Decision on lens to buy
Aug 16, 2012 21:01:58 #
micki
Loc: Wilmington, NC
Hi everyone, first let me say that I have made it a ritual of reading this forum every night. There is much respect to all of you that help others, thanks. This is the second time that I have posted a question on this forum, I reckon that I am so interested in everyone else's articles that I forget to ask my own. Well here it goes, I am looking at 2 lens, the 80-200 2.8, and the 28-300 for my D7000. I will be shooting wildlife and sports (football) this coming Autumn of my grandson who is 8 years old. Also, in October I will be going to the Great Smokie's in TN, and I am looking for something to capture the spectacular color's of Fall. I have an 18-105mm and 50 mm 1.8 lens at the present time, I'm just looking to upgrade a bit to a little more professional lens. Maybe next year, I will try for the 70m 200 2.8, right now I am on a budget and a trip coming up. Any advice would be helpful.
Aug 16, 2012 21:15:35 #
I think it will be very hard to beat the Nikon 28-300mm VR II lens for what you are wanting to do. The D7000 has fantastic low noise at ISO 3200 which will make that lens a great choice for football so long as you keep the VR turned on. I love that lens on my D7000, and its a stellar performer on my D800E also!
As for the 80-200mm F2.8? Its a very good lens, depending on which version you are looking at. The slide zoom model is terribly slow to AF on the newer DSLRs, but is a nice, sharp lens. The two ring model is sharper and a bit faster focusing, but is heavy and has no tripod collar. The last version of that lens was an AF-S lens with a tripod collar, and while these are hard to find used, and usually quite expensive, they are pretty much as good as the newer 70-200mm F2.8 for 2/3 the price.
As for the 80-200mm F2.8? Its a very good lens, depending on which version you are looking at. The slide zoom model is terribly slow to AF on the newer DSLRs, but is a nice, sharp lens. The two ring model is sharper and a bit faster focusing, but is heavy and has no tripod collar. The last version of that lens was an AF-S lens with a tripod collar, and while these are hard to find used, and usually quite expensive, they are pretty much as good as the newer 70-200mm F2.8 for 2/3 the price.
Aug 16, 2012 21:25:56 #
micki
Loc: Wilmington, NC
Thanks MT Shooter, I have been researching both of these lens for the past 2 weeks. There are great reviews and photo's of both lens. Like you said, I didn't know about the slide zoom on the 80-200 2.8 until I researched it. Thank you for your response.
Aug 16, 2012 21:39:39 #
Anytime. If you were to shoot fall colors with that 28-300mm, I would venture to guess you would quit carrying the 18-105mm. But its a good one to sell too! LOL
Aug 16, 2012 21:59:52 #
micki
Loc: Wilmington, NC
You must be a mind reader too, that is exactly what I am planning to do. Don't get me wrong, the 18-105mm is a very good lens for starting out, or for a carry around lens. It has taken some great photo's. I am just ready to get upgraded to a little bit better glass.
Aug 16, 2012 22:02:33 #
Not a mind reader, its just a decision that makes sense. Lose the DX lenses and stay with full frame glass, its better quality glass, and you get to keep using it when you finally move up to FX bodies. And you will if you stick with photography........one day.
Aug 17, 2012 09:15:40 #
Would the 28-300 VR II lens work well for shooting hockey? The lighting inside rinks can vary. Would there be much difference between a 1.8 and 2.8 for hockey?
Thanks,
Rich
Thanks,
Rich
Aug 17, 2012 10:35:14 #
If you are going to shoot sports, either indoor or at night, you must have at least a 2.8 lens. You are basically wasting your time with anything else.
Also, I know this wasn't the lens mentioned, but the Nikon 70-200 2.8VR is the base lens for this type of shooting. Since the VRII came out, the VR lens has dropped in price and you may be able to pick one up for $1200-1500. In the end, shooting indoor sports can only be successfully done with good equipment. But the shots you get will make up for the cost.
The 28-300 may be a great lens for some type shots, but it is really not something you want for sports shots.
Also, I know this wasn't the lens mentioned, but the Nikon 70-200 2.8VR is the base lens for this type of shooting. Since the VRII came out, the VR lens has dropped in price and you may be able to pick one up for $1200-1500. In the end, shooting indoor sports can only be successfully done with good equipment. But the shots you get will make up for the cost.
The 28-300 may be a great lens for some type shots, but it is really not something you want for sports shots.
Aug 17, 2012 11:23:22 #
Hi Micki, I have the 80-200 2.8D and D7000. The 80-200 is a great lens. Pictures are very sharp, af is reasonably fast considering its not the afs version but its about half the price of the 70-200 afs with vr. I've taken many pictures with it hand held without any problems. It is the two ring version and it does have a tripod collar which is permanently attached.
Aug 17, 2012 12:03:01 #
Based on some research, it looks like the 70-200mm VRII would be an excellent lens for hockey. At $2,399.00 it is a bit expensive so I should probably just rent one when I need it.
Rich
Rich
Aug 17, 2012 20:51:42 #
For wildlife and sports, the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 and 2X extenders. If you get rid of the 18-105 - what are you going to use for wide angle ?
Aug 17, 2012 22:09:56 #
Hi Micki! I too have a Nikon D7000 & love it! As of July 2012 Nikon has the brand new Nikon 18-300DX Lense ( 27-450 in one cool lense) which I bought & love !!!! If you get this it will replace all of your other lenses & is so convenient it is my go to lense everyday. Check it out , it is a little heavy but solid & dependable! Oh the Good News $999- @ Adorama + free Shipping. Good Luck! Glen
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.