Guy trying to help his wife

[TheFantasticG]

B and H has a 50mm d and g lens. The G is used. Would this work well on the D70?

Looks like you still have a lot of research (using the search button & google) before you make the purchase.

Most of the photographers I have read about in sports and weddings use the 70-200 VR (either 1 or 2). The 70-200 VR 1 is fantastic on DX as it loses the only flaw the lens has: vingetting at corners on FX. No need to spend the extra on the VR 2 when using the VR 1 on DX.

50mm-105mm range is great for the DX and portraits. I highly suggest a Nikon 50mm 1.8D.

You can pick up both used for less than $2,000.

 

[i_like_cereal]

Thanks for the input.
I am purchasing this lens for christmas for the wife.

Again thanks.

I will tell my wife about the site when she opens the gift. I hope she stops by and sets up an account.

 

[MLeeK]

Ideally I'd upgrade to the new D7000 and a medium lens like the 24-70f/2.8. The Nikon would be the lens of choice but Sigma makes a pretty amazing 24-70 f/2.8 OS that is pretty damn close for about $900.
I hear the older 80-200 f/2.8 Nikon is an impressive lens, however I think I'd still choose the Sigma 70-700 f/2.8 OS over it. The OS matters in things like portraits and weddings. Not so much in sports. The focus is fast as hell on it and that does matter in sports... A LOT. The other sigma-the non OS version is slower to focus as it is a "macro" lens. I have a good friend who shoots with one and have used it once. I do feel a noticeable difference in how hers focuses to mine. Both are superbly crisp, sharp lenses.
The tamron 70-200 is even slower to focus than the sigma non OS version. I have it as my macro lens and while I love it for weddings, portraits and macro's it's slow as mud for sports. I can do it, but I don't even try anymore. It's sharp. The sigma's are much sharper IMO.