Lens, Camera or Lens/Teleconverter?

[Mr.Photo]

While cropping can get you a bit closer it's not something to rely on. Invest first in a decent camera body such as the D7000 used or if you can spring for it get the newer D7100 that replaces it. Then look in to getting either the older Nikon AF 80-200 2.8 zoom or the Nikon AF 300 f/4.

A D7000 and either of the above mentioned lenses can be had used for under $1000 total if you shop around. Even at f/4 the high ISO capability of the D7000 will still allow you to take decent photo's after the light begins to fade.

 

[Overread]

ISO 16oo as a max indoor for sports sounds like a nightmare.

I would say your problem is that you are in a challenging shooting environment and you really need a better body and better glass. Typically I would say glass before bodies; however:

1) You are going to be pushing things at ISO 1600 to get shutter speeds of 1/500sec or fast for action. At that point I'd seriously consider the several extra stops of ISO that you can get these days with a more modern camera body - even at entry level.

2) If you are thinking on changing to fullframe (better high ISO noise performance when compared against similar range crop sensor cameras - however at a loss of angle of view; your lenses will appear "wider" than they are now on a crop sensor); then do so now rather than later. Change format sizes and build your gear around that rather than the other way around.


Lens wise I'd say go for a 70-200mm f2.8 if you want versatility. A higher end lens will give you more light gathering ability; but also improved image quality which means you can crop more so. YES you want it as good as you can in-camera first - but if you're too far off and you can't zoom any more and you WANT the shot like that then by all means shoot then crop away. It's not cheating; its simply using the tools correctly within the real world limitations you're under.

70-200mm f2.8 lenses are heavy but most people can fairly quickly get used to their weight and soon find them very manageable to use if you use them regularly.
300mm f2.8 are heavier, although still in that manageable section - although you might find a monopod is now of help on longer shoots so that you can take some of the strain off your arms.

Note Sigma makes a 120-300mm f2.8 OS lens. The original OS is abit cheaper second hand whilst the SPORT OS uses a new USB setup (for updating firm-wire when needed) but uses the same optical formula inside (ergo same image quality). It's a heavier lens (heavier than some 300mm f2.8 primes) but combines the versatility of a zoom with the f2.8 aperture. It might be worth considering; though depends on what you shoot and how you shoot (myself I take both my 120-300mm and 70-200mm though as yet most of what I've done is with the 70-200mm - lighter and easy to use and I can always crop if 200mm isn't quite enough - though I've mostly shot horse and rider in a sports context so that's a much bigger subjcet overall)

 

[raventepes]

I'm going to kind of go against the grain here and recommend a new body. My way of thinking is that even the current entry model D3300 has fairly clean ISO up to 3200 and usable at 6400, versus the D40X where the ISO is maxed out at 1600. On my D40, I won't venture above 800 unless I have to, but on my D7100, I'll crank it to 6400 without a second thought. I actually think my wife's D33oo might be a touch cleaner at ISO 6400, but I'd have to do a side by side comparison for that.

At any rate, yes, a fast lens would help but in this particular case, I see the body being more of a limiting factor rather than the lens which is why I think going the route of a body is the better option for the moment. I'll agree that a 70-200 2.8 is a great idea and definitely get one when you can, but I'd upgrade the body before anything else.

Just my opinion, at any rate.

 

[Who's on First?]

Based on all the great posts here, It's clear that regardless of a higher performing lens and/or teleconverter, the body will always be holding me back. Despite the fact that I'm not shooting professionally, I'm striving for professional-looking photographs, and my style is to capture extremely close-up action shots. While many of the images I shoot do end up on team websites and in the local paper (purely circumstantial), there's a great margin for improvement.

Nevertheless, I was taking photos in the dugout yesterday, and a reporter from the county newspaper came and stood next to me, shooting pictures with his 300 mm f2.8 (seriously?). We started talking about lenses and he advised me to absolutely never buy an off-brand like Tamron or Sigma--that it would show in my pictures and I would regret doing so. Again...this is a hobby for me, so paying thousands of dollars for the lens I really want isn't going to happen. I may like to drive a Porsche, but since I'm neither rich nor am I professional race car driver, it's not practical and will never happen. That doesn't mean I'm not serious about driving, about doing it well, or unwilling to invest money in a nice car; it just means that I'll drive the Touareg instead. That being said, the Tamron and Sigma are in a price range that I would consider. Are the quality issues between Nikon and these off-brands truly measurable for the layman, or could it simply have been a reporter's arrogance talking?

