Photography Question - What Zoom Lens Should I Buy?

[Z-man]

This is a perfect example of “the more you learn, the less you know”.

 

I haven’t been happy with the performance of my longer zoom lens since I upgraded to a Nikon D7000 body. The specific lens I am referring to is my old Sigma AF-APO 75mm-300mm f4.5/5.6 zoom. With the D7000 the ‘softness’ of the lens seems more apparent, and sometimes the AF hunts for the correct focus.

 

I want to upgrade to a new “sharp” lens, but the more I look around, the more confused I get. It seems like there are three price points for zoom lenses in the range I am looking at.

 

The lowest priced lenses are all like these three…
Sigma 70mm-300mm f4.0/5.6
Nikon 55mm-300mm f5.0/603
Tamron 70mm-300mm f4.5/5.6

 

Mid range lenses are similar to these….
Sigma 120mm-400mm f4.5/5.6
Tamron 200mm-500mm f5.0/6.3
Sigma 150mm-500mm f5.0/6.3

 

Top of my range are…
Nikon AF-VR 80mm-400mm f4.5/5.6
Sigma 120mm-300mm f2.8
Nikon AF+S 80mm-400mm f4.5/5.6

 

I also own a Tamron AF 17mm-50mm f2.8 which I really like. In fact, I think it is superior to the slightly more expensive Nikon lens of focal length and f-stop.

 

I don’t want to give up any focal length over what I have now (which on my camera is equivalent to 113mm-450mm), and it definitely needs to be sharper than my old Sigma. As an FYI, the Sigma was recently serviced and cleaned, so it is working fine despite its age.

That all said, what would you recommend? This will mostly be used hand-held, or on a mono-pod. Tri-pod use will be very limited. Primary use will be auto-sports and travel photography (if It’s not too big and heavy to carry on a trip.

 

One question I did have was the difference between the Nikon AF-VR lens and the AF+S. The lens specs look just about the same, but the price is over $1100 difference…..why???

If I had to pick one today, I’d tend towards the 200m-500mm Tamron. Some user reviews say it is ‘soft’ at full focal length, but other say its great. My current Tamron is nice and crisp, so I don’t know what to believe. Additionally, there really is no place you can go any try out lenses like there back-to-back, so you pretty much need to know what you are getting before you buy anything.

 

Your input, opinions, and recommendations are welcome.

 

Z-man

[Freak]

I'm a Canon guy, but I believe the difference between the VR and AF Nikons is the VR (Vibration Reduction). Also, specs only tell half the story. The glass quality, construction, focus, aperature blades, internal design and coatings can all make pretty big differences.

 

I tend to stay away from large range zooms (meaning a large difference between the short end and long end) unless its for stuff I don't really care about, because they tend to be harder to do well. There are exceptions, but they are also usually pretty expensive. This probably why the reviews say the Tammy is soft on the long end.

 

Personally I'd find out what Nikon calls their pro glass and get that one.

[Freak]

Oh, BTW, I've litterally only heard of one good lens that was 75-300mm or so, and it was a 2000 dollar Canon L series. The rest pretty much range from "Ehh" to garbage as far as image quality goes.

[MikeCMM]

Kstrong is one heck of a photographer. PM him if he doesn't see this thread and reply.

[kstrong]

Kstrong is one heck of a photographer. PM him if he doesn't see this thread and reply.

Thanks Mike. I mean that.

I admit I have seen Z's thread and held off posting. Here is my abridged reply:

 

Z.

Glass is forever, Digital camera bodies come and go.

Nikon's 16 Megapixel DX D7000 sensor has amazing resolution. Buying glass that is great for a lower resolution sensor/camera falls short on a higher resolution glass.

For low light you need a faster lens, or you sacrifice high ISO or slow shutter speed to have enough light capture the scene.

For instance, Hockey arenas, low light F2.8 or faster makes a huge difference. Out side doing soccer, cheaper slower lens will make good shots.

