Question on low light zoom D7100

O.K. I've not posted here much (but I continue to read). I've read post after post after post and I'm still not sure. I'm looking for the best and fastest zoom I can get for my money. I'll spend some money but I'd like to keep it under $1000. DX or FX will work as I have a D7100.

I'm going to be taking pics of the high school band at games and competitions. Some I can get down to the field, some I will have to be up in the stands. Much of the time it will have to be hand held as it's awkward to use a tripod in the stands. The kids are always moving at that.

I've done so-so with the Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.5 I have but I most certainly miss a lot of shots with it. (I like it normally as it was fairly inexpensive as a walk around lens.).

I got this at 210mm. It wasn't too hateful for it being dark out and under lights IMo. It was on the sidelines (and I was 2/3 up the bleachers) but there was many I missed.



Will I be able to crop this close with a 200mm further away with a better lens?

Gotta say that one of the best out there is the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. I know it is a little out of your price range but maybe find a deal on a used one. Bottom line is most of the lower priced zooms are all gonna be f5.6 on the long side. The Nikon 70-300VR is good for well under a grand, but it is still f5.6. There are a ton of big zooms at f5.6 that are good, but I found this one to be quite sharp in this class.

Another thought might be the nikon 300mm f4, but it ain't a zoom.

And the aforementioned 70-200 is so fast you can use it with a T/C for more reach.

One more thought... if you find a good deal on a used one, you'll never lose a dime on it if you decide to sell it down the road. Pro lens; in demand; only get more expensive.

How is that thing not using a tri-pod? Seems big and heavy? How much of a downgrade is the 80-200 f2.8?

john*thomas said:

How is that thing not using a tri-pod? Seems big and heavy? How much of a downgrade is the 80-200 f2.8?

Click to expand...

It is not all that much heavier than the 80-200 (1.3kg vs 1.5kg). The 80-200 is a very good lens, but it is much softer wide open at 200mm than the 70-200 (which is a GREAT lens).

At f5.6, the cheaper 70-300mm vr is a little cleaner at 200mm than the 80-200 at f5.6. Below 5.6 the 80-200 can get pretty soft. With the 70-300vr you don't have a choice, but you do have VR.

However, if you were ok with your sigma at 200mm f.6.3, you'll be thrilled with the 80-200 even wide open at f2.8, and pick up two and a half stops! (if you can get along without the vr).

HTH

The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD will keep up with, if not surpass, the Nikon 70-200mm on every front and will do it for about $1,000 less than its Nikon counterpart.

Best 70-200mm for the Nikon D7100 according to DXO Mark.
....

Or try the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I have the ?Nikon but plenty of people rave about the Sigma.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

ScottinPollock said:

It is not all that much heavier than the 80-200 (1.3kg vs 1.5kg). The 80-200 is a very good lens, but it is much softer wide open at 200mm than the 70-200 (which is a GREAT lens).

At f5.6, the cheaper 70-300mm vr is a little cleaner at 200mm than the 80-200 at f5.6. Below 5.6 the 80-200 can get pretty soft. With the 70-300vr you don't have a choice, but you do have VR.

However, if you were ok with your sigma at 200mm f.6.3, you'll be thrilled with the 80-200 even wide open at f2.8, and pick up two and a half stops! (if you can get along without the vr).

HTH

Click to expand...

O.K. might have been the wrong word. I was able to get a few acceptable shots. LOL

Horoscope Fish said:

The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD will keep up with, if not surpass, the Nikon 70-200mm on every front and will do it for about $1,000 less than its Nikon counterpart.

Best 70-200mm for the Nikon D7100 according to DXO Mark.
....

Click to expand...

Geoffc said:

Or try the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I have the ?Nikon but plenty of people rave about the Sigma.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Click to expand...

Thanks......I'm afraid I would be too afraid to ever take a $2000 lens out and use it. I'll check both of these out.

Question for [MENTION=13090]Horoscope Fish[/MENTION] (and sorry for hijacking the thread)

Paul what is the difference between the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro AF?
I'll go and do some research but would be keen to hear your thoughts

Hijack away. It will all help me.

Lawrence said:

Question for [MENTION=13090]Horoscope Fish[/MENTION] (and sorry for hijacking the thread)

Paul what is the difference between the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro?
I'll go and do some research but would be keen to hear your thoughts

Click to expand...

Well the big difference is the presence, or lack of, "VC", Vibration Control; it's the Tamron equivalent of Nikon's VR and Tamron's VC is really, really good. Nikon's VRII is probably as good but VRI I'm a little less impressed with. The other possibly "Big Thing" is that the macro version of this lens does NOT have an internal focus motor (that's the USD, UltraSonic Drive (or something like that)); no big deal if you're shooting a body with an internal AF motor but for those who are not that's probably a factor. Both lenses are "IF" (internal focus) so I'm not sure why one gets the IF designation and the other doesn't. The latter, obviously, also does 1:1 macro focusing while the VC version does not. In my limited experience with the Macro version, the AF is noticeably slower and the lens is also noiser. IQ is very, very good however on the Macro version and simply superb on the VC version.

Hope that helps!
....

I'll admit being a little biased towards Nikon glass; it's the reason I choose the platform in the first place. Measurements aren't always the defining criteria for how a lens looks.

Don't get me wrong, Sigma has made a handful of superb lenses (I have a few), but a lot of duds too. I have also had some issues with newer Nikon bodies that required firmware updates (a real hassle).

Never been a fan of Tamron; always looked soft and dull to me, though it appears some of their more current efforts are much, much better. 'Just haven't paid attention to them in quite a while.