 

[Mr.Photo]

Based on all the great posts here, It's clear that regardless of a higher performing lens and/or teleconverter, the body will always be holding me back. Despite the fact that I'm not shooting professionally, I'm striving for professional-looking photographs, and my style is to capture extremely close-up action shots. While many of the images I shoot do end up on team websites and in the local paper (purely circumstantial), there's a great margin for improvement.

Nevertheless, I was taking photos in the dugout yesterday, and a reporter from the county newspaper came and stood next to me, shooting pictures with his 300 mm f2.8 (seriously?). We started talking about lenses and he advised me to absolutely never buy an off-brand like Tamron or Sigma--that it would show in my pictures and I would regret doing so. Again...this is a hobby for me, so paying thousands of dollars for the lens I really want isn't going to happen. I may like to drive a Porsche, but since I'm neither rich nor am I professional race car driver, it's not practical and will never happen. That doesn't mean I'm not serious about driving, about doing it well, or unwilling to invest money in a nice car; it just means that I'll drive the Touareg instead. That being said, the Tamron and Sigma are in a price range that I would consider. Are the quality issues between Nikon and these off-brands truly measurable for the layman, or could it simply have been a reporter's arrogance talking?

The people that say to not buy anything other than Nikon/Canon lenses are nothing but "Gear Snobs". These people blindly believe that because they spent thousands buying Nikon/Canon branded gear that they have the absolute best thing available, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they are a moron. Simple fact is that companies like Tamron and Sigma are manufacturing lenses as good or in a select few cases better than the name brand companies, and typically at a fraction of the cost.

I own three Tamron lenses, and I've taken photo's with them that will rival ones taken with the most expensive of lenses. 99% of the people who look at your photo's are not going to notice that you took the photograph with a $300 lens instead of a $2000+ lens.

 

[Who's on First?]

Hahaha...that's what I thought. Gear snobs, I love it. Thank you for clarifying!

 

[Derrel]

Until the MOST recent Tamron 70-200 VC, the company's 70-200 f/2.8 lens was an utter DOG, focus-wise....it was unreliable on focus, and slow...a deadly duo of dubious deficiencies...

Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 lenses of the early and mid-2000's were so crappy that they were basically, unusable for professional results until stopped down to f/4.

So...the guy's working on older information. But seriously...here's the 2008 dPreview review of the earlier Tamron model: Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro review Digital Photography Review the conclusion has these gems: "if we look solely at the studio optical tests, it is a resounding success, as the technical quality of the images this lens can produce is superb throughout most of the range, matching or even outperforming the much more expensive Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM. It's slightly soft wide open in the middle of the zoom range (most visibly on the more demanding APS-C/DX sensor format), but stop down a little and the quality really starts to shine through. "

And these gems: "The big problem with this lens, however, lies in the focusing systems. The autofocus motor is relatively slow and noisy, which puts it at a major disadvantage compared to its ultrasonic motor-equipped competitors, simply because AF performance impacts strongly on many of the typical uses for a fast telezoom lens. The slow speed of the motor means focus tracking simply isn't fast enough for sports or action, or even children running around playing; it's also a distinct problem in low light or with low-contrast subjects, where the lens can take what feels like an eternity to achieve focus. This is compounded by the noise the motor makes, which could be a real problem in situations such as wedding or event photography for which the user wishes to remain unobtrusive; discrete it is not. Also the Tamron lacks a focus limiter switch, so has a tendency to hunt back and forwards through its entire range when it fails to lock focus first time. But perhaps the biggest problem we encountered was a tendency for the lens to mis-focus, seemingly at random and disturbingly frequently, such that F2.8 shots in particular were often not critically sharp"

"So ultimately what we have here is a flawed gem, a lens which fully capable of delivering excellent images, but also frustratingly capable of missing focus on that once-in-a-lifetime shot, either through mis-focus or simply being too slow."

This is the kind of product that Tamron was offering not all that long ago...