Rain, overcast, lens with an F-stop of f4.5 is too slow, remember Carlisle? Rain, grey. Auto ISO.

A fast F2.8 or better is needed for the higher shutter speeds you want to get a clear sharp shot of the car. If you use a slower lens, F4.5 or more you have to go with higher ISO's to compensate for the slower lens.if not the results are higher noise, Vibration reduction (VR) on the lens does allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds, as long as the subject is not moving too fast it will be focused, but slow is blur.

You have to have a dollar amount in mind and buy the best you can within your budget amount.

The older 80-400mm lens is at least $1000 less.than the newly released lens of the same focal length. Why? Seconds and milliseconds. The new lens is incredibly fast.

Old lens used the camera's battery to drive a motor that drives the screw gear on the lens. The new lens has silent wave motors on the lens that require a lot less of the cameras battery to drive it. Nikon added another piece of glass to the lens. New lens is way faster than the old lens, hence the huge increase in cost.

In glass, you really do get what you pay for.

Bight the bullet, save for a 70-200mm F2.8 VR2 Nikon lens. Fast, sharp, and can be used when you get a second camera, IE FX,.

This lens on your D7000 is a 105mm to 300mm lens. You can add a teleconverter like the 1.4 to make this a 147mm to420 mm lens at F4.

If you buy a full frame sensor camera down the road you still have a kick ass lens. A little log and heay the lens is but the results are worth it.

The lighter, smaller F3.5, F4.5 VR lens are good but you won't get that crisp image you are looking for bcause of other factors..

That being said, if you don't give your camera enough time to focus the shot according to the action, you will get blur.

The better the sensor, the more accurate you have to be to get a sharp image.

The bottom line. What are you doing with the images?

Post to Web?

Save your money, buy less expensive lens as the higher resolution is waste.

Are you printing the photos?

Then how large are you printing? Not printing or just doing 8 1/2" x 11"? Then don't spend the money.

In other words, (Shelby) why drive a Super Snake if you are only going around the block. Yes, it feels great to drive the SS, but a stock Mustang will get you around the block. If your plan is to race, drag, and tour the Country, then you want the Super Snake.

Or if you are looking at CNC machines. If you are drilling some holes in a piece of metal that have loose tolerances, then don't spend 50k on a CNC machine. Buy a Drill Press. If you want to mill at 1 or 2 ten thousandth tolerance on some thing, your low budget Mill won't do. See where I am at?

Only you know what your photography future holds.

Some people are happy with camera phone photos, and they drive Cobalts. Ha, Ha, Ha.

Remember, exposure is a triangle.

One side, Shutter speed.Slow shutter speed means

One side, Aperture setting. Faster lens means faster shutter speed

One side, ISO setting. Note: ISO is the equivalent to ASA ratings on film.

 

.

 

 

 

.

[ilmor]

iPhone.

 

That is all.

[SHELBYCS6]

Thanks Mike. I mean that.

I admit I have seen Z's thread and held off posting. Here is my abridged reply:

 

Z.

Glass is forever, Digital camera bodies come and go.

Nikon's 16 Megapixel DX D7000 sensor has amazing resolution. Buying glass that is great for a lower resolution sensor/camera falls short on a higher resolution glass.

For low light you need a faster lens, or you sacrifice high ISO or slow shutter speed to have enough light capture the scene.

For instance, Hockey arenas, low light F2.8 or faster makes a huge difference. Out side doing soccer, cheaper slower lens will make good shots.

Rain, overcast, lens with an F-stop of f4.5 is too slow, remember Carlisle? Rain, grey. Auto ISO.

A fast F2.8 or better is needed for the higher shutter speeds you want to get a clear sharp shot of the car. If you use a slower lens, F4.5 or more you have to go with higher ISO's to compensate for the slower lens.if not the results are higher noise, Vibration reduction (VR) on the lens does allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds, as long as the subject is not moving too fast it will be focused, but slow is blur.

You have to have a dollar amount in mind and buy the best you can within your budget amount.