@john*thomas... any lens suggested here is going to be leaps and bounds over what you're currently using, so it is up to you to go look at some of them, take some shots on your body, and see which one handles/looks best to you. Any decent B&M shop will let you do this.

Horoscope Fish said:

Well the big difference is the presence, or lack of, "VC", Vibration Control; it's the Tamron equivalent of Nikon's VR and Tamron's VC is really, really good. Nikon's VRII is probably as good but VRI I'm a little less impressed with. The other possibly "Big Thing" is that the macro version of this lens does NOT have an internal focus motor (that's the USD, UltraSonic Drive (or something like that)); no big deal if you're shooting a body with an internal AF motor but for those who are not that's probably a factor. Both lenses are "IF" (internal focus) so I'm not sure why one gets the IF designation and the other doesn't. The latter, obviously, also does 1:1 macro focusing while the VC version does not. In my limited experience with the Macro version, the AF is noticeably slower and the lens is also noiser. IQ is very, very good however on the Macro version and simply superb on the VC version.

Hope that helps!
....

Click to expand...

Thanks Paul for a comprehensive answer.

I have the Tamron 90mm macro and am very pleased with it. As you say IQ is excellent.

I think the VC one is the way to go as far as the 70-200 is concerned as that would mean a stop of two better (I assume) than the macro.

I am shooting a D7100 so the internal focus motor might not be a problem except that I would want this lens for shooting birds in flight etc and speed is required.

ScottinPollock said:

I'll admit being a little biased towards Nikon glass; it's the reason I choose the platform in the first place. Measurements aren't always the defining criteria for how a lens looks.

Don't get me wrong, Sigma has made a handful of superb lenses (I have a few), but a lot of duds too. I have also had some issues with newer Nikon bodies that required firmware updates (a real hassle).

Never been a fan of Tamron; always looked soft and dull to me, though it appears some of their more current efforts are much, much better. 'Just haven't paid attention to them in quite a while.

@john*thomas... any lens suggested here is going to be leaps and bounds over what you're currently using, so it is up to you to go look at some of them, take some shots on your body, and see which one handles/looks best to you. Any decent B&M shop will let you do this.

Click to expand...

My problem is there isn't any B&M shops within at least 2 hours of me. We once had a great one that had been in business forever but went out of business a few years ago. I'm not sure if there is even one in the state any longer. (WV)

Lawrence said:

I think the VC one is the way to go as far as the 70-200 is concerned as that would mean a stop of two better (I assume) than the macro.

Click to expand...

I've read Tamron VC is good for up to four-stops. Yeah... FOUR stops. Not bad if it's true and while I can't confirm that from personal experience that's what I've read on some reliable sites (e.g. DP Review, etc.)
....

john*thomas said:

My problem is there isn't any B&M shops within at least 2 hours of me. We once had a great one that had been in business forever but went out of business a few years ago. I'm not sure if there is even one in the state any longer. (WV)

Click to expand...

Can't help you there. I thought I was in the stix, being in the middle of the Sierra Nevada. But I can still drive an hour into Sacramento and hit up a couple of good camera stores.

Guessing this is what we cause, supporting entities like Amazon over our local retailers.

ScottinPollock said:

I'll admit being a little biased towards Nikon glass; it's the reason I choose the platform in the first place. Measurements aren't always the defining criteria for how a lens looks.

Don't get me wrong, Sigma has made a handful of superb lenses (I have a few), but a lot of duds too. I have also had some issues with newer Nikon bodies that required firmware updates (a real hassle).

Never been a fan of Tamron; always looked soft and dull to me, though it appears some of their more current efforts are much, much better. 'Just haven't paid attention to them in quite a while.

@john*thomas... any lens suggested here is going to be leaps and bounds over what you're currently using, so it is up to you to go look at some of them, take some shots on your body, and see which one handles/looks best to you. Any decent B&M shop will let you do this.

Click to expand...

Working in a decent B&M shop myself - one that has been around since 1928 and has seen 3 generations of the same family - I can assure you they don't mind but on the understanding that you will ultimately be buying from them.

We tend to forget that these shops provide a level of expertise and experience with one-on-one consultation that is in many cases priceless - such as trying out lenses to see which is best. I am sure you can understand the frustration when after serving a client over a number of visits learning that he purchased hie gear online, for $50.00 or $100.00 less, after having based the buying decision on the knowledge they provided.

Knowledge is gained over time; time is money
Stock in shop has holding costs as well as all the other costs associated with running a B&M family business.

If you abuse them and don't support them then soon there will be none left.

Just saying ...

And yes I too am guilty of having done this but intend to either buy from those who help me from now on or do my own research online and accept the consequences of my decision.
(Oh how moral I feel)

ScottinPollock said:

Never been a fan of Tamron; always looked soft and dull to me, though it appears some of their more current efforts are much, much better. 'Just haven't paid attention to them in quite a while.

Click to expand...

The latest versions of the 24-70 2.8 Di VC, 70-200 2.8 Di VC, and the 150-600 5-6.3 Di VC are outstanding pieces of glass at their price points - I was amazed at all three (tho I haven't done too much with the 150-600 - I just got it yesterday)....Nikon should pay very close attention because Tamron is right up there and at a much more affordable price point.

I'm leaning towards the Tamron....now to find a good deal. Thanks.

I'm late to the discussion.

I've been using the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC on my D7100 since February this year. Indoor soccer & Hockey (horrible lighting). Finally had a chance to use it for night outdoor concerts this month. I really like it - nice value and better than a $1200 Nikon VR1 IMO.