 

[Overread]

I own more 3rd party than own brand lenses and I've never had a problem with them. Will say that AF is generally slower on 3rd party; but not to the point where its unusable.

Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro - 70mm f2.8 macro - Tokina 35mm f2.8 macro - I put them all against the Canon MPE 65mm macro which is a 100% pure macro lens and they all stand up well (actually at f2.8 I think the Sigma 70mm is the sharpest).

My Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 stands up very well against the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII - yes the Canon is faster in focusing; but I'd reach for whichever suits me at the time without worries.


Quite a few people get 3rd party cheap lenses; those are the lower end of the scale. They then upgrade to "pro" or mid-range own brand lenses and compare the two; assuming that their quality is coming from own brand VS 3rd party when in fact its simply that they bought a second lens in a much higher price bracket.

 

[pixmedic]

Until the MOST recent Tamron 70-200 VC, the company's 70-200 f/2.8 lens was an utter DOG, focus-wise....it was unreliable on focus, and slow...a deadly duo of dubious deficiencies...

Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 lenses of the early and mid-2000's were so crappy that they were basically, unusable for professional results until stopped down to f/4.

So...the guy's working on older information. But seriously...here's the 2008 dPreview review of the earlier Tamron model: Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro review Digital Photography Review the conclusion has these gems: "if we look solely at the studio optical tests, it is a resounding success, as the technical quality of the images this lens can produce is superb throughout most of the range, matching or even outperforming the much more expensive Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM. It's slightly soft wide open in the middle of the zoom range (most visibly on the more demanding APS-C/DX sensor format), but stop down a little and the quality really starts to shine through. "

And these gems: "The big problem with this lens, however, lies in the focusing systems. The autofocus motor is relatively slow and noisy, which puts it at a major disadvantage compared to its ultrasonic motor-equipped competitors, simply because AF performance impacts strongly on many of the typical uses for a fast telezoom lens. The slow speed of the motor means focus tracking simply isn't fast enough for sports or action, or even children running around playing; it's also a distinct problem in low light or with low-contrast subjects, where the lens can take what feels like an eternity to achieve focus. This is compounded by the noise the motor makes, which could be a real problem in situations such as wedding or event photography for which the user wishes to remain unobtrusive; discrete it is not. Also the Tamron lacks a focus limiter switch, so has a tendency to hunt back and forwards through its entire range when it fails to lock focus first time. But perhaps the biggest problem we encountered was a tendency for the lens to mis-focus, seemingly at random and disturbingly frequently, such that F2.8 shots in particular were often not critically sharp"

"So ultimately what we have here is a flawed gem, a lens which fully capable of delivering excellent images, but also frustratingly capable of missing focus on that once-in-a-lifetime shot, either through mis-focus or simply being too slow."

This is the kind of product that Tamron was offering not all that long ago...

I dunno....
I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 NON VC lens. Bought it brand new a few years ago. AF is f-a-s-t on that lens. I compared it in our semi local camera store against the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 and it focused much faster than the nikon, and about $400 cheaper. (at the time)
I have nothing but love for that lens.
Eventually I may pick up the VC version.

 

[Derrel]

So how would you explain dPeview saying the Tamron 70-200 non-VC is so slow that it cannot even focus well enough for kids playing and running around? And what about its inaccuracy problem? That lens was widely panned by many people who tested it...for focus slowness, and focus errors? One possibility comes to mind: dPreview tested the lens on CANON, and they wonder if the focus issue might be Canon-related; just last week dPreview mentioned that Canon's evaluative AF algorithms do not seem to be as good in performance as the ones Nikon has developed. I dunno...the Tamron SP primes and the 70-200/2.8 that were premiered in the mid-2000's were praised for high sharpness, but sub-par AF performance, by many,many people who review lenses for a living.

I dunno...I've bought a few high-end Sigma lenses, f/3.5 180 EX APO HSM Macro--prone to focus hunting; Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM, another $1,000 lens, HORRIBLE focusing problems with unexplainable focus hunting; Sigma 18-125 for Canon, "Der Flaremeister"...overall, unimpressive as a total package when compared against my Nikon lens experience, or my much smaller Canon EF lens experience, plus, that yellow Sigma glass that they were infamous for...and still are among people who color rendering is a big deal for...it cannot be white-balanced away either,unfortunately. My personal opinion is that Sigma's glass is optimized for Canon's warmer rendering, not that of Nikon. If you like warm, yellow photos, and you shoot Nikon, then buy Sigma glass.

