need help picking lens for new D7000

RedLeg · Jan 31, 2012

so i have decided to get a D7000 and my next question is what lens to get. i think i will need to buy 2 of them for what i will be shooting. i have kids that play ice hockey, football and baseball, i would like to get a zoom or telephoto lens that will be able to take nice sharp images.
i would also like to get a lens for general picture taking, kids around the house, parents, parties that sort of thing.
so any suggestions would be great.
i dont want to break the bank, then again i dont want to be stuck with crappy pictures.

cannpope · Jan 31, 2012

I used a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 vr on my D7000 when I had it and I think it would be good for what you are needing to shoot. It could possibly break the bank though @ around $1500 used. Not sure about third party zooms, so maybe someone here could give you a little more insight on those.

RedLeg · Jan 31, 2012

cannpope said:
I used a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 vr on my D7000 when I had it and I think it would be good for what you are needing to shoot. It could possibly break the bank though @ around $1500 used. Not sure about third party zooms, so maybe someone here could give you a little more insight on those.

thats too much cheese for this rat. what do you think about the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II zoom lens?? would this kill two birds with one stone?

2WheelPhoto · Jan 31, 2012

RedLeg said:
cannpope said:

I used a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 vr on my D7000 when I had it and I think it would be good for what you are needing to shoot. It could possibly break the bank though @ around $1500 used. Not sure about third party zooms, so maybe someone here could give you a little more insight on those.

Click to expand...

thats too much cheese for this rat. what do you think about the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II zoom lens?? would this kill two birds with one stone?

If you're willing to compromise quality of pics, especially sharpness

cannpope · Jan 31, 2012

I've not owned a 18-200, but I know people that have and the images they get from it are very soft. Probably not going to be as fast as you would want for sports action either. If you look on B & H Photo website, they have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with Optical Stabilization for $800 new. Out of 175 reviews, it gets 4.5 stars. Not too bad. Maybe something to look into.

cannpope · Jan 31, 2012

Oops. Sorry, but that lens doesn't have OS on it although you could still use a tripod. The one with OS is $500 more. Sorry for the mis info.

analog.universe · Jan 31, 2012

The OP won't be needing stabilization for sports anyway.... Nice for other stuff, but not action shots. That Sigma is a really good deal.

RedLeg · Jan 31, 2012

cannpope said:
Oops. Sorry, but that lens doesn't have OS on it although you could still use a tripod. The one with OS is $500 more. Sorry for the mis info.

ive read that if shooting sports image stabilization is not necessary.

fsquare · Jan 31, 2012

I'd get a 50mm 1.8G and a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G

Both are FX lenses, both can be had for about $500 combined used. The only problem you might have is if the hockey is indoors

RedLeg · Jan 31, 2012

fsquare said:
I'd get a 50mm 1.8G and a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G

Both are FX lenses, both can be had for about $500 combined used. The only problem you might have is if the hockey is indoors

hockey will be inside.

fsquare · Jan 31, 2012

ok, to shoot indoors you will need fast glass and you are on a budget so at this point it doesn't really matter.

WhiskeyTango · Jan 31, 2012

I own both the 18-200 VRII Nikon and the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma. I bought the 70-200 specifically because of indoor soccer.

If you're plunking down for a new lens now, and want to shoot indoor sports with it, don't go for the 18-200. You'll regret spending the money. It is significantly softer, even in good light, and in low light and max zoom you'll either be dropping shutter speed so low that everything will be a blur, or you'll be way under-exposed.

If you can't afford a 70-200, take a look for something like a long prime (100-ish) and plan on shooting only one area of the field and/or moving around a lot.

Don't get me wrong: The 18-200 is a great lens for travel. A lot of times its all I take. If low-light/fast action is on your agenda, though, it ain't the lens you want...

WhiskeyTango