Silverrails

Yes, remember the Nikon crop factor of 1.5 (actual field of View, or Angle of View), so for instance, a 300mm lens x 1.5 = 450mm. Canon is 1.6

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and the latest Nikon 70-300 FX lens - I forget the exact nomenclature .....Maybe $1000 for both new unless you shop hard.
.

Dossile

I usually recommend getting fx compatible upgrades in case you head that way on your next camera purchase. Others may disagree because of the comparative diminished cost of dx lenses still with good quality. If you are shooting outdoors sports, a number of lenses will work, like the 28-300. If indoor action and sport photos are on the agenda, a faster lens is important. Nikon makes a series of nicely priced f4 lenses with image stabilization which carve at least $1000 from the f2.8 versions. The 70-200 f2.8 is phenomenal and can be fitted with an 1.4 extender for outside sports, keeping a very sharp image while sacrificing some speed in the sunlight. Good luck. Lens purchases are tough because of so many good options.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Hi, I've used DX and FX Nikon cameras/lenses. Upgrading your gear doesn't seem to include a need for really long lenses. The Nikon 70-300 DX is sharp for your DX sensor and much less expensive if used compared to new anything, maybe under $200.

But, suggest you take all recommendations here and look up the tests at www.dxomark.com. Go to the "Lenses" database, input your camera model or something similar and the focal range you are considering. The comparison charts will display in the lower screen. Then, click on the "sharpness" column header. This will reset the listings to put the sharpest lens at the top and the less sharp lenses lower in the listings. When it comes to a lens nearer to the bottom of the listings, this is usually an ultra wide to ultra long lens - an image, but not suitable for most photographers' needs.

armandoluiz Loc: Oppland, Norway

I highly recommend the Sigma 10-20 for real state and landscape and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, this last one is amazing.

Dossile

I would agree with the suggestion to look at the new Sigma 70-200 2.8

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Any of the f/2.8 lenses would be a good choice, especially for the action of sports. Looking at your picture, it's hard to believe you have grandchildren at all, let alone old enough to play sports.

david vt Loc: Vermont

I have the 16-80 f2.8-4. I absolutely agree with CO’s comments. This DX lens is my least favorite of any I have. It was so noisy I sent it back to Nikon to get it fixed, and it did not come back any better. further, I don’t always think it is sharp focus. Now that I know about the 16-85, I will likely search out that lens. While I don’t want to give up the stop, it is likely worth it as a general “walk about” lens

uhaas2009

What kind of body you will use in a long run? Is a different if you use FF or DX body. After I got my 810 I don’t like to use my d7000 anymore....lol.... I have the 70-300 mm VR, G f5.6 what is a good lens. Then I got 70-200mm 2.8 (Button on body) and I followed Steve perry for birding.
I shut a lots of Great skateboarding, soccer, basketball kids with my 7000 and the 70-300mm but I would always but the camera down and watch the birds fly by....the focus system, higher iso and shutter speed is way more limited vs my 810. Google ken Rockwell he writes about equipment.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

You've certainly got the RIGHT idea. What's more important than the glass.?? Particularly if it will fit your present and future cameras. ......RJM

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

I'll second this recommendation. My friend put the 16 - 85 on his D7200 and it takes incredibly sharp photos while giving you a modest zoom capability. When he bought that, I purchased Nikon's 18 - 200 mm lens which I really like. Both are considered Nikon "workhorses."

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

On the other hand, when the subject is grandchildren (if they come from the same planet as mine) being quick to record the unexpected near the central part of the frame with a wide range of focal lengths matters more than IQ corner to corner. Family snaps can afford using a high ISO just to get the shot with minimal blur. For sports, every f-stop matters and I would not be concerned with the range on the short end at the expense of aperture. I would probably not use the same long length lens around family gatherings versus sports events unless I am near the bench and shots of the team and staff are on the list.

CRoy

So many choices. The 70-200 2.8 may be a good choice for me. I don’t want to duplicate another wide angle lens since it’s very specific when I use it. But getting the 70-200 with extender may work well.

I prefer not to use flash and with young kids moving so quickly, I really need a faster lens to capture them. Kit lenses are fine but a moving target requires better lenses in my opinion.

Thanks for the complement Jerry! I have 4 grandkids!!!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Good morning. It's not clear exactly what you are wanting to accomplish when you say that you want to "upgrade" your lens collection. When I read through the list of things that you say you want to phoyltograph, though, it seems pretty counterproductive to weigh your camera down with big, heavy, bulky lenses that aren't particularly fast, especially since with about one exception, there really are no "premium" DX lenses.

Please note that I am not specifically familiar with your camera, so you will need to check for compatibility, but there are two important recommendations that you have not received here. I have personal experience with both, and they both provide excellent service on my D500.

The first is the 17-55mm f2.8 Gold Ring zoom. As far as I know, it is really the only "professional" grade Nikkor DX lens. While some (maybe many) will say that the zoom range is limited, it is sufficient. I've used mine with various cameras for about 12 years, and it does a great job. Very sharp, outstanding color transmission, does everything else well. It doesn't have VR, but you really shouldn't miss it at those focal lengths, which range from serious wide angle to portrait. It is still available new, but is pretty expensive.

The other is the 24-120mm f4 zoom. It gives up some on the wide angle end, but gives a lot more on the long end. This lens gets bad mouthed here as a full frame lens, but I find that it does great on a DX camera. There are several versions, but that is much more important if you are going to use it on a full frame camera. It does have VR, and very nice used ones are available for around $450.

I agree with comments made here about the 16-80mm zoom. If it were selling for $400, like the old 18-70 DX zoom, it would be worth considering. But it is in no way a $1000 lens.

Have fun deciding.