Lucius Loc: Denver, Colorado

I am new (just back after a long period of not taking any pictures) and still figuring out as to what I want to shot. I like land scape. Also, I shot the grandkids sporting event (basketball, football, lacrosse and track), travel, some family portraits and some street photos. This is something I do for fun and as a hobby. I have a 9.5 handicap and golf is above photograph in my priorities.

I have been looking at upgrading my lens and I understand that the faster lens (2.8 and lower) provide more flexibility in low light. But I would like to know if the 2.8 lenses produce much shaper photos. I am talking about the difference between 3.5 lenses kit lens and a Tamron, sigma or Nikon. With ISO and fill flash I can compensate some for low light, but I cannot compensate for a lens that takes sharper pictures.
It is my desire to take the sharpest photo that I can. If I have great composition and it is not that sharp a picture, it is just an OK picture

So, I am thinking of getting the new sigma 24 to 70 2.8. Then later getting a 2.8 70 to 200, although that seems a lot to carry around. I was going to continue to use my Nikon 55 to 300 to supplement the 24 to 70. But I Think, I may need a more wide angel lens (10mm or 12mm to 24mm).
Also, I have a Nikon D7000, the 18 to 105 kit lens and a 55 to 300. Also, I have an older and manual focus 24mm 2.8, 55mm and a 1.8 55mm.

The pictures I take with the current lens are OK, Except for the sports events.

On the Deck

(Download)

Wife

(Download)

Aspen

(Download)

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

The 70-200 2.8 is a fantastic lens with an equally fantastic price. The 24-70 is also very highly rated. Either one of these lenses will give very sharp results if used with proper technique. With modern lenses (even the kit lenses that come with the camera) sharpness has more to do with the photographer than the lens. The picture of Aspen is very sharp to my eye. I like that shot very much.

Lucius Loc: Denver, Colorado

I did no PP with any with the picures sent. So, I need to work on what I am doing and my tech skills rather than thinking money will make me better

Thanks alot

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

Welcome Lucius!
Thank God you're not into repeating yourself
like 4 times ! LOL

greg vescuso Loc: Ozark,Mo.

70-200 2.8 will give you a wide range for your grand kids sports, for the basketball a cheap addition would be a 50mm 1.8 but a 85mm 1.4 would be excellent for low light fast moving basketball.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I very often use a tripod. It helps steady the camera and it also helps with composition. Basketball would not be shot with a tripod, of course. I use an 85mm 1.8 for that. I bump up the ISO to around 1250 and try to shoot at 400/sec or so. That keeps things pretty sharp. Don't breathe when you press the shutter. I also hold the camera in the vertical position rather than the horizontal. It seems to give me a good perspective on the action.

amehta Loc: Boston

I use a monopod for indoor volleyball, it helps keep things a bit sharper and I don't get tired.

Either a 70-200mm f/2.8 or an 85mm f/1.8 would be excellent for your indoor basketball shots. If you want to follow a grandkid during the game, you'll want the zoom. If you can stay at one end of the court and get good shots while the kid is either on defense or offense, then the prime will work very well. The prime has five advantages: more than a stop of light, slightly better image quality, size, price, and faster autofocus. The AF sensor does better with more light, which depends on the lens maximum aperture.

amehta Loc: Boston

As long as your wife likes the shots you take of her, everything else is gravy. :-)

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Before you spend money on a lens you would do well to consider your technique. I will not comment on the verandah shot because the resolution is too low but with the wife shot, 1/6 sec is far to long a s/speed. You would have achieved a much better result by upping the ISO to say 800 which would have provided for 1/50th sec. Much more manageable. As for the Aspen shot, there is evidence of camera shake there as well as some diffraction due to your small aperture. You would have done better using f8. Rob.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I would agree with those suggesting that you examine exif data and maximize your technique and the output from your present equipment before investing in more. Having said that, www.dxomark.com is a great site to research lens and camera pairings.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

:thumbup: :thumbup:

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

A good 24-70 and 70-200 are excellent choices that will cover just about everything for photographing people. The 2.8 is definitely a benefit. I use the Sigma 24-60 and like it a lot. Alas, my 70-200 is F/4, but I am considering either the Sigma or the Tamron in the 2.8 as a replacement later this year.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

In a nutshell- the 24-70 f2.8Nikon and 70-200f2.8 are awesome. They are far sharper than your kit optics, but heavier too and $$$. Sigma and Tamron have lenses in the same range for less $, but the resale value won't be there in the future. With a 70-200f2.8 you could also consider using a 1.4 teleconverter, rather than buying a 300mm lens. Nikon also makes a 70-200 f4 with VR. If possible rent or borrow an example of each and try for your indoor sports- the f4 is sharper and lighter if it'll do what you need. The 12-24 Nikor DX is an awesome lens, and you can find them used at KEH, B&H or Adorama.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

Being a "Canon Man" I have not made use of the Nikon 70-200 2.8.... However, as both Nikon and Canon are what might be termed the most favored cameras - I would fathom a guess that both lenses are about the same, in all due respect as competitors. That being said....

My "walk around lenses" are placed on two camera different bodies. The Canon 5D Mark II has a 24 - 105mm, and the Canon 60D has a 70 - 200mm on it... Sometimes a interchange as well. Both lenses have a purpose that they do better in different circumstances, and thus, as to the why I carry two cameras with different lenses.

Point..... The 70 - 200mm is one of the best lenses (no matter who is the manufacturer). And I shoot almost every day with both.

IF you gots the Bucks.... Go with the 70 - 200mm and perhaps a 1.4X or even a 2X extender as well. I have that as well.

I really hate to Miss a Photo-opportunity.


AND -- Welcome back to the world of Photography.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

I've recently bought a 24-70mm lens for my 7D, and 50D. I am really impressed with the quality of the photos. But, note, my lens is a Tamron SP 24-70mm Di with VC, which is Tamron talk for image stabilization. This allows me to shoot the lens hand held, without a tripod. It is also f2.8 which is what you are looking for in low light performance. As of now Tamron is the only lens manufacturer who offers VC, in a f2.8 lens. Beware, the lens is on the heavy side, large diameter to accommodate the aperture, and high quality glass. The cost of lens is within line of the Sigma, but way cheaper than Canon's f2.8 version. I think Tamron is still offering a $100 rebate on the lens too. Don't forget Tamron's lenses come with a 6 year warranty.