The older 80-400mm lens is at least $1000 less.than the newly released lens of the same focal length. Why? Seconds and milliseconds. The new lens is incredibly fast.

Old lens used the camera's battery to drive a motor that drives the screw gear on the lens. The new lens has silent wave motors on the lens that require a lot less of the cameras battery to drive it. Nikon added another piece of glass to the lens. New lens is way faster than the old lens, hence the huge increase in cost.

In glass, you really do get what you pay for.

Bight the bullet, save for a 70-200mm F2.8 VR2 Nikon lens. Fast, sharp, and can be used when you get a second camera, IE FX,.

This lens on your D7000 is a 105mm to 300mm lens. You can add a teleconverter like the 1.4 to make this a 147mm to420 mm lens at F4.

If you buy a full frame sensor camera down the road you still have a kick ass lens. A little log and heay the lens is but the results are worth it.

The lighter, smaller F3.5, F4.5 VR lens are good but you won't get that crisp image you are looking for bcause of other factors..

That being said, if you don't give your camera enough time to focus the shot according to the action, you will get blur.

The better the sensor, the more accurate you have to be to get a sharp image.

The bottom line. What are you doing with the images?

Post to Web?

Save your money, buy less expensive lens as the higher resolution is waste.

Are you printing the photos?

Then how large are you printing? Not printing or just doing 8 1/2" x 11"? Then don't spend the money.

In other words, (Shelby) why drive a Super Snake if you are only going around the block. Yes, it feels great to drive the SS, but a stock Mustang will get you around the block. If your plan is to race, drag, and tour the Country, then you want the Super Snake.

Or if you are looking at CNC machines. If you are drilling some holes in a piece of metal that have loose tolerances, then don't spend 50k on a CNC machine. Buy a Drill Press. If you want to mill at 1 or 2 ten thousandth tolerance on some thing, your low budget Mill won't do. See where I am at?

Only you know what your photography future holds.

Some people are happy with camera phone photos, and they drive Cobalts. Ha, Ha, Ha.

Remember, exposure is a triangle.

One side, Shutter speed.Slow shutter speed means

One side, Aperture setting. Faster lens means faster shutter speed

One side, ISO setting. Note: ISO is the equivalent to ASA ratings on film.

 

.

 

 

 

.

OMG Ken,

I just nearly spit my coffee over my laptop..

My girlfriend is quite happy with her I-Phone pictures and...wait for it..

drives a Cobalt..LMAO

[ilmor]

By the way, I was kidding somewhat w/ my earlier reply...and then coincidentally I came across this Forbes article from a Twitter link....

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amadoudiallo/2013/11/27/iphone-5-replaced-dslr/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[twobjshelbys]

I'm a pretty good photographer too. My favorite lens is a 30-odd-year old Nikon 35-105 zoom micro nikkor. It works great still. It was one of the first auto-focus lenses from the 8008 era. The glass is superb. I took it on a Grand Canyon trip and it got some sand in the focus ring so I sent it to be cleaned. Nikon no longer has parts for it. I took it to the local Mikes Camera and they cleaned and lubed it up pretty good but I'm now tempted to buy another from eBay just to have a spare.

 

This lens is the only one that Nikon made that was both micro focus and normal focus so it's great for nature and "thing" close ups to boot.

 

But the best thing about it is the glass!!! Even at the resolution on my D700 and D300s it holds up to modern requirements. I don't use it much in normal mode on the D300s because of the 1.5x focal length multiplier but it ends up being a 52mm which is the "normal" lens for full frame 35mm.

 

The other lens I use as the standard one is a 24-120 AF/VR. Again an older version of it but still better, in my opinion, than the one that replaced it.

 

My long lens is a 80-200 f2.8. I use it for low light sports photography.

 

I bought all these AF lenses when I got the 8008 and over the years. I added the 24-120 when I got the first digital SLR (D100). Like someone said, camera bodies come and go but glass is forever. There are some things I really like about Canon sensors but can't justify starting all over on lenses.