As to regretting Sigma purchases...five years down the road, a Sigma is worth 1/3 of what was payed for it....not so for a Canon or Nikkor lens...an OLD $1699 Nikkor 70-200 VR from 2003..what is that worth today on the used market?

I'll say it again: the third-party lens makers EARNED their reputations by making cheap, lower-cost lenses for over three decades. Sure, they have improved in recent years, as prices have doubled, or more. And yet...the resale value still lags way beneath that of Canon or Nikkor glass.

I felt kind of bad when a couple years ago, I located a small batch of brand new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8s for sale here in our no-sales-tax state and told coastconn about it....he got the lens for a VERY good price, right around $2,000..and the thing broke down within a very short time. Frankly, not impressed...

 

[pixmedic]

So how would you explain dPeview saying the Tamron 70-200 non-VC is so slow that it cannot even focus well enough for kids playing and running around? And what about its inaccuracy problem? That lens was widely panned by many people who tested it...for focus slowness, and focus errors? One possibility comes to mind: dPreview tested the lens on CANON, and they wonder if the focus issue might be Canon-related; just last week dPreview mentioned that Canon's evaluative AF algorithms do not seem to be as good in performance as the ones Nikon has developed. I dunno...the Tamron SP primes and the 70-200/2.8 that were premiered in the mid-2000's were praised for high sharpness, but sub-par AF performance, by many,many people who review lenses for a living.

I dunno...I've bought a few high-end Sigma lenses, f/3.5 180 EX APO HSM Macro--prone to focus hunting; Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM, another $1,000 lens, HORRIBLE focusing problems with unexplainable focus hunting; Sigma 18-125 for Canon, "Der Flaremeister"...overall, unimpressive as a total package when compared against my Nikon lens experience, or my much smaller Canon EF lens experience, plus, that yellow Sigma glass that they were infamous for...and still are among people who color rendering is a big deal for...it cannot be white-balanced away either,unfortunately. My personal opinion is that Sigma's glass is optimized for Canon's warmer rendering, not that of Nikon. If you like warm, yellow photos, and you shoot Nikon, then buy Sigma glass.

As to regretting Sigma purchases...five years down the road, a Sigma is worth 1/3 of what was payed for it....not so for a Canon or Nikkor lens...an OLD $1699 Nikkor 70-200 VR from 2003..what is that worth today on the used market?

I'll say it again: the third-party lens makers EARNED their reputations by making cheap, lower-cost lenses for over three decades. Sure, they have improved in recent years, as prices have doubled, or more. And yet...the resale value still lags way beneath that of Canon or Nikkor glass.

I felt kind of bad when a couple years ago, I located a small batch of brand new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8s for sale here in our no-sales-tax state and told coastconn about it....he got the lens for a VERY good price, right around $2,000..and the thing broke down within a very short time. Frankly, not impressed...

how do i explain the dpreview?
no idea.
I dont shoot sports, I dont shoot wildlife.
it shot running dogs juuuuust fine though with no AF issues.
how do you explain me owning that lens for 2+ years and never having any of those issues?
that lens was used on everything from a D200, D90, D7000, D7100, and finally a D600 and never missed a beat.
im not in any way saying its as good as the nikon 70-200 VR lens, im just saying that I have personal experience with that particular tamron lens...as well as the 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8, all non-vc, and have never had any issues with any of them. when I bought it, I got to test a few other lenses beside it. the tamron 70-200 VC version, the nikon AF-S 80-200 two ring, and the nikon 70-200 VRII. the nikon VRII was top notch, but out of budget.

maybe I got lucky?
i got two used D600's with original sensors with zero oil spot issues.
I guess I should start playing the lottery.
I have no doubt that the nikkor lenses will hold their value better, and if i had been able to fork over $2400, I would have bought the VRII. sadly, such was not the case.
when a good run of work afforded us some extra money, the decision was made to go with two FX cameras instead of replacing glass we already had. and a newish minivan.

