Lens recommendations for D7000

B

btrotter

Senior Member
I have a D7000. The only two lenses I currently own are the Nikon 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR 'kit lens' and the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens.
The three types of photos I shoot the most are kids sports (outdoor soccer & indoor gymnastics), indoor general photography (parties, family gatherings, etc) and misc pictures outdoors (vacation pics at the beach or mountains, backyard shenanigans, parades, etc),
I did have Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and it was great for all the general photography, but it was terrible for the sporting events since it didnt have the reach. So I sold that lens for $1400 and would like to use the money to buy 2 lenses.
The lens I need the most is a 70-200 f/2.8, mostly for the sports stuff, but also because I love having a telephoto zoom lens like that. For this lens, I have been eyeing the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens with VC, but that lens cost $1400 (after rebate), which would take my entire budget.
I then starting thinking that I could go with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens without the VC which would cost around $750 and leave me $650 to play with.

If I had another lens I would like to have one with a wide angle just for playing around with and trying to take neat pictures with. Maybe something like the Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II lens for $500.

So with everything I said above, what thoughts do some of you more seasoned pros have?
I am very much a novice and only take photos as a hobby. I get 0 return on my investment, so spending mucho bucks on high end Nikkor lenses really isnt an option. I would love to spend $2400 on a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, but my money tree hasn't grown yet? :)

Some of the things I have been struggling with is whether I really need a 70-200 VC lens for the sports photos, or if a non-VC lens will suit me fine (and save $700). Also, if I could get the second lens, is the 10-24mm lens really the best choice? I have never shot with one which went down to 10mm before and dont know if it is really a very specific lens I would only rarely use. I know it is personal preference, but still just soliciting feedback. Your opinions are perfectly fine with me.

​Thanks!
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Unfortunately, the older Tamron 70-200 2.8 suffers from slow auto-focus and I think you will be disappointed, especially with sports shooting. Get the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 with VC and be very happy you have the best you can do. I have tested that lens and it is awesome. With that I'd try to swap the 55-200 kit for a 18-55 vr kit (about the same value) between those two and your 35 1.8 you'd be in good shape until you can get an ultra-wide (take a look at the sigma 10-20 also).
 
M

Mike D90

Senior Member
I am not sure this is allowable but if you want a budget wide angle zoom I am selling my 18-55mm DX ED non-VR lens. It is listed here in the market place. (shameless plug)
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
You definitely need vibration reduction on your long lens and then later think about the Tokina 11-16. A very good wid angle lens. D7000's rock.
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
You might consider the Nikon 80-200 2.8D ED 2-ring lens. It can be had in decent shape for (well) under $750 and has decent focus, nice optics, and excellent build quality. I used one for a number of years before upgrading to the current 70-200 VRII. I mainly shoot with a D600 these days, but have had a D7000 for 3 years, with a variety of DX and FX lenses.

Whatever you decide, you should be able to get a 2.8 tele zoom (new or used) for half your budget and spend the rest on something else.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
btrotter said:
The three types of photos I shoot the most are kids sports (outdoor soccer & indoor gymnastics), indoor general photography (parties, family gatherings, etc) and misc pictures outdoors (vacation pics at the beach or mountains, backyard shenanigans, parades, etc),

I know it is personal preference, but still just soliciting feedback. Your opinions are perfectly fine with me.

​Thanks!
Click to expand...

For DX, look for a used Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRI. f2.8 is a must have for indoor or night sports.

Used Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED 2139 B&H
 
B

btrotter

Senior Member
Thanks for all the advice guys.
If you had your choice between a new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC or a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI, which would you pick and why?

Also, when it comes to a VC or non-VC lens, does it really make that much of a difference? I mean for a lens to go from $700 to $1400 just because of it, you would think it has to be a pretty significant difference, but I am not sure. I have never shot with a non VC lens at that focal length.
So I guess that also brings up another question, if the VC is a must-have for a lens, why do they make them at all? Does the non VC lens for a specific role that maybe I would never use it for, or is it simply a quality issue?
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
btrotter said:
Thanks for all the advice guys.
If you had your choice between a new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC or a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI, which would you pick and why?

Also, when it comes to a VC or non-VC lens, does it really make that much of a difference? I mean for a lens to go from $700 to $1400 just because of it, you would think it has to be a pretty significant difference, but I am not sure. I have never shot with a non VC lens at that focal length.
So I guess that also brings up another question, if the VC is a must-have for a lens, why do they make them at all? Does the non VC lens for a specific role that maybe I would never use it for, or is it simply a quality issue?
Click to expand...

Since the intent is for sports, vc or VR doesn't do anything to prevent the subject's motion blur if that makes sense to you. Nikon tend to keep their value better when it comes to resale.


Sent from my iPhone.
 
B

btrotter

Senior Member
gqtuazon said:
Since the intent is for sports, vc or VR doesn't do anything to prevent the subject's motion blur if that makes sense to you. Nikon tend to keep their value better when it comes to resale.


Sent from my iPhone.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand about the motion blur. I guess the only thing to stop that is faster shutter. I was mainly wondering about the overall quality of the pictures. So lets say I had a VC (or VR) lens and a non-VC lens. I set both cameras to something like 1/400 shutter speed, which should stop action pretty good in a soccer game. Using both lenses zoomed in to say 200mm, will the photos look the same afterwards? What would VC do for it in that case?
I guess I understand the concept of VC, just maybe not the times you would really get the most benefit from it.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
btrotter said:
Yes, I understand about the motion blur. I guess the only thing to stop that is faster shutter. I was mainly wondering about the overall quality of the pictures. So lets say I had a VC (or VR) lens and a non-VC lens. I set both cameras to something like 1/400 shutter speed, which should stop action pretty good in a soccer game. Using both lenses zoomed in to say 200mm, will the photos look the same afterwards? What would VC do for it in that case?
I guess I understand the concept of VC, just maybe not the times you would really get the most benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Anything faster than 1/320, VR should be turned Off.


Sent from my iPhone.
 
S

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
aroy said:
You can also try the 80-200 lens. I think this is a non VR lens, but you do not need VR if shooting above 1/400. The lense is about $1,200 new. Though this is an old design it is optically as good as the new lenses and many situations faster than the newer VR versions.
AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon
Click to expand...

I don't know where you saw that the older lens focused faster than the newer VRII, unless you factor in the split second that it takes for VR to kick in. I've owned both lenses and the VRII lens is quicker in all situations (except perhaps when using VR).
 
Top