ACtually I was lucky to get that close for my son's most of his and my daughters has been shot from a distance it looks like we used a standard small digi camera. I keep changing my mind oh well it's still fun we'll have to see what I decided.
d7000 telephoto lens advice
(78 posts) (19 voices)-
Bland: I am a trial lawyer by training. When people ask me what I think about an issue I often answer: "I don't know: until I understand what is the best argument for one side and then what is the best argument for the other side I cannot really make an informed decision about the subject."
Disagreement is good when it brings out the best arguments for each side. Then a more informed and intelligent choice can be made. I don't take offense when people argue for a different position than the one I stated. And I am willing to state a position different than the popular one if I feel it has some validity and is often overlooked. In law school we are trained to argue both sides of any fact pattern.
And it just may be that different things work better for different people. So both sides may be right. It just may be that many people reading this thread will have taken away different things they had not thought of and that will help them do better whatever they are trying to do.
Here is what I did with greeper's photo using only free Windows Photo Gallery to crop, darken the image a small bit and saturate the colors a small bit.
This is an example of what I have been talking about. Essentially, I took his 105mm image to about 200mm by cropping (or if the original image was taken by a point and shoot whatever the zoom was on a point and shoot to double it). If this image came from a point and shoot the image from the D7000 at 105mm will be much better.
Will this be good enough for a scrapbook printed 4 x 6 inches? That is the issue. On my monitor this image measures about 8 x 14 inches and looks like it would print out fine that size.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, cropping is maybe ok for scrapbooking but why
not learn to shoot the other way too. If you have the
money for 2.8 telezooms you can learn to frame on
the spot and moreover get the feeling of closeness
to tele. I mean, human face looks different
depending on the distance. Closely cropped is not the
same as shot close at first place.Then there is subject isolation. If you crop you have to
use small apertures. Shoot playing kids or long jumper
against the audience with dx on f6 and you have everything
on focus and nothing is really a subject. Especially jumpers need
at least mild isolation and they need that prefocus too.
No way to catch high jumper or pole vaulter on the highest moment with
tracking!High iso, ISO 2000 with 1/800 won't give you much detail!
Now , i don't say that you can't crop and such but if you have
money and time , sport photography is a really
good learning opportunity that benefits other areas
of photography too! Especially because sport
Is all about repeat. If you want to practice focusing, sport is
the way to go!Posted 1 year ago # -
mtkmmt, I think that is what we are all saying, but donaldejose seems to have a different opinion ;)
I personally hate the shoot with a lens you know isn't long enough and crop idea. I have really only cropped a couple of images ever. If you can help it I don't know why you would want to throw away the quality by cropping. The one that sticks out in my mind I didn't have enough zoom and at 200mm it was still not long enough. I cropped the picture and it looks good, but I can't ever blow it up larger than a 8x10 or so and that disappoints me.
To me cropping is basically settling for sub par quality pics. Especially if you were in a situation where you had to use a higher ISO. It might be OK for small pics. If you are going to crop the pictures you might as well get a super zoom P&S camera and use that instead. It would probably have better quality without the cropping.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, very long zooms and very large apertures do offer certain advantages and sometimes you can focus on a spot because you know the action will be there and yes cropping does throw away some of your original detail and image quality does degrade with higher ISO. All true. But we are starting with a D7000 sensor (an important factor) and ending with 4x6 prints (another important factor). You can make a good 4x6 print from one third of a D7000 captured image.
I too have used strong telephoto plus wide aperture to make the background blur away for a portrait effect. In fact, I have done it at f5.6 and 200mm or 300mm with my subject shooting a free-throw when I shot from the side across the court so the crowd is quite a distance away across the basketball court. It is a nice effect. I have also prefocused on the basket using a 300mm lens and waited for the ball to come through. But I couldn't prefocus on a spot on the court and expect the shooter to shoot from there!
Last year I was shooting high school basketball with zooms in the 3.5 to 5.6 f stop range with a D7000. While it can be done, I thought it made me "work too much on the edge" in the dim light found in many high school gymnasiums so this year I will be doing it with 2.8 zooms which will allow me to use faster shutter speeds and lower ISO. No one complained about my shots having too much noise or lack of detail last year but I want to "get off that edge." In fact, the players and their parents were all impressed by the clarity of the photographs and many were printed to 8x10, even those that had been cropped. So I understand all these options and the advantages offered by spending money. However, the original poster said most of his shooting would be outdoors, not indoors so he won't have the same low light problem I had last year.
