What would you buy with my $1,000?

[Zebleys]

My budget is $1,000. I'm not ready to upgrade my Nikon D40 just yet. I want to spend the money on a lens suitable for minor league/high school, side line sports where I am not allowed on the field with the dim lights and a 10 foot high fence is sometimes an obsticle. I'm not sure if I want a lens like the delicious Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 *but* if I'm going to invest, should I go all the way with such a lens or stay around 100mm f/2-ish, give or take some? Would you invest in just onelens or 2 different ones? How would you spend the $1,000?

[Art Scott]

I would save a few bucks and buy the wonderful Sigma 70-200 f2.8......put what is left over in a fund for another new lens or the new body fund..............

[bandgeekndb]

:agree:agree:agree So seconded!

I love my Siggy, it's treated me very well! For anyone looking at a 70-200 f/2.8 on a budget, look no further than Sigma's offering.

Good luck, because a body upgrade from the D40 will also be a welcome change, along with some nice glass! The D40 is a nice camera, but after a few sport shoots, you wish you had a nicer body, or at least a good grip for it!

Best of luck,
Nick

[Zebleys]

I had a huge hunch Sigma would be mentioned. I've done a lot of homework on that baby but scrumptious would be the Nikon. ::Dreaming::

Next question ... I've read the forums on Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 & now I'm mixed up on which seems to be better then the other. I love AF when the the moment allows so reading a couple of reviews on how Tamron is AF slow is a huge negative. Ever experience this with Sigma or Tamron?

I own a Tamron 70-300mm f/3.5 manual - it's not one of my favorites. Think I might attempt to sell, get what I can and place towards that Sigma. :lust

[tjk60]

Buy a used 80-200 f/2.8 from KEH. Everything the 70-200 is, no VR.

[MT Stringer]

You really need 300mm for the sports you are talking about. I use a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and I'm on the field. I use it for everything from T-Ball to High School softball and baseball. I realize it's a lot more than your budget, but I thought I would throw it out there to consider. Oh, you'll need a monopod to hold that rascal.

Otherwise, a 70-200 f/2.8 would be the next best choice in my opinion. Get close and shoot through the fence.

Most fields I shoot on at night (baseball and football) require ISO 3200, f/2.8 and 1/400 - 1/500 sec.

Here's a several examples of the lens (120-300) and light conditions.

Good luck in your search.

Mike

All pics shot at ISO 3200, f/2.8 with a Canon 20D and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

Long Ball shot at 120mm
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Baseball/LongFlyBall-600.jpg

This was shot through the green backstop at 221mm.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Baseball/BB-3-650.jpg

Runner coming to third shot at 300mm
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd265/mt_stringer/Baseball/BB-2-650.jpg

[b08rsa]

I would save a few bucks and buy the wonderful Sigma 70-200 f2.8......put what is left over in a fund for another new lens or the new body fund..............

I LOVE my f2.8 70-200mm Sigma. I use it on a OLY 510. Pretty nice setup with out the high cost.
:D

<a href="http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k85/b08rsa/?action=view&current=NewVienna7_27_08009.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k85/b08rsa/NewVienna7_27_08009.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[time2smile]

My budget is $1,000. I'm not ready to upgrade my Nikon D40 just yet. I want to spend the money on a lens suitable for minor league/high school, side line sports where I am not allowed on the field with the dim lights and a 10 foot high fence is sometimes an obsticle. I'm not sure if I want a lens like the delicious Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 *but* if I'm going to invest, should I go all the way with such a lens or stay around 100mm f/2-ish, give or take some? Would you invest in just onelens or 2 different ones? How would you spend the $1,000?

I'm far from being a pro but my first choice would be:

:bow Nikon 70-200 Vr ( out of your 1K range)
:thumb Nikon 80-200 AFS (may be able to get one used)(heard its really heavy)(will AF focus with the D40)
:clap Heard alot of good with the New Sigma 70-200 (money left over)
:lust Tamron 70-200 (new version) (money left over) I have this one, it is super sharp at all points, but does wonder on focus a bit, especially in poorer light conditions. But I would not get ride of it, the price was great.

I would suggest you take your body (D40) over to a place where you can try them, or even rent one for a week and test them yourself.

[time2smile]

Try the Nikon 70-300 VR lens also, it does a fantastic job for sports on a bright day, and will AF with the D40.

[wadesworld]

Try the Nikon 70-300 VR lens also, it does a fantastic job for sports on a bright day

Yep, well worth consideration. I have one and enjoy using it. It only starts to show its shortcomings when it gets really dark. As long as there's reasonable light, it does well.

[bloomphotog]

I'd get the Nikon 80-200 f2.8. I love mine. I shoot with a D700, and the lens has yet to reveal ANY IQ flaws or AF issues. Amazing value.