[kstrong]

OMG Ken,

I just nearly spit my coffee over my laptop..

My girlfriend is quite happy with her I-Phone pictures and...wait for it..

drives a Cobalt..LMAO

 

I'm a pretty good photographer too. My favorite lens is a 30-odd-year old Nikon 35-105 zoom micro nikkor. It works great still. It was one of the first auto-focus lenses from the 8008 era. The glass is superb. I took it on a Grand Canyon trip and it got some sand in the focus ring so I sent it to be cleaned. Nikon no longer has parts for it. I took it to the local Mikes Camera and they cleaned and lubed it up pretty good but I'm now tempted to buy another from eBay just to have a spare.

 

This lens is the only one that Nikon made that was both micro focus and normal focus so it's great for nature and "thing" close ups to boot.

 

But the best thing about it is the glass!!! Even at the resolution on my D700 and D300s it holds up to modern requirements. I don't use it much in normal mode on the D300s because of the 1.5x focal length multiplier but it ends up being a 52mm which is the "normal" lens for full frame 35mm.

 

The other lens I use as the standard one is a 24-120 AF/VR. Again an older version of it but still better, in my opinion, than the one that replaced it.

 

My long lens is a 80-200 f2.8. I use it for low light sports photography.

 

I bought all these AF lenses when I got the 8008 and over the years. I added the 24-120 when I got the first digital SLR (D100). Like someone said, camera bodies come and go but glass is forever. There are some things I really like about Canon sensors but can't justify starting all over on lenses.

Exactly. I still have some non VR lens from my film days as well. 70-300 F4-5.6, 28mm F2.8, and more.

For low light sports events, overcast car events you can't beat the 80-200 or the 70-200.

I have been a Nikon fan since 1975. Canon is a great company as well. Nikon is to Ford as Chevy.is to Canon.

[kstrong]

By the way, I was kidding somewhat w/ my earlier reply...and then coincidentally I came across this Forbes article from a Twitter link....

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amadoudiallo/2013/11/27/iphone-5-replaced-dslr/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Photography is becoming "Good enough". Recent cell phones can take great pictures and I agree with the article.

The camera is the tool for photography as the wrench is the tool of the mechanic.

[twobjshelbys]

 

Exactly. I still have some non VR lens from my film days as well. 70-300 F4-5.6, 28mm F2.8, and more.

For low light sports events, overcast car events you can't beat the 80-200 or the 70-200.

I have been a Nikon fan since 1975. Canon is a great company as well. Nikon is to Ford as Chevy.is to Canon.

I bought my F2 in late 1971... I finally acquiesced to digital with the D100 and the demise of Kodachrome. I used the 8008 for a while because scanned film was still better than digital, but that all changed with the D700 and I haven't looked back. I still have the film cameras tucked away in the closet but they have no value on the open market. I wonder how many of the F6 Nikon sells now. The D4 is such an awesome camera but it was too heavy and bulky for my liking and didn't fit in an ammo can on river trips. It also had way more features than I could ever use so when the D700 came out that's what I got. I passed on the D800 because I couldn't see swapping now and the D700 had a better high end ISO range. When the D100 died I got a D300s as a second body because the menus and everything are virtually identical to the D700 and they used the same battery. During the flood here I took everything on the D300s because it also has video capability.

 

The best lens I had is a fixed focus 85mm I used for portraits. But it's the old F-style pentaprism hook for meter coupling so I can't use it on anything except the F2.

[MikeCMM]

Somewhere floating around the house is my Dad's old Pentax. I want to say it was made in West Germany?

 

It did take some nice pictures back in the day.

[Z-man]

So, I've read all your comments and advise, learned a little more, spoken to some other photogrphers I shoot with, and even 'test drove' a lense.