My point is different. We always make these suggestions and give these options such that we give the impression that they are "the only way." This guy is talking about small prints for a scrapbook, not about publishing images in Sports Illustrated. He already has a 105mm and a D7000 sensor. He can already easily get to an effective 200 or 300 mm by simply cropping his image and they will print fine for a scrapbook. I don't see why my statement of that fact is so controversial. Certainly, to say you don't need to spend a penny to get what you want is unusual advice but when it is a workable option, shouldn't someone say it?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm agreeing with donalejose on this one.
I was shooting my son's orchestra dress rehearsal last week. Using the D700 and the 70-200 f/2.8, I can't get the shot I want without wading into the orchestra. I was already having to shot at ISO 6400 and f2.8 to keep shutter speeds above 1/200.
Now, I could go to the 80-400 and get closer, but then I'm at f5.6 and without shooting from a tripod (which isn't practical moving around back stage) I can't shoot fast enough to be handheld. I also know that the images are only going to be used for the website, so cropping massively isn't an issue.
Net result, I get the shots I want through cropping without going out and buying a $12,000 lens for the one or two nights a year I might need it.
So, in general, I would agree with going with the longest, fastest lens you can afford AND will use on a regular basis. It is also important to know what the end use of the pictures will be and the need for high detail. Sometimes good enough, really is good enough.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JorPet said:
I'm agreeing with donalejose on this one.I was shooting my son's orchestra dress rehearsal last week. Using the D700 and the 70-200 f/2.8, I can't get the shot I want without wading into the orchestra. I was already having to shot at ISO 6400 and f2.8 to keep shutter speeds above 1/200.
Now, I could go to the 80-400 and get closer, but then I'm at f5.6 and without shooting from a tripod (which isn't practical moving around back stage) I can't shoot fast enough to be handheld. I also know that the images are only going to be used for the website, so cropping massively isn't an issue.
Net result, I get the shots I want through cropping without going out and buying a $12,000 lens for the one or two nights a year I might need it.
So, in general, I would agree with going with the longest, fastest lens you can afford AND will use on a regular basis. It is also important to know what the end use of the pictures will be and the need for high detail. Sometimes good enough, really is good enough.
But that is a different situation. The 70-200 is F2.8 and is a pro lens. Other than the 80-400, the 70-300 or 300 F4 are the only other affordable options for more reach. And in your case you are using an F2.8 lens that would probably benefit over a variable aperture type lens or the fixed F4 as it will be several stops faster. That being said he recommended a 50 or 85 mm lens and cropping. That isn't even trying to get near the right focal length.
I will agree that it depends somewhat on the picture quality that is required. I think most people want the best results possible though. And in extreme conditions having to do massive cropping on high ISO shots isn't acceptable to me, but that is my opinion. It might work for someone for their use, but I never print 4x6 pictures so it would essentially be a worthless picture to me. I took a great picture of a sunset with purple and red skies with the moon coming up over some mountains. Awesome, but worth less picture because I took it with a 3 MP camera that looks pixelated at a 8x10 size...heavily cropping would basically create an image that is like a 3 MP picture.
I am done arguing though...it is getting a little off subject now.
Posted 1 year ago # -
tcole1983: No one is really arguing in this thread. We are just listing many different approaches to solving a problem varying from the very cheap to the very expensive and discussing the pros and cons of each one. Everyone is right in the right circumstances (your own personal balance of actual need vs. pro and con) and no one is wrong. I don't like the noise in high ISO and massive cropping either. That is why I suggested trying different ISOs to see how high greeper can personally accept and trying different cropping ratios to see how much crop greeper can personally accept. Doing so gives greeper the limitations of this technique for him in his application. That limit will be different for each of us. Your own personal ISO and cropping limitation is no different a limit than your dollar limitation or your f-stop limitation because of the low light you have to shoot in.
