[ideliver]

I have the Nikon D5000 with a 18-55 lens...I would like to shoot sports action for teaching purposes...continuous shooting of batters and pitchers to help with corrections to swings and throwing motions...

what lens would you suggest...i was thinking the 70-300 f4.5-5.6

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony

The 70-200 is a better lens, but the 70-300 can be had from sigma or tamron for $150 which is a great price. Not sure how the zoom lens works for continuous shooting of baseball and stuff. I use it for bugs and faraway birds and such.

thanks...I'd be a spectator and shooting from the outfield or sideline stands...

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-30...56-dg-os-sigma is along the lines i was considering

[kamek]

get something faster... lower f/ and fast AF

[Inspired]

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200mm...6060864&sr=8-2


Pricey, but gotta pay to play

[- Paul -]

18-200 - great lens that does most things. That lens linked abover is over 2000 dollars!!! He has a D5000!!!

[E92Fan]

The 18-200 is a great general purpose lens and for travel and general shooting it is perfect.

If however you want a lens for sports photography, you should consider getting a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lens. They go on eBay for around US$500-600. Absolutely brilliant quality lens, especially on a DX-sized sensor, and only lacks VR in its armoury of features. Lets you shoot in lower light, AF-S gives speedy focussing.

There are many different versions of the 80-200 - the one to have is the two-ring design (ie one ring for zoom, one for manual focus) and is AF-S designated. This is the best quality version of the lens.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by E92Fan

The 18-200 is a great general purpose lens and for travel and general shooting it is perfect.

If however you want a lens for sports photography, you should consider getting a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lens. They go on eBay for around US$500-600. Absolutely brilliant quality lens, especially on a DX-sized sensor, and only lacks VR in its armoury of features. Lets you shoot in lower light, AF-S gives speedy focussing.

There are many different versions of the 80-200 - the one to have is the two-ring design (ie one ring for zoom, one for manual focus) and is AF-S designated. This is the best quality version of the lens.

I haven't seen 80-200 AF-S's going for less than $900. But I haven't checked eBay lately because I bought the 70-200 VRI.

You can find 70-200 VRI's in the $1400-$1500 range. That would be my suggestion. Toss in a 1.4x tele and you are set. The 70-300 is going to be too slow.

[ideliver]

I would like to keep it below a $1000...I've got other hobbies too

I think I would like VR incase I don't feel like bothering with a stand...thanks for the help so far

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by scollins

I haven't seen 80-200 AF-S's going for less than $900. But I haven't checked eBay lately because I bought the 70-200 VRI.

You can find 70-200 VRI's in the $1400-$1500 range. That would be my suggestion. Toss in a 1.4x tele and you are set. The 70-300 is going to be too slow.

+1 on the 70-200 in the $1400 range.

It doesn't matter if he has a D5000. It is not the body that is expensive, it is the equipment and gears.

Well, I would say shed out the extra $400-500 for the better lens. You will not regret it.

To point you in the right direction and dont mind a used lens.. here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-ED-AF-S-VR...item45f347ec07

[- Paul -]

It does matter. If someone buys a d5000 then they are also probably not likely to drop over $2000 on one lens.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

It does matter. If someone buys a d5000 then they are also probably not likely to drop over $2000 on one lens.

That is like saying just because you drive a 328i you shouldn't mod your car at all since you could of got a 335i to begin with?

I have a D90 just a few hundred more expensive than the d5000.

Does that automatically mean I don't want to drop $2000 on a lense?

I actually have the 18-200mm VRII, 12-24mm and in the market for the 70-200mm

[khaye1]

Originally Posted by - Paul -

It does matter. If someone buys a d5000 then they are also probably not likely to drop over $2000 on one lens.

bodies have limited lifespan, lenses on the other hand can last as long as you maintain them...it makes sense to spend the extra cash from the start and future proof yourself. however, if the op is just starting out and hasn't really decide if he's willing to shell out the cash and keep up with the hobby...that's a different story

[- Paul -]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

That is like saying just because you drive a 328i you shouldn't mod your car at all since you could of got a 335i to begin with?

I have a D90 just a few hundred more expensive than the d5000.

Does that automatically mean I don't want to drop $2000 on a lense?