I shot for about 20 minutes with a Tamron 200mm-500mm f3.5/6.3. It was nice, but had no image stabilization. It also seemd slow to focus and 'soft' if pushed to 500mm. If I backed it off to 400/450mm it was noticably sharper. When I gave these comments to the sales guy, he told me to increase my ISO and change to a spot focus mode to compensate. I tried it, and saw no real changes. I still would like to try the 600mm Tamron when it comes out. Even if not razor sharp at 600mm, if I had to back off the focal length a little, I would still end up sharper than the maxed out 500mm lense.

I did get commenst from a few photographers that more light is the key to increased sharpness. They reccomended something in the range of a 300mm zoom capable of f2.8. Sigma makes a 120m-300mm f2.8, with image stabilization, but like with any decent lense, its expensive.

So, while I wait for the new Tamron 600mm to be released in the spring, I'm keeping my eyes out for a clean used 300mm Sigma. The Sigma, with a teleconverter, would end up giving me an equal focal length and a better f-stop.

Z-man

[kstrong]

Somewhere floating around the house is my Dad's old Pentax. I want to say it was made in West Germany?

 

It did take some nice pictures back in the day.

I had a few Pentax lens from my early film days. I gave them all to a lady last summer at an Airshow.

She had a Digital Pentax and loved getting the three lens, wide, telephoto and zoom. All non auto focus but she did not care.

She works for the photography store that supported the Airshow.

 

 

So, I've read all your comments and advise, learned a little more, spoken to some other photogrphers I shoot with, and even 'test drove' a lense.

 

I shot for about 20 minutes with a Tamron 200mm-500mm f3.5/6.3. It was nice, but had no image stabilization. It also seemd slow to focus and 'soft' if pushed to 500mm. If I backed it off to 400/450mm it was noticably sharper. When I gave these comments to the sales guy, he told me to increase my ISO and change to a spot focus mode to compensate. I tried it, and saw no real changes. I still would like to try the 600mm Tamron when it comes out. Even if not razor sharp at 600mm, if I had to back off the focal length a little, I would still end up sharper than the maxed out 500mm lense.

 

I did get commenst from a few photographers that more light is the key to increased sharpness. They reccomended something in the range of a 300mm zoom capable of f2.8. Sigma makes a 120m-300mm f2.8, with image stabilization, but like with any decent lense, its expensive.

 

So, while I wait for the new Tamron 600mm to be released in the spring, I'm keeping my eyes out for a clean used 300mm Sigma. The Sigma, with a teleconverter, would end up giving me an equal focal length and a better f-stop.

 

Z-man

Z,

300 and 600 mm fixed?

On your D7000, a 300mm is 450mm and a 600mm is a 900mm.

Add the teleconverter and it gets unusable for car shows and track.

For what? Are you taking up birding , spying or astro photography?

Read your first e-mail. Trying to help.

You have to have good holding technique, stable, hold the camera still when needed. The slower the shutter speed the more stable you have to be.

Higher ISO lets you use a higher Shutter speed. Fast glass for low light.

Teleconverters add Fstops depending on the multiplier, 1, 1 1/2, or 2 F stops. On the lenses you mentioned, not good for daylight.

Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR1 or VR2. Used ones selling all the time. Absolutely best all around event lens, a little heavy but worth it.

80-400mm AF-S VR Nikon is expensive but one hell of a lens. Fast, sharp and will hold it's value for many years.

Sigma has some new ones about to be released but many k's

[Z-man]

Z,

300 and 600 mm fixed?

On your D7000, a 300mm is 450mm and a 600mm is a 900mm.

Add the teleconverter and it gets unusable for car shows and track.

For what? Are you taking up birding , spying or astro photography?

Read your first e-mail. Trying to help.

You have to have good holding technique, stable, hold the camera still when needed. The slower the shutter speed the more stable you have to be.

Higher ISO lets you use a higher Shutter speed. Fast glass for low light.

Teleconverters add Fstops depending on the multiplier, 1, 1 1/2, or 2 F stops. On the lense you mentioned, not good for daylight.

Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR1 or VR2. Used ones selling all the time. Absolutely best all around event lense, a little heavy but worth it.