 

[astroNikon]

I've got some of the lenses mentioned such as:
Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D (screw drive requiring in body motor)
Nikon 300/4 AF (screw drive)
plus other lenses

My bodies are:
Nikon d7000 - crop sensor
Nikon d600 - full frame sensor

I initially started on the d7000 and the 80-200. It was great for outside sports such as soccer. But as evening approached it had it's limits.
The d600, on the other hand, really wowwed me on evening games and it's light gathering ability up and above the d7000.

With soccer and the movement to and fro I've only really used the 80-200 and one body. I've toyed with the idea of bringing two bodies with the d7000 & 300mm lens for long shots (or my newish 150-500), but I'm doing this for fun and I don't want to be carrying two cameras with big lenses around.

I also have to add, that with the d600 my learning accelerated alot of how to, essentially do everything better from shooting to post processing. So even though the large variance between the d7000 and d600 I mentioned, some of it was from my increasing experience.

My flickr account (link below) has alot of my soccer albums on it.
I also shoot some baseball from my back porch to the field across the street (and behind me for softball) - can't get more lazy than that right?

 

[Joves]

Well I am another one to say that you should just go with another body. And I would not stay in entry level territory either. Maybe stick it out for a bit longer, and go to a Full Frame like the D610. This way you will be set for a very long time coming. You will get a great ISO range, and a camera you can improve your skills on, and not out grow for many years to come. I know it seems like a really radical move, but in the long run it is the better move, and who knows by the time you have the money for it, a new model may be out, and let the rebates begin. I am the type that I like to upgrade my bodies every once in a while, and get lenses more often. I just bargain hunt on Craigs, and KEH.
Also for shooting for now you might want to try using Shutter Priority set to 1/125 minimum and allowing the camera to adjust the rest. Now granted you will not get every action shot you want, but you will probably get more.

 

[Who's on First?]

Wow...gaining a lot of knowledge as you guys dissect these lenses: Sigma yellow, post-processing, and the death-toll of the forever-searching auto focus. Definitely a deal-breaker. After reading AstroNikon's post, he's piqued my interest in exploring the D600 series (as Joves also recommended). Thanks Pixmedic and Derrel for your discussion.

I was really excited to try out a 300mm F4 my friend lent me week, but when I got to the field, I discovered that it was an AF rather than an AF-S...so no good to me in shooting sports. Does the D-600 series have the motor in the body, and is there a preference (or marked difference) to having the AF motor in the lens or body?

 

[Mr.Photo]

There's a few differences between AF (screw drive) lenses vs the AF-S (Nikon term) or built in focus motor lenses.

AF-S lenses have the ability (if the manufacturer sets the lens up as such) to be a full time auto focusing lens with the ability to manually override the focus at any time by simply grabbing the focus ring on the lens and turning it. AF lenses are directly connected via a screw within the lens mount that mates with a screw driver tip that protrudes from the mount on the camera body. This directly couples the auto focus mechanism of the lens to the motor in the camera body, and therefore if you want to use manual focus you either have to flip a lever on the camera body or on the lens (if equipped with an A/M switch) to disconnect that mechanism so you can turn the focus ring.

Many people claim that AF-S lenses are faster to focus than AF lenses. This can actually vary from lens to lens for a couple of reasons. Focus speed on an AF lens is determined by how the gearing within the lens for the auto focus mechanism is set up, as well as the speed/torque of the AF motor within the camera body. As an example I have a Nikon AF 80-200 2.8 lens and a Tamron 11-18mm lens. The 80-200 mounted on my D7000 is actually quite fast to focus requiring not much more than a couple of complete turns of the focus motor to focus the lens from it's minimum focus distance to infinity. However the Tamron is a completely different story and is rather slow to focus requiring several more revolutions of the focus motor to move the lens through it's complete focusing range. If I was to use either of these two lenses on one of Nikon's pro level cameras such as the D800 series or the D4 both lenses would perform faster than on my D7000 as they have more powerful focus motors for professional use.

Lenses with a built in focus motor tend to be larger than the older AF lenses as the AF-S motor can be quite large depending on type of lens (the size difference is typically most noticeable with shorter focal length lenses).

Another difference is that AF-S lenses are most always much quieter in operation when focusing than AF lenses. In most cases this usually isn't an issue but in the case of weddings or wildlife photography having a quiet lens is helpful.