I actually have the 18-200mm VRII, 12-24mm and in the market for the 70-200mm

Not at all - a lens isn't a mod. As I already said, those who buy budget or starter slr's are more likely to stick with cheaper lenses.

Originally Posted by khaye1

bodies have limited lifespan, lenses on the other hand can last as long as you maintain them...it makes sense to spend the extra cash from the start and future proof yourself. however, if the op is just starting out and hasn't really decide if he's willing to shell out the cash and keep up with the hobby...that's a different story

Fair point, not all of us have $2000 to spend on a lens though. I have the 18-200 and I'm over the moon with it. There is no way on god's earth I could justify the price of the f2.8 version etc. If I had that kind of money, I'd have bought a better camera (I have a d5000)

[PNF]

Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony

For someone who is a hobbyist, i doubt they could tell the difference between a $200 and $2000 lens. I say go with a cheap lens and later sell it if need be, and by then the expensive lens will be cheaper anyway.

not really. Lens prices are actually going up. The price depends on many factors such as exchange rate, raw materials, etc.

i.e.

2006, 50 f1.4 was around $225
2007, 50 f1.4 was $275
2008, 50 f1.4 was $295
2009, first half, 50mm f1.4was $395
Late 2009 to now, 50mm f1.4 is now $345.

So, you see, prices do go up.

now, those who bought their lens in 2007, for $275 brand new, can still sell theirs for around $280 used, which is about the rate for a mint condition 50 f1.4

PS. this is canon. Not sure about Nikon, but I am sure Nikon lens keep their value just as well

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by khaye1

bodies have limited lifespan, lenses on the other hand can last as long as you maintain them...it makes sense to spend the extra cash from the start and future proof yourself. however, if the op is just starting out and hasn't really decide if he's willing to shell out the cash and keep up with the hobby...that's a different story

Originally Posted by - Paul -

Not at all - a lens isn't a mod. As I already said, those who buy budget or starter slr's are more likely to stick with cheaper lenses.


Fair point, not all of us have $2000 to spend on a lens though. I have the 18-200 and I'm over the moon with it. There is no way on god's earth I could justify the price of the f2.8 version etc. If I had that kind of money, I'd have bought a better camera (I have a d5000)

Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony

For someone who is a hobbyist, i doubt they could tell the difference between a $200 and $2000 lens. I say go with a cheap lens and later sell it if need be, and by then the expensive lens will be cheaper anyway.

I agree with khaye1. Really, though, it depends on the OP. Personally, I think most starter dSLR's are pretty decent but still benefit from having quality glass on them. I can see picking up an initial lens at a mid tier and see if you get more into photography. If you do get into it more, I'd say to move into better quality glass instead of staying at the lower tiers. You're likely to still be satisfied with the mid tier lens you had picked up. There is a noticeable difference between IQ and operation amongst the different tiers. In the end, buying lower quality lenses just to have them and then selling them will only lose you more money. Been there, done that. It can be a bit to swallow to buy a more expensive lens but in my experience it's worth it.

Also, a high priced camera body doesn't mean anything if you can't use it or take advantage of its bells and whistles. I've seen people with 7D's and 5D's at the auto show that shoot in Auto mode. wtf?

Quality lenses don't depreciate nearly as much as the lower quality lenses and there's always a market for used, quality glass. Lenses last a very long time if they're taken care of whereas a camera body has a considerable more finite life.

That's all my take on the subject. I base it on myself having gone thru all 3 tiers of Canon lenses (did I just say 'Canon' in a Nikon thread?! lol).

[scollins]

Why don't you try www.borrowlenses.com and see if you are happy with the results you get from 70-300? If it works out well for you, then you can spend the money to buy the lens. If not, then you know you need the 70-200 f2.8...

You could also consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 II. This is a non-VR lens, and you can usually pick up a good used copy for $600, or new for $800. I think Sigma just introduced a VR version as well. I had the Sigma before the Nikkor, and I was pretty happy with it. Happier with the Nikkor, but I'd take the Sigma over a Nikkor 70-300 slow zoom....

[bosstones]

^^^ good point, scollins. I forgot about places that rent out lenses.

[ideliver]

hmmm.....thinking about the tamron 28-300 3.5 as a compromise...borrow lens has one