80-400mm AF-S VR Nikon is expensive but one hell of a lense. Fast, sharp and will hold it's value for many years.

Sigma has some new ones about to be released but many k's

 

 

Kstrong -

 

Always glad to hear your input. I really value your comments and opinions.

 

You said something that has me scratching my head. I specifically asked if the lenses I was looking at were going to have the 1.5 focal length multiplier on my camera (like my older 'non-digital" lenses), or were they going to be the focal length as-marked on the lense. The answer I got was they were going to produce a focal length 'as-marked'. My current zoom is a 75mm-300mm. This gives me an adjusted focal length of 150mm - 450mm. For some situations, I could use a little more focal length. That is why I was looking at lenses with an upper end focal lenght of 500mm.

 

I most certainly hope you are correct, and the camera store guy was mistaken, because if that is the case, you just save me some considerable coin. There are also more lenses to choose from in the lower focal length range.

 

To answer some of your other questions, the lense I was waiting to see is a Tamron SP 150mm - 600mm f5.0/6.3. But as you stated, this may end up being equivelent to a 900mm lense on my camera, You certainly couldn't hand hold that with any degree of 'steadyness', and the shutter speed would have to be at least 1/1000th, so there better be a lot of light at f5.6. You know, as I am typing this I think I am talking myself out of this lense if it is indees a 900mm equivelent.

 

The Sigma 120mm -300mm would give me the same upper end focal lenght I have now, but take my aperature from 5.6 to 2.8.

 

I'll also look into the lenses you reccomended. What is the f-stop on the 80mm-400mm?

 

....and I'm not taking up birding, spying or astro-photography, but I was hoping to see your hosue from my backyard.

 

Thanks for helping me 'see the light'

 

Z-man

[kstrong]

 

Kstrong -

 

Always glad to hear your input. I really value your comments and opinions.

 

You said something that has me scratching my head. I specifically asked if the lenses I was looking at were going to have the 1.5 focal length multiplier on my camera (like my older 'non-digital" lenses), or were they going to be the focal length as-marked on the lense. The answer I got was they were going to produce a focal length 'as-marked'. My current zoom is a 75mm-300mm. This gives me an adjusted focal length of 150mm - 450mm. For some situations, I could use a little more focal length. That is why I was looking at lenses with an upper end focal lenght of 500mm.

 

I most certainly hope you are correct, and the camera store guy was mistaken, because if that is the case, you just save me some considerable coin. There are also more lenses to choose from in the lower focal length range.

 

To answer some of your other questions, the lense I was waiting to see is a Tamron SP 150mm - 600mm f5.0/6.3. But as you stated, this may end up being equivelent to a 900mm lense on my camera, You certainly couldn't hand hold that with any degree of 'steadyness', and the shutter speed would have to be at least 1/1000th, so there better be a lot of light at f5.6. You know, as I am typing this I think I am talking myself out of this lense if it is indees a 900mm equivelent.

 

The Sigma 120mm -300mm would give me the same upper end focal lenght I have now, but take my aperature from 5.6 to 2.8.

 

I'll also look into the lenses you reccomended. What is the f-stop on the 80mm-400mm?

 

....and I'm not taking up birding, spying or astro-photography, but I was hoping to see your hosue from my backyard.

 

Thanks for helping me 'see the light'

 

Z-man

No problem, the light is what photography is about.

. The 80-400 is 4.5-5.6 at the long end. Around $2800.00 cn. The older 80-400 is slow to focus but great for landscape type photography.

It is my new Airshow lens.I always invest my tax return in Photography equipment for my money loosing Photography business..

Totally happy with the shots I got with the D7100 and 80-400 AF-S.

I use the D7100 and 70-200 for Hockey.

 

This link explains the conception that the DX camera makes the lens seem longer.It is advertised as a 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor.

 

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-not-increase-focal-length-over-ff-decreases-field-view.html

 

Tamron explains it this way:

http://tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

 

The pentax author has his outlook on the subject but the comments offer a real world opinion.

