Sorry for bothering but I'd like to have an opinion about a lens.
I see you've got the 70-200 F2.8 with a 24-70; I own 24-120 and would like to buy the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, it has a good price. In your opinion, is it worth the money or would I use just a little?
I thought I could use it, e.g., for my son's shows at school; low light and so F2.8 is ok, distance and so the zoom 70-200 comes in handy.
Am I right?
Thanks in advance,
Never a bother! The answer becomes about economics first. Can you afford a lens in your budget that might see limited use based on what you do. I love my 70-200 2.8 (currently the sharpest lens I own and spot on AF), for me this is a hobby and I make no money from it (an occasional couple of dollars here but I am not advertising as a business because my life is too hectic)... I decided the cost of the lens (I bought for 785 used I think) was worth the cost of paying a pro for recital pictures over a period of a few years... and our dance studio doesn't have a pro at our dance recitals so was a no brainer. I use it pretty much only for those indoor times and occasionally on the softball field where the focal length isn't too bad to use because the field is smaller.
As you already know the 2.8 is perfect for low light and the 70-200 now allows me to go wide enough when I need to get a full stage shot or a large group shot and zooms close enough that I can get fairly detailed shots. And even on some, I can still do a heavy crop and get nice results - not award winning but I am happy with the results and other dancers love them compared to their phone or point and shoot results. The only drawback is that now when I am taking the pictures I tend to be in the back of the theatre in order to get a good angle and be able to use the full focal range well.
So the economics only you can answer, the rest is a big fat YES!!!