stevetassi

I own this lens for my Nikon D750 and it’s awesome.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundup/lens-roundup/best-70-200mm-tele-zoom-lenses-64789
https://petapixel.com/2015/03/28/just-the-lenses-the-great-200mm-shoot-out/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=that+nikon+guy+70-200mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=946&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Tamron vs Sigma
https://www.bestadvisor.com/lenses/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-g2-vs-sigma-70-200mm
https://versus.com/en/sigma-apo-70-200mm-f2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-vs-tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6jqqiw

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I will defer to your expertise as far as DOF since I shoot mostly events rather than sports, and I like having a wide DOF since I can change the DOF in post to be narrow, but I can't widen it.



The question is whether the OP is interested in shots of the game or of one specific player. Since the OP appears to be interested in his Grandkids, I'd say that the specific player is the primary subject, so the long focal length is desirable. Also, this is a grandparent, not a reporter, so access to the baseline or the sideline is not likely to be available. The shots will most likely be from the stands.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Tamron and Sigma will produce as good of photos on the low resolution D500.
Many here use them with superb results for sports and save money.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

DirtFarmer posted "I will defer to your expertise as far as DOF since I shoot mostly events rather than sports, and I like having a wide DOF since I can change the DOF in post to be narrow, but I can't widen it."

Question for DirtFarmer....did you really mean to say DOF? It seems to me you might be referring to Field of View, as you're talking about wide and narrow. In my experience, shallow and deep are more understood to refer to DOF.

Also, how exactly can you change DOF in post?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Keep an open mind about a shorter zoom with a wider minimum aperture. Sitting close to the sidelines, most of my longer shots were 130 or so.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I meant to say DOF, not FOV.

And as far as semantics go, shallow might be a better term.

To change DOF in post involves the ability to select the subject and blur other things. Technically, I'm not really changing the DOF, I'm just blurring the background (and/or foreground). To simulate DOF I would have to do this selectively to blur things further behind the subject more, but I don't usually go to that level. And since I'm blurring the background/foreground I am making the "DOF" shallower. I have not found a really good way to sharpen something that is blurred in the original, so making the "DOF" deeper is not possible (with current technology).

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

Thanks for the explanation.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

1) If you click "quote reply" under the post you are responding to as I did here, we can tell who you are addressing.

2) shooting at a basketball game is difficult. As previously stated, you need to use a high ISO to get a fast shutter to stop action. If your camera has it, you need to also use the flicker eliminator as fluorescent (and LED) lights flicker worse than tungsten.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If you want to purchase new, you have exactly four choices of 70-200mm f/2.8 for use on a D500.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_70-200mm_f_2.8E_FL_ED_VR_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_70-200mm_f_2.8G_ED_VR_II_Lens_vs_Sigma_70-200mm_f_2.8_DG_OS_HSM_Sports_Lens_for_Nikon_F_vs_Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_G2_Lens_for_Nikon_F/BHitems/1292140-REG_644741-GREY_1436298-REG_1317272-REG

I would recommend you do a deep dive of research on each of those, to help you decide. You will have a hard time finding someone who has used them all.

I have little doubt that all four of those lenses are quite capable. The differences in image quality are probably rather minimal.

It may be other factors that set one lens or another apart. For example...

- Look closely at autofocus performance. Basketball is quite fast action and you need a lens that can keep up... acquiring focus instantly and tracking well. The D500 has an excellent AF system, so the lens... along with your setup, skill and technique... will decide whether you get a good percentage of focused images or not.

- Weight can be a consideration. The Sigma (like most Sigma) is a bit larger and about a half lb. heavier than the other three lenses. That doesn't sound like much, but can become a factor toward the end of a two hour game!

- One way to deal with weight is to use a tripod... of, possibly better, a monopod. If you use the common Arca-Swiss compatible quick release mounting system, both the Sigma and the Tamron have a dovetail built right into their tripod mounting rings. No need to buy and fit those lenses with lens plates. I don't believe this is the case with either of the Nikkors.

- Another way to reduce weight a little for handheld use might be a removable tripod mounting ring. Check to see what's possible with each of these lenses.

- When it comes to image quality, look for chromatic aberration at longer focal lengths. It's not uncommon in telephotos. While it often can be corrected in post-processing, there still may be some slight softening or loss of detail. It would be best if there was minimal CA to begin with and I suspect the Nikkor FL (fluorite) lens is the best of the four at suppressing CA.

Out of curiosity I looked at the image quality comparisons of these four lenses at The-Digital-Picture.com. Unfortunately there is no way to do a head to head comparison of the Tamron and Sigma versus the two Nikkors. The test shots there done with the Sigma and Tamron were done on a 50MP Canon 5DS-R. The test shots from both Nikkors were done using a 36MP D810. Usually the higher a camera's resolution, the more punishing it is of lens quality. Trying to take the difference in the cameras into consideration, I would rank the Nikkor 70-200mm FL as the best of the bunch. What surprised me was how close the Tamron G2 comes to it. The Sigma isn't far behind either. Especially at the 200mm end, the "weakest" of the bunch is the Nikkor 70-200mm "II". But even that lens is quite good and stopping it down just a little sharpens it up quite nicely. At 200mm it just isn't quite as good wide open as the other three. This ranking of the Nikkor FL #1, Tamron G2 #2, Sigma Sport #3 and Nikkor II #4 is also supported by a comparison of the lenses' respective MTF charts.

To put all this in perspective, at its 70mm setting all four of these lenses are sharper than the older Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 that I use. It matches the Tamron or the Sigma pretty well at 200mm. I still happily use that lens and have no plans to "upgrade" although there are two newer versions from Canon. Yeah, they're a wee bit sharper, but the main improvement I see is better image stabilization. Just not enough to make me get out my credit card!

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

If you read the comparisons showing five of the best 70-200 f2.8 lenses that Jerryc41 posted you will note that the Nikon and Canon got gold ratings and the Tamron and Sigma got silver ratings. The downsides noted on the Tamron are too loose a focus ring, no limiter switch, and a plastic build. To address those concerns -- I don't know about others, but I would seldom manually focus a lens of this variety (a macro lens always, shorter lenses more often, wide angle lenses for scenic shots a lot -- I find it easier to manually focus landscape shots when I want to include sharp foreground rather than racking the focus spot across and down the screen to where the foreground is located.) the limiter switch can be an asset since as they point out it reduces the "hunt time" for focusing but with today's fast focus lenses an increase in ISO and wider f-stops can help this. The plastic build should be no concern unless you plan to use the lens to the extent a professional might -- in other words have it on the camera daily for shooting. The materials they use are very strong and Nikon, Canon, and Sony employ a lot of plastic in some of their lenses.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

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

In addition to the lens you get, I recommend you use GROUP AUTO FOCUS as your focusing system. GAF puts four dots in the middle of the viewfinder in a diamond configuration. As long as the most, or a major part of the player is within the configuration, the player will be in focus. Try to shoot at least at 1/1000 sec. and one or two stops stopped down, that would be f4 or f5.6 on your camera. But if you must shoot wide open, that VRII lens should keep you accurately in focus.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

I can only speak from experience. Mine is that the stands in school gyms bounce and move a lot making it tough to hold steady. If you just want proof of life, shoot from the stands. If you want good shots, ask the coach if you can stand out of the way near the corner of the baseline. For all we know, the OP has young grandkids playing intramural.
Here's one at 70mm on a D500. I don't know how I would have used any more focal length, this is pretty tight.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

OH She's boxed in Superb shot, and I love the looks of effort on the other two's faces 🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