D7100 cropped in the 1.3 crop mode has 16 M pixels on the image. Non cropped has 24 Mp

 

My bottom line, 400mm on my Full Frame D3 has 50% more background than same lens on the D7000 or D7100 in normal mode.

Yes, I could crop the D3 shot post processing but not the same.

Thus it appears to be a 1.5 magnification. The camera store is not wrong but not right either.

It can be very confusing.

[kstrong]

Here you go, less than $1100.00

 

http://photorumors.com/2013/12/13/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-release-date-and-price-for-japan-announced/

 

 

Product Highlights

1. 4x ultra-telephoto zoom lens with a focal length range of 150mm to 600mm
   The focal length range of this lens was extended by 50mm on the wide-angle side and 100mm on the telephoto side compared to the existing model (Model A08), making it possible to take even more striking photographs of birds, wildlife, sports, and other distant subjects. Mounted on APS-C DSLR cameras, it has a stunning equivalent focal length range of 233mm to 930mm, almost to 1000mm.

Read more on PhotoRumors.com: http://photorumors.com/2013/12/13/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-release-date-and-price-for-japan-announced/#ixzz2nVWMG8fV

[Z-man]

^ Kstrong -

 

That 150mm-600mm is the lense I was thinking about. The same one you asked me if I was taking up spying and astro-photography, in order to need that much focal length. The price is much lower than I expected, so I guess its a contender again. This lense does have image stabilization (it will certainly need it), but I am concerned a little about the f5/6.3 apature. If you consider the focal length to apature to price ratios, this lense is a bargin. Any hesistation on the apature rating?

 

I also read your links about full frame vs. DX camera, and the focal length 'correction' misconceptions. The guy on the Pentex formun gave a very good explantion , and the simulator on the Tamron site really showed the effect well. It's kind of like 'fake' panaramic photos, where they just crop off the top 1/3 and bottom 1/3 of the picture to make it seem widescreen. The image size is the same, you are seeing more, or less, of the surrounding background.

 

So it comes down to this question....."Given the type of autosports photography we do, is focal length or apature more desirable?"

 

You can actually have both, but I'd have to sell the GT500 to afford it ....

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551436-REG/Sigma_597306_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

 

Z-man

 

ps - I knew you would pic up on the seeing the light referance

[NMAv]

Just now saw this. The Sigma 120mm-300mm f2.8 is a nice lens. I do a lot of indoor figure skating photography (shitty light and fast motion) and this lens works very well. I had a bigger F2 400 Nikon at one time but it was too big to utilize, although it took sweet photographs. I've got a couple D300s that I regularly use and the Nikon/Sigma combination works very well. The standard F2.8 Nikon 70-200 V2 is a great lens at under 2K as well.

[Z-man]

Someone (okay, it was Kstrong) asked me what lens I finally ended up with, so i thought i would answer that question here.

 

I got the Tamron SP 150mm - 600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD (say that 10 times fast). I have only used it once so far at a minor league baseball game.

 

Here is a picture of the lens mounted on my Nikon D7000, both in its most compact form, as well as in its fully zoomed size....

 

 

 

Yeah, it's a big boy. It has image stabilization and can be hand held, but only if your forearms are the size of Popeye's or your name is Lou Ferrigno.

 

Here are two pics I took with is during the game. Both were from the stands, not from the field. The first is with the lens at 600mm, and the second is about 500mm. If you click the pics they will open in full resolution so you can get a really good look at the sharpness of the lens. Photos are 'as shot' and not cropped or edited in any way.

 

 

 

I will be giving a good test in August when I attend SAAC-40 at Pocono Raceway. I will also shoot an Indy Car event there that same weekend. After that I'll have a good feel for how well the lens handles.

 

Z-man

[kstrong]

Someone (okay, it was Kstrong) asked me what lens I finally ended up with, so i thought i would answer that question here.

 

I got the Tamron SP 150mm - 600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD (say that 10 times fast). I have only used it once so far at a minor league baseball game.

