Nikon lens ideas please

scott199

scott199

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,387
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all

I’m Mostly a sport type person, to give a background.

Going to have a winter clean out, currently my bits listed in sig.

I really don’t use hardly any of them, so I’m going to change the siggy 70-200 to a Nikon 70-200 vr11 or FL (focus is a little slow and no OS/VR on siggy) sell/swap d5100, 18-200, 35 and or maybe 17-50, keep 105 macro.

I’m getting a 200-500 for some reach, football/sports and maybe a touch of wildlife etc.

Id like some advise or recommendation for the lower end, 2.8/1.8 ?? 20/24 ish to 70 type range for walkabout/general.

Any advise or such for a sharp lens n this range you would recommend I look at ?
 
Oh yeah, no plan on going FF think this D500 is epic and way more than I need.
 
I have read good thing about the 17-55 2.8 dx any ideas or anyone have one ?
 
I went over to FF cameras and wouldn't look back. The Nikon D810 with 36mp allow cropping to an amazing amount without picture quality loss, even the video side is really good now.. will also shoot with DX lenses
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
take a look at the Nikon 24-70mm G f2.8 lens with the 77mm front glass, it is supposed to be sharper than the newer VR version. I have one and is my most used walkabout lens@ around £1349


https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-FX-Lenses/Nikon-AF-S-24-70mm-f2.8G-ED-Lens
Click to expand...

Thank you, this was my first thought, well not the G but that focal range, will read some about the G (y)

Peter123 said:
16-80 works well on my D500 (assuming you are not going over to FF)
Click to expand...
Not looked at this one, will have a little look, cheers

sk66 said:
Hmm, I might be inclined to wait for some reviews of the new Sigma 60-600mm.
Click to expand...
Not really seen to much about this, are you thinking instead of the 200-500 ?


realspeed said:
I went over to FF cameras and wouldn't look back. The Nikon D810 with 36mp allow cropping to an amazing amount without picture quality loss, even the video side is really good now.. will also shoot with DX lenses
Click to expand...
Thanks, maybe one day, but D500 is only a few months old, d500 seems perfect for my needs at this point.
 
realspeed said:
take a look at the Nikon 24-70mm G f2.8 lens with the 77mm front glass, it is supposed to be sharper than the newer VR version.
Click to expand...

This review at Photography life is useful

The G vs VR sharpness question is more complicated than it would seem, with the G lens design maybe more suited for portraits and the VR design for landscape.
 
sk66 said:
And the 70-200 unless you need the low light/wide aperture... in which case I would lean towards the 120-300 and a 2x (but it's a bit heavy for extended handholding).
Click to expand...
Yeah I do need the 2.8, mainly shoot football etc, damp, dull days and night games.

But must admit, not really looked at the 120-300.
 
Last edited:
For a DX camera - I’d recommend the 17-55.

It’s a monster of a lens - but the images are really nice. I’ve got one and used it a lot on the d7200 for sport etc. really useful. If you’re on a crop body, then you’ll want the extra wide mm over the 24. I love the 24-70 too, but unnecessary on ff in my experience. I’d keep the 35 prime as well for the time being. The best fast primes for Nikon are the sigma arts imo - the Nikon 1.4 primes are super spicy but really good too.

If you’re changing the 70-200 and shooting sport and, most importantly can afford it, change to the fl. I can’t stand the vrii - especially with the focus breathing. The fl is in my experience heads and shoulders above anything else on the market - it’s so fast and so good you’ll love it for sport.

This my be an unpopular opinion, but I’d not recommend the 200-500 for sport. Instead I’d look at a used 200-400 f/4. It’s a stop faster, faster af and built better. If you’re shooting sport a lot, I find build quality is really important - my gear tends to end up wet, muddy etc etc and I have tried the 200-500 and I don’t think it’d last as long as it ought too.

Just my 2p
 
scott199 said:
I have read good thing about the 17-55 2.8 dx any ideas or anyone have one ?
Click to expand...

The 17-55mm f/2.8 works a treat on the D500. I've got the 24-70mm f/2.8 VR too but tend to use the 17-55mm as a "standard" lens unless I really need the VR. A 70-200mm f/2.8 tends to live on the second D500 and I really don't notice the missing 15mm between the 2 x lenses at all when flicking between each set up.

GC
 
I have an 17-55 that I will be putting into classifieds when I’ve got the gear I want to sell together. Going to be two weeks or so.
 
realspeed said:
take a look at the Nikon 24-70mm G f2.8 lens with the 77mm front glass, it is supposed to be sharper than the newer VR version. I have one and is my most used walkabout lens@ around £1349


https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-FX-Lenses/Nikon-AF-S-24-70mm-f2.8G-ED-Lens
Click to expand...

The older lens is sharper in the center but not at the edges - the newer lens is more uniform center to edge which makes it ideal for landscapers etc.

Both are decent and I have the mk1 and feel no compulsion to buy the newer one BUT if I was buying now, I would buy the mk2 newer one.
 
toohuge said:
For a DX camera - I’d recommend the 17-55.