The way my comments are different than all the others in this thread is that I am the only person saying greeper may be able to get all he really needs for a scrap book without even spending a penny. And I tried to show illustrations of this. I am not stating a "right or wrong" argument, just an option: one among many. Personally, I think it has been an interesting discussion and I liked hearing the practical experiences of those who have shot sports or kids activities.
So what is greeper going to do? After all our discussion the odds are quite good he will go out and buy a non-Nikon telephoto lens no one recommended! Why? Because it gives him great range so cheap. And that lens may be all he really needs; especially keeping in mind he will be printing small images. This is a reasonable option also.
Posted 1 year ago # -
well I haven't decided yet what to do, a fellow teacher has used his Sigma 70-300 and seems to love it and he's a big Nikon guy. His comments were in my scenario not to spend the big bucks on Nikon it wasn't worth it for me. Man my brain is mush now, guess it's gonna come down to the almight $$$
Posted 1 year ago # -
greeper said:
well I haven't decided yet what to do, a fellow teacher has used his Sigma 70-300 and seems to love it and he's a big Nikon guy. His comments were in my scenario not to spend the big bucks on Nikon it wasn't worth it for me. Man my brain is mush now, guess it's gonna come down to the almight $$$Depending on which Sigma lens you are talking about..the OS version is only slightly less than the Nikon VR version. I would stick with the Nikon one if it were me. It is a pretty good buy. You can probably find a good deal on a used or refurbished one as well. I would take the used/refurbished Nikon over the Sigma version.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Both claim to allow you to take a photo about 4 stops slower than you could without VR or OS. I don't know of any objective direct comparison of the two systems to show which is better and by how much. Perhaps someone here does.
Nor do I know which of the two has better glass.
I would simply say that if you are looking for something in the 70 to 300 range, go with the Nikon. Perhaps that is my Nikon bias showing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Greeper - dear god! Everyone has thrown so much garbage at you the only next thing they are going to suggest is that you need a Ferrari to carry the lens in. Everyone is telling you what to get or do and there are almost no questions to you.
It is really much simpler:
Do you want to make this a huge hobby?
Do you want to carry 8 lbs of gear?
Do you want to spend $1,000s of dollars?
Would you carry a ton of stuff with you, to every kid event?What I read from your statements, I think in a way you answered No to all of them.
The key is to have gear that you are wiling to take with you all the time so you can make the shot.The Nikon 70-300 VR is your lens. There are not any other options since it is such a good lens at a great price. If that is a bit out our your price range look at the Tamron or Sigma but note they are at F6.3 which will have a hard time focusing due to the lack of light to the camera. Image stabilization, Vibration reduction, Optical stabilization are all the same thing and are all worth having.
We all crop images and you can do that with the viewer programs included with every Apple or Windows pc.
Go out and have fun with it and capture 1000's of bland images just to get "that one".
Posted 1 year ago # -
greeper said:
Ok confused now whats better the VR or OS? I wasn't planning on using a tripod.Essentially the same thing. OS is sigma's optical stabilization. VR is Nikon's. Probably work about the same.
+1 To TaoTeJared even though I was probably part of that garbage ;)
If you don't know what you need really the Nikon 70-300 VR is a good place to start.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No worries the garbage is worth it, overwhelming at times but if I slow down and read each one and research I've learned a ton from this post. Yes I'd like to make it hobby, no I don't have the cash to do so now nor the time I'd like to put into it. I primarily want to get closer shots from a further distance. We're not always allowed to get so close to the action and 99% is outdoors except for the Baseball and Volleyball. I'd love the 70-200 but too expensive for now. Either the Nikon or Sigma 70-300 seems like a better overall fit for now plus more in my budget. I've read a great deal of positive things about the Nikon as well as the Sigma. So far it seems for an amateur you really don't notice the difference in quality. However, if you know me as my wife does I usually go with the better quality or name brand just like all my other electronic gadgets. I've found the Nikon between 350 to 580 new/used.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There is only one Nikon VR. The non-VR version is not that good of a lens.
If you are looking at Sigma (fair warning there are not too many Sigma lovers here - if any) the one you should be looking at is: 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG OS $400-$500. Sigma's cheap lenses are, well really cheap and not worth buying IMO. The one thing I'm sure you have noticed is that with photo equipment, you get what you pay for.
