I have both the 24-70 and the 70-200. I just bought the 70-200 about a week ago, and if you search my posts you can find a whole lot of pictures I've taken with it. I have also enclosed a few 70-200 shots. However, I have a Nikon D4, which is a full-frame (FX) camera, and therein lies the rub.

The 24-70 with the D7000 is the equivalent of a 36-105 zoom lens in full frame. When people are saying you want an 85mm for portraits, that is with respect to full frame and so it is actually within the range you have on the 24-70. The 24-70 is also lighter than the 70-200.

I had an 18-200 with my crop sensor D300, and then got the 24-70 because I wanted to shoot in extreme low light conditions. I noticed how much sharper it was than the 18-200 and started using it everywhere. When I wanted telephoto I would just crop the image to narrow the shot. You can't do this to an extreme and preserve image quality, but in my experience you can still get high-quality shots off a sharp lens like the 24-70 to about 3x the current focal length. So if you have a 70mm shot you could blow it up about 3x or to the equivalent of 210mm and still have a publishable shot.

If you are not an expert sports shooter, you probably want some leeway in tracking the athletes, which means a somewhat wider field of view is likely to be useful. As others have recommended, try using the 18-200 within the 24-70 and 70-200 focal length ranges and see what's most useful to you.

So for your specific needs, I think the 24-70 might serve you better. If you are planning to move to full frame, you probably want the 70-200 for your purposes. But you will gain from either lens if you move full frame, so you might want to buy the 24-70 now and save up for the 70-200 later.

Now, I do think the 70-200 is an even higher quality lens than the 24-70. The 24-70 is more likely to be replaced in the next year, and the 70-200 has a $300 rebate bounty on its head until the end of March. Those considerations might push you towards the 70-200.

I was able to borrow the Sigma 70-200 for a week while my Nikon 70-200 was on order. In my opinion the Nikon lens is far superior to the Sigma and the Sigma is about 2/3 of the price. My advice is to bite the bullet and get the Nikkor, especially with the current rebate offer.

I strongly recommend you find a local retailer that sells the 70-200 and 24-70 so you can try them out in person. My retailer, Electric Avenue in Miami, price matches B&H and so the only premium I pay to buy locally is the sales tax. It's well worth it to be able to try these very expensive products out in person, and have someone to help you when things go wrong.

Hope that helps.

D

Thank you. Appreciate the help!

I agree with brucewells and pepper. The 70-200 will give you greater versatility. Take a look at this thread which is only very recent and relates to your situation - http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-102577-1.html - and don't be afraid to look outside of canon/nikon to Sigma.

First off..I want to thank all of you for my daily devotions!! I have been a follower for well over a year! You have taught me sooooo much. I just got brave enough to sign on.
Now here's my dilemma.. I have a nikon D7000 and I really want a fast lens for both portrait and sports. I can't decide between the 24-70 2.8 (which is what i thought i wanted?) and the 70-200 2.8. I was just reading on another topic today someone saying how portrait needs to be at least 85mm. ???? I mostly just take of my grandchildren and their events!!
I went to our gymnasium and took shots from the top row of bleachers and very rarely did I need over 70mm? I also have a 50mm 1.8 and nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 lens. In a perfect world I would own both!
:-)