Here's a fun shot I got a few weekends ago with this lens:

http://bloom.smugmug.com/photos/559808528_v5rR2-XL.jpg

[Zerodog]

I picked up a Nikon 80-200 AFS and it is by far my favorite lens. It was $650 and has had some use on it. But it focuses VERY fast and tracks VERY well with my D90s 3d tracking feature. I plan on getting a full refurb for it in the near future. It seems the 80-200AFS is 1000+. So it is probalby worth tuning up.

The downside is that it is really heavy. It is a serious piece of glass. It does feel pretty macho though! Especially with the huge lens hood on it.

SLC supercross.
http://zerodog.smugmug.com/photos/524133331_ggTcH-L.jpg

http://zerodog.smugmug.com/photos/553756072_VsfNZ-L.jpg

http://zerodog.smugmug.com/photos/516754354_cfWHd-L.jpg

[beetle8]

What would I buy with your $1000?

Beer.

If it were my $1000

I'd get the Sig 70-200 2.8

[Zebleys]

Beer?! :rofl

I was at Best Buy today looking at the D5000 ... Oh my! I am going to rent it out for a week, see how it fits (like a glove, I'm sure) and I'm probably going to upgrade my body before I upgrade the lens. I've read other posts about how one should buy the lens first, upgrade later, but how will a "mancho" lens on my D40 with shutter lag do me any good at a sporting event if my shutter speed fails me when I need it the most??? Am I thinking straight?

I know the Nikon is way out of my league for now but I'm going to get there ... one day. The next best thing for me after all the reading is most likely the Sigma 80-200mm f/2.8. I like the thought of the extra 10mm.

Thanks everyone for the replies and photographs.

Bloomphotog ... I practically live on the water with my boat & this is the kind of stuff we see in our neck of the woods all the time. Cool capture.

[Trevlan]

Zeb, from one D40 user to another. If you areadly have a 200mm lense, I suggest you get the D300. lol. You'll be amazed at what a higher ISO can do for your existing glass. Hold off, save 500 more and get the D300.

If we do the math, 200mm at f5.6 on the D40 will look sharper and you stop action marvelously on the D300 200 mm f5.6 at 1600 iso with virtually zero noise. You can even bump up to 3200 and the noise is minimal. 6 stops of light extra... I'd go with the new body, and position myself where the flood lights will be behind me...

[Zebleys]

*CORRECTION: Nikon 80-200mm ... Not Sigma.

[bloomphotog]

*CORRECTION: Nikon 80-200mm ... Not Sigma.

:) +1

[Maxxamillian]

Already have the Nikkor 70-200 / 2.8. Not to sure what I would do with the $1K...I think I would go the opposite direction that most of these replies have taken and gun for the Nikkor 14-24 / 2.8. The high ISO of the D3 sensor along with the 1.7 teleconverter mostly negates a big 300 / 2.8 lens for my kit.

But to go wide...really wide, and sharp...wonder what I could do you know?

[Toshido]

For my kit, I know would not help you :) i would go Sigma 170-500, or other Sigma reaching to 500mm. Maybe even spend a little bit more and go Canon 100-400.

been enjoying and doing more airshows so those lenses would be fun for those :)

thanks for reading even though I am not helping :)

[Zebleys]

Update ...

Bloom ... like you stated, I've done my math for the last few days & I feel pretty good about that D300 coming in on Wednesday from Adorama. Why I concidered a 5000 for what I want to get into (sports) is something I'll never add up too. Although I'm giving too many +'s in some area's ( :huh DOINK! ) I'm super excited and broke!!!!

Thanks everyone for your input ... If I can ever afford another lens (or anything else after that drop of $1500) outside of Nikon, Sigma wins hands down.

:ivar ,
Julie

[time2smile]

:clap :clap Now thats an upgrade:clap :clap

:thumb :thumb GOOD LUCK:thumb :thumb

[Zebleys]

:barb Thank you, Mr. Ted. I'm truly psyched.

[munmi]

A few months back, I asked a similar question. The reply to my question was Sigma 70-200/2.8, then a 1.4x. So far, I have the lense and LOVE it. It has worked beyond my expectations for LL and high school softball.

[wilsonjg]

...I found a Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX APO IF HSM on ebay for $450 and it's been a gem!! Use it for soccer, football, surfing, lacrosse, baseball and cross country! Best money I've spent in a while. Not quite as fast as my 70-200MM f2.8 Nikon VR, but pretty darn good. She will "hunt" for a fixed exposure every now and then, but not too much that it is unuseable!

[Ed Michaels]

I have owned and made money with the Nikon 80-200/2.8 push pull pre-D from 1989 until I purchased the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM in 1999. The Sigma served mee" lens.

[Ed Michaels]

WHOOPS..my first post and 80% IS MISSING. APOLOGIES.