 

Here is a picture of the lens mounted on my Nikon D7000, both in its most compact form, as well as in its fully zoomed size....

 

 

 

Yeah, it's a big boy. It has image stabilization and can be hand held, but only if your forearms are the size of Popeye's or your name is Lou Ferrigno.

 

Here are two pics I took with is during the game. Both were from the stands, not from the field. The first is with the lens at 600mm, and the second is about 500mm. If you click the pics they will open in full resolution so you can get a really good look at the sharpness of the lens. Photos are 'as shot' and not cropped or edited in any way.

 

 

 

I will be giving a good test in August when I attend SAAC-40 at Pocono Raceway. I will also shoot an Indy Car event there that same weekend. After that I'll have a good feel for how well the lens handles.

 

Z-man

Nice shots.

I see you bought a grip, should help counter balance the lens.

Need a bunch of light for that lens or pump up the ISO.

4.3 pounds. Wow. Add camera and grip, you have 6 plus pounds.

Tamron says;

DX 150 - 600mm

Comparable DX Focal Length: 225 - 900 mm

Looks like you'll be catching toes at Carlise with this lens next year.;

[Bill Hamilton]

Amazing shot's guys. I use a D7000 myself with about 65,000 pic's taken so far with it. Waiting on the new D7200 to come out and upgrade again. I went down the Nikon path myself some years back (DX-40) so with all my Nikon lenses I'm locked it until I hit the Powerball (LOL).

[kstrong]

Amazing shot's guys. I use a D7000 myself with about 65,000 pic's taken so far with it. Waiting on the new D7200 to come out and upgrade again. I went down the Nikon path myself some years back (DX-40) so with all my Nikon lenses I'm locked it until I hit the Powerball (LOL).

Hi Bill,

The D7200 is now in stock all over the place. Great camera. Tough decision for me, D7200 or D810?.

 

I decided to go with the D810.

Program the Fn button for DX mode and I have a 32 mp full frame with a 16 mp 1.5 crop DX camera.

The big difference is the "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" rating.

2853 for the D810,

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810

 

Now the D7200 "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" rating.

1333 for the D7200.

It does have the extra 1/3 crop mode.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D7200

If I had the money, I would be first in line for the D5 when it hits the market in another year or so.

 

I really like the super quiet shutter on the D810, and that is not even the quiet mode you can set.

Shot these with the 80-400; Various settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shot these with the TAMRON SP 24-70 F2.8 DI VC USD NIKON lens;

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you will see more DX lens available and the D7200 is amazing. Even the D7000 and D7100 are great cameras.

The more toys the camera has, the more chances of screwing things up.

[twobjshelbys]

D810. If my D700 gets dropped that's what I will get

[Bill Hamilton]

Hi Bill,

The D7200 is now in stock all over the place. Great camera. Tough decision for me, D7200 or D810?.

 

I decided to go with the D810.

Program the Fn button for DX mode and I have a 32 mp full frame with a 16 mp 1.5 crop DX camera.

The big difference is the "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" rating.

2853 for the D810,

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810

 

Now the D7200 "Sports (Low-Light ISO)" rating.

1333 for the D7200.

It does have the extra 1/3 crop mode.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D7200

If I had the money, I would be first in line for the D5 when it hits the market in another year or so.

 

I really like the super quiet shutter on the D810, and that is not even the quiet mode you can set.

Shot these with the 80-400; Various settings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shot these with the TAMRON SP 24-70 F2.8 DI VC USD NIKON lens;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you will see more DX lens available and the D7200 is amazing. Even the D7000 and D7100 are great cameras.

The more toys the camera has, the more chances of screwing things up.

 

 

 

Fantastic shots! I hadn't kept up or been looking at camera's for about 6 months hence my lack of knowledge on the release of the D7200, Thanks.

 

 

P.S. Started looking online at D7200's. It will be a nice upgrade over my D7000. Thanks again for the heads up.