Actually On BH photo the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Telephoto is only $350 after rebate. I think Tamron has better products personally and that is a great price for the lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
One more thing about all these event photography situations.
Getting close is important and if you do, then 50 and 85 could
be all you need. This has been said many times before on other
discussions but i'll say it once more ;) If you are interested in
photography and are willing to share your photos with other
parents and people involved, you can usually get to the stage,
sideline, on the field or whatever. When we talk about amateur
sports, juniors, music events - all you sometimes have to do is
call someone on charge and ask!Posted 1 year ago # -
I voted with my own dollars in agreement with TTJ years ago. When I first purchased Nikon DSLRs the Nikon 70-300 VR was the first telephoto zoom lens I purchased. I used it for many things from photographing birds to photographing sports. I have purchased many others since then which provide different options but that 70-300 VR surely could do all you are looking to do at this time. This is the lens:
If the 300mm end doesn't get you close enough I am afraid you are "out of luck" because any more tele power will be both costly and hard to work with.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ok, it's time for me to chime in and add more garbage to the heap. Like TTJ said, the 70-300mm is probably your best bet. Wether you go with Nikon, Sigma or Tamron is up to you and how much you're willing to spend.
There is one other option that I haven't seen mentioned which is the Nikon 55-300mm. It's a dedicated DX lens so it's even cheaper ($250 on amazon) than 70-300mm but optically it's almost as good and you also have the added benefit of the wider range.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Once again Awesome info/garbage whatever you want to call it, it's definitely addicting. A buddy at work happened to have the Nikon 70-300 and brought it in, looks like that'll be the one I'll try. It's a little pricier then the sigma and tamron, but I'm a name brand guy most of the time. If the others were half the cost then I'd consider them. I may have found a nice used one super clean for less and the guy is local so I can ck it out. thanks again guys!!!
Damn I'm addicted to college football, golf and fishing now I might get another hobby where's the time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
greeper said:
Damn I'm addicted to college football, golf and fishing now I might get another hobby where's the time.
Why limit yourself...take your gear with you, whether you are participating or just attending. If you are watching it on TV, then I hope the drink is cold.
Cheers :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Nikkor 70-300VR is easily one of the most important lens I have ever used. I have owned lens that cost well over $6000. they did not serve me as well and I sold them while the getting (them sold) was good. You should never spend more money than you need to. All that said cropping a D7000 image taken with that lens is cutting a corner that I would NOT recommend. I'd agree with many of the posters. NR photographers are usually on target.
The Sigma 70-300 is not enough a saving and my friends who thought they were saving money buying a non-Nikkor very quickly came to regret their decision. I have owned way more money in non-Nikon glass. However i also know when a better lens is out there. I have shot extensively with the 80-400 Nikkor and if ever a revamp was overdue it is that lens in my opinion. So you'd better pass on that one. Besides it costs more besides slower focus which is NOT what you want in sports or other action subjects.
To greeper: As I have done many big fishing banquet shows keep your present lens close at hand for that sport as you already have a nice lens for a lot of that. The advantage of photographing your OWN sport is not just being a spectator. The ONLY sports we photograph are one we are in. Your D7000 camera will serve you well!! Just really think SEVERAL times before buying non-Nikkor glass!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
To geeper: I should also mention that getting a trim FUNCTIONAL field case is also critical. Fishing puts you near water and I have lost too many cameras to getting dunked! I use for the D90 and D7000 the Tamrac Velocity 6X. I own more camera cases with more money in them (they are almost impossible to resell) and that one case gets MOST of the use. My bigger Nikons go in Tamrac Velocity 7X or just thermos cooler bags. Good luck with the lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
To greeper: Footnote. The Velocity 6X camera case will fit your camera with UP TO a 18-200VR but NOT the 70-300VR Nikkor.
You'll have to "train" your case to accept the D7000 and lens but once it is "fitted" it works slick and fast. If around water you might add a 1 gallon zip locked backed for added protection. Again with the 70-300VR you needed something a little bigger but that is not as well suited ti fishing but when an eagle glides ten foot over head on a very slow pass you'll wish you had that excellent wildlife 70-300VR on the camera.Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
