for portraits. 70mm is very long for portraits unless you mainly do head shots. I personally use a 50mm f/1.4 on a DX sensor. Unfortunately, here you do have the AF compatibility issue. Nikon makes several 50mm lenses but the only one that will focus on the D3000 is the $410 AF-S version. It could well be worth the investment to upgrade your D3000 to a D90/ D7000, just to be able to use cheaper lenses… But that's a different essay. Enough for now.
DPReview.com did a great review and comparison of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 compared to Tamron's Canon and Nikons.
Check out the review for a much better understanding.
I shoot weddings and my 2 main lenses for those are a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8. The 24-70 f2.8 is my all around lens and is absolutely FABULOUS. I, of course use the canon models, not the sigma ones.