Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

Get the 70-200 faR MNORE USEFUL THAN THE 24-70 because that is simply too short of a range to be useful. (sorry capslocks stuck). You will get more use out of the longer range everywhere,even indoors and of course out doors. For your next lens get some thing wide like a 12-24 again far more useful to add to your kit. When ever you need 25-69 either move back or closer with one of the other lenses.

Annie Girl wrote:

"...With the 70-200 you might find you don't have enough room in a typical sized living room to back up to get the shot you want. The 24-70 might be enough of a reach without pushing you awkwardly into corners of the room..."

If all you will ever do is shoot in doors in that room then yes that is fine for a lens, but the majority of anyone's shooting is going to be outdoors and the longer lens give far more use of range than the 24-70 ever will, indoors or outdoors, so maybe not the best advise to go with a 24-70 for probably 95% of shooters. Another thing to remember is that if you bought a 24-70 you next purchase would have to be two lenses to cover both ends of the zoom range that you do not have covered with the 24-70mm.

Ahchu Loc: Northeast PA

I agree with Rick, try out the lens on your camera at a camera store, and see how you like the feel and balance. I just purchased a Sigma 70 -200 f2.8. It heavy, big, fast to focus, and takes wonderful photos. I have not had the chance to use it in doors yet. The weight is not a problem for me now. But you should check them for yourself. I have a Nikon D 7000, and D5000 also.

wsherman Loc: New York

Would do whatever is possible to afford the 2.8. Well worth the extra $$. Special lens. Go for it.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Now these are photos!

ThomasS Loc: Colorado

[quote=Nana Jules]

If you are using it on a D7000, and have limited space to work with, the 70-200 would be too long. Keep in mind that the 24-70, when used on your D7000, is more like a 36-105 would be on a full frame camera, like the D800.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Remember that the 70 side of the 70-200F2.8 will on your D7000 be a 105 due to crop factor Yes I also think first choice would be the 70/200 it's a great lens and it also makes sense that you are building class glass set on the FX side of cameras paving the the way. At some point you'll be moving up to FX sensor After you have gotten the 70-200 you could sell the 18-200 and put the cash toward the 24-70 both great lenses

My 2 cents

wsherman Loc: New York

Maybe the D800 will follow. Not a bad idea.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Even before I read the whole thread, I should point out that the reference to 85mm for portraits is for full frame (FX) cameras. Your D7000 is a DX camera and the equivalent lens is 56mm, so you should look a a 50 or 60mm lens for portraits. Sports is another issue.

shutterbum

Give renting each of the lenses you are thinking about for a week a try, then decide. Personalloy, I like my 70-200.

Thom S Loc: Alaska

I own the D7000 and have more lens than I can justify. The 18-200mm is a good lens and is the one I travel with. Good versatility but too slow for sports. I also own the 24-70mm & 70-200mm. Hands down the 70-200mm Nikon f2.8 is the sharpest lens I own and I will never be without one. The 24-70mm is my next favorite lens. Since you have the 50mm f1.8 I recommend the 70-200mm - fabulous lens.

country Loc: back woods

70-200...

dmg61 Loc: Alberta

As always lots of good advice here and I will offer a bit of my own for the first time. As an advanced amateur who has taken thousands of photos of my kids and their sports activities I would say it depends on the type of activities and the types of photos you want to achieve. The vast majority of my photos have been of volleyball and basketball. If you are going for a general overall shot of the activity then the 24-70 is probably adequate but if you want "close ups" then the 70-200 might be the best option. I purchased the 24-70 f2.8 but many times wish I had the 70-200 f2.8 to get a good close up of the action. If you are shooting mostly in a gymnasium setting then stick with the f2.8. I ended up purchasing a fixed 85mm f1.8 lense to better freeze the action and most times find I have to shoot at IS0 800 and f2.0 or f2.2 to be able to get a fast enough shutter speed in these limited light situations. With anything higher than ISO 800 with my Canon 7D I find noise starts to becomes an issue and I'm not happy with the results. Ideally it would be good if you could rent either lense for a few days to help you make your decision but that may only be possible if you live in a larger city where this type of rental is offered. A few unedited examples attached.

David Dennis Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

Interestingly enough, close distance might not be much of an issue since you can just crop your shots. There are plenty of megapixels to be had in the 7D to take those shots and crop them closer to the action.

That being said, one advantage of the 70-200 might be smaller depth of field. I notice most of the frame is in focus in most of these shots, and they would definitely be more attractive if the subject was in focus and the rest of the shot blurred. That draws attention to the subject, and of course with more of a telephoto lens you will get that effect.

Of course you know that when you do this, fewer of your shots will come out well, but those that do will be better.

You don't need to live in a major city to rent lenses anymore. Anyone in the USA can rent a 70-200 from BorrowLenses.com:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Nikon_70-200_f2.8_VR_II

Renting is a little expensive - to rent the lens for a week costs about 5% of the purchase price. So unless you are really and truly on the fence, you might want to put that 5% towards buying the lens. It's worth noting that these lenses hold their value very well, so if you really hate the lens for some reason, you probably won't lose much money if you buy it and then sell it.

By all means get the 70-200 if it won't break the bank for you. The quality is absolutely awesome; I think I've shared a few shots in this thread and elsewhere on the site that prove the point :).

D

snapper123 Loc: North Wales U.K.

The difference between 2.8 and 4 is that you can see a little better through the viewfinder, most lenses are not at their best wide open be it 2.8 or 4 in other words the image gained is not as sharp. The best image quality is usually two stops down from wide open,using an f4 that would be f8. Hope this helps,best regards John D.

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

I also have the sigma 70-200mm2.8, and it's a fantastic lens. I have both the canon and nikon versions. I bought the versions with the OS. Highly recommend them.

I also have the canon 24-70 2.8L and the nikon 24-70mm2.8. love them also.

I wouldn't want to have to make a decision now as to which one i could live without!!!

Probably, if i had to, I would definitely pick the 70-200 first and the the 24-70 second.