It’s a monster of a lens - but the images are really nice. I’ve got one and used it a lot on the d7200 for sport etc. really useful. If you’re on a crop body, then you’ll want the extra wide mm over the 24. I love the 24-70 too, but unnecessary on ff in my experience. I’d keep the 35 prime as well for the time being. The best fast primes for Nikon are the sigma arts imo - the Nikon 1.4 primes are super spicy but really good too.

If you’re changing the 70-200 and shooting sport and, most importantly can afford it, change to the fl. I can’t stand the vrii - especially with the focus breathing. The fl is in my experience heads and shoulders above anything else on the market - it’s so fast and so good you’ll love it for sport.

This my be an unpopular opinion, but I’d not recommend the 200-500 for sport. Instead I’d look at a used 200-400 f/4. It’s a stop faster, faster af and built better. If you’re shooting sport a lot, I find build quality is really important - my gear tends to end up wet, muddy etc etc and I have tried the 200-500 and I don’t think it’d last as long as it ought too.

Just my 2p
Click to expand...

Great post, thank you, I am aiming for the FL (money available, pending other lenses ect)

Fear the 200-400 is a little out of my price range ??, 70-200 is most important for me, I get full access pitchside so prob never use anything but the 70-200, will put all my availble funds into this.

200-500 will be for a bit of wildlife ect when no footy on. Appreciate the info on 17-55 (y)

Pound Coin said:
I have an 17-55 that I will be putting into classifieds when I’ve got the gear I want to sell together. Going to be two weeks or so.
Click to expand...

Might be a little early for me unless price is to good to miss, any idea on price you might be looking for ?
 
OP - I see in your signature that you have a tamron 17-50 - what's wrong with that lens? The 17-55 is really nice, no one is going to question that.

I don't want to tell you how to suck eggs - in my experience of shooting football, 70-200 is pretty short actually. You'll only really got good shots in the last 1/4 maybe 1/3 of the pitch as they're running towards you. You'd be amazed at how short the 70-200 is when you are outside, especially at a football ground. Furthermore, some grounds have different access and you may not always be pitch side.

With this in mind, when I shoot football, I only take my 35 prime for anything close range, everything else is either a 70-200 or a 300. - I rarely use my 17-55 for anything sport related, except events. With this in mind, that's why I recommended the 200-400 - there's one in the classifieds at the moment that looks too tempting for me :D but with that focal range, you'll be able to shoot comfortably at the 1/2 way point on a pitch, to get things like kickoff etc.
 
toohuge said:
OP - I see in your signature that you have a tamron 17-50 - what's wrong with that lens? The 17-55 is really nice, no one is going to question that.

I don't want to tell you how to suck eggs - in my experience of shooting football, 70-200 is pretty short actually. You'll only really got good shots in the last 1/4 maybe 1/3 of the pitch as they're running towards you. You'd be amazed at how short the 70-200 is when you are outside, especially at a football ground. Furthermore, some grounds have different access and you may not always be pitch side.

With this in mind, when I shoot football, I only take my 35 prime for anything close range, everything else is either a 70-200 or a 300. - I rarely use my 17-55 for anything sport related, except events. With this in mind, that's why I recommended the 200-400 - there's one in the classifieds at the moment that looks too tempting for me :D but with that focal range, you'll be able to shoot comfortably at the 1/2 way point on a pitch, to get things like kickoff etc.
Click to expand...

Hi, nothing to wrong with Tammy just feel it’s a bit soft, never been really impressed with it, but it was a cheap stop gap early days.

I agree I do find the 70-200 short quite a lot but I only have one body, well only use one and I feel the 200-400 will just be long at the 200, ideally I’d love to have both but at 1500 used, I’d have to choose 70-200 or 200-400 and as today showed at 4:30 I was pushing 16k+ iso to get my shutter above 640 with 2.8, non league flood lights are really poor (I may be able to drop this lower ?? but I’m still learning)

Pitch wise I’m a club photographer so I get clear access anywhere pichside at all pitches they play on, so I’m pretty much touchline/byline always, but you are correct, I do miss a lot, if I’m middle I can’t really get decent goal mouth action or I have to choose an end based on play and go behind goal, just sit and wait for the action to come my way.

The shorter lens (24-70/17-55 etc) was to fill the void for walkabout/portraits type stuff, maybe the odd building/landscape, really just for anything else I might want to do.

I have found the 200-400, it’s very temting but feel I would regret not getting a good 70-200 ???

Oh why can’t I be rich and not have these decisions to make :(
 
Between the 2, a good 70-200 will be used more. Between a 17-55 and a 200-400 - I’m not so sure....

I’d keep the 35 prime for portraits at the moment and stick with your tamron too. Then after a few months go through your images and see what focal lengths you’re using a lot and then work out if you need extra reach or more wide angles.

I shoot quite a bit of sport and use an old 80-200 push pull most of the time. You’d be surprised how capable that old and very slow (af) lens is once you get used to it.

If you’re on a budget - id look for a 70-200 vri and skip the vrii in favour of the fl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top