Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
advice on next nikon lens purchase
Dec 30, 2011 11:14:00   #
chef arno Loc: San Diego
 
Hi all, looking for some advice for my next lens.

i currently have a Nikon D90 and it came with two kit lenses: the dx vr 18=55 af-s 3.5 - 5.6g; the dx vr 55-200 af-s 4.5-6g;
and also separately purchased the ED 70-300 af-s 4.5-5.6g.

i have twin boys that are almost 14 years old and they play football and basketball. the 70-300 lens has been great for football shots when lighting is good. The challenge i am having is shooting good indoor shots of basketball when the lighting is poor, even after bumping iso up.

The balance of my photography is split between taking portraits of my family and i also enjoy nature and landscapes.

So my question is, if i want to expand my capabilities in getting lower light condition shots, and given what i plan to use my camera for, (and assuming i DO have the budget), should i spring for the nikon af-s 70-200 2.8 ed vr II lens?

i am aware of other less expensive lenses like tamaron, etc., but i seem to hear a consistent message from many photographers, which is buy the best you can afford.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Reply
Dec 30, 2011 12:19:00   #
AlaskaTom08 Loc: Fairbanks, Alaska
 
Nikon also makes an 80-200 f2.8 for a full-frame SLR, but there's no VR feature, and it works fine on the Nikon digital SLRs. The trade off is the cost which is about $1,000 less than the 70-200 with VR. B&H PhotoVideo in New York normally stocks them. Good luck!

Reply
Dec 30, 2011 12:30:58   #
CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver
 
AlaskaTom8 is right - the new 70-200 2.8 is outstanding and if you have the budget, you should get it. However, the 80-200 is no slouch and if you don't care about the VR part (and there are some other advances in the 70-200) then that 80-200 is a good option.

Reply
 
 
Dec 30, 2011 13:05:56   #
snowbear
 
Nikon's "Holy Trinity" consists of the 14-24mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. I'd sell the 55-200 and the 70-300, and go with either the 70-200 or the 80-200 for your sports shoots. The 18-55 should take care of your landscapes for now. Portraits could be handled with the short end of either long lens.

Disclaimer: I don't own any of them, but my long term goal is the trinity.

Reply
Dec 30, 2011 13:34:52   #
Adubin Loc: Indialantic, Florida
 
I have the old Nikon 70-200mm f-2.8 lens VR lens and really like for doing all types of photography (birds in flight, close-ups, portraits, and sports). I get extremely sharp photos with it. You can also add a Teleconverter to it which helps capturing longer distance subjects from you. Arnold

chef arno wrote:
Hi all, looking for some advice for my next lens.

i currently have a Nikon D90 and it came with two kit lenses: the dx vr 18=55 af-s 3.5 - 5.6g; the dx vr 55-200 af-s 4.5-6g;
and also separately purchased the ED 70-300 af-s 4.5-5.6g.

i have twin boys that are almost 14 years old and they play football and basketball. the 70-300 lens has been great for football shots when lighting is good. The challenge i am having is shooting good indoor shots of basketball when the lighting is poor, even after bumping iso up.

The balance of my photography is split between taking portraits of my family and i also enjoy nature and landscapes.

So my question is, if i want to expand my capabilities in getting lower light condition shots, and given what i plan to use my camera for, (and assuming i DO have the budget), should i spring for the nikon af-s 70-200 2.8 ed vr II lens?

i am aware of other less expensive lenses like tamaron, etc., but i seem to hear a consistent message from many photographers, which is buy the best you can afford.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Hi all, looking for some advice for my next lens. ... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 30, 2011 13:40:34   #
titan1 Loc: SC Lowcountry
 
I too have the 70-200mm vr1......I use this lens more than any other in my bag!!! It is one of the best Nikon has ever produced. Just my .02.

Adubin wrote:
I have the old Nikon 70-200mm f-2.8 lens VR lens and really like for doing all types of photography (birds in flight, close-ups, portraits, and sports). I get extremely sharp photos with it. You can also add a Teleconverter to it which helps capturing longer distance subjects from you. Arnold

chef arno wrote:
Hi all, looking for some advice for my next lens.

i currently have a Nikon D90 and it came with two kit lenses: the dx vr 18=55 af-s 3.5 - 5.6g; the dx vr 55-200 af-s 4.5-6g;
and also separately purchased the ED 70-300 af-s 4.5-5.6g.

i have twin boys that are almost 14 years old and they play football and basketball. the 70-300 lens has been great for football shots when lighting is good. The challenge i am having is shooting good indoor shots of basketball when the lighting is poor, even after bumping iso up.

The balance of my photography is split between taking portraits of my family and i also enjoy nature and landscapes.

So my question is, if i want to expand my capabilities in getting lower light condition shots, and given what i plan to use my camera for, (and assuming i DO have the budget), should i spring for the nikon af-s 70-200 2.8 ed vr II lens?

i am aware of other less expensive lenses like tamaron, etc., but i seem to hear a consistent message from many photographers, which is buy the best you can afford.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Hi all, looking for some advice for my next lens. ... (show quote)
I have the old Nikon 70-200mm f-2.8 lens VR lens a... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 31, 2011 11:38:02   #
wildman Loc: Bluffton, SC
 
My .02 as well. I have the holy trinity and agree with all that I've read here. I use teleconverters with the 70-200 2.8 and am very pleased with sharpness and clarity.

I tend to stay with the OE manufacturer especially when mating the TC's with the lenses.

I have seen the Tamron 200-500 and have determined that I will hold out until I can afford the [pricey] 600mm from nikon!

wildman

Reply
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Dec 31, 2011 11:55:56   #
mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida
 
Like others here I have the 70-200 f2.8 VRI. I use this with the D70 and D7000. I also use the Nikon TC1.7 Teleconverter to extend the upper end. The orginal lens I have is very good but the newer version VRII is even better (even better optical design, not just a VR update). TH has a review on the new lens.

I have used the D70 & D7000 with the 70-200 VRI and TC1.7 for shooting race cars and offshore race boats with good results.

I know this is an expensive lens, was when I got it and even more so now, but this is one you will keep forvever. I know when the D8000, or D800 or whatever Nikon comes up with in the future this lens will work well with it. I have 1 of the magic 3, working on the second.

Reply
Dec 31, 2011 19:55:16   #
BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
 
Don't overlook the 18-200 3.5-5.6. It's a good all-around lens, has good reviews. Won't match the 70-200 2.8, but...

Reply
Jan 1, 2012 02:19:37   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
BboH wrote:
Don't overlook the 18-200 3.5-5.6. It's a good all-around lens, has good reviews. Won't match the 70-200 2.8, but...


I believe he's looking for a faster lens.

Reply
Jan 1, 2012 17:17:22   #
chef arno Loc: San Diego
 
Thanks to everyone that responded. your responses have been very helpful. happy new year.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.