Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Nikon Lenses (
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 36523] (

brandofamily Oct 10, 2004 11:56 PM

I'm strongly leaning towards a Nikon D70. Upgrading from Olympus C-700 UZ. I'm looking for quicker reaction times (no shutter lag) and quick bursts. This leads to my question. I take ALOT of action shots, baseball (outdoors of course) and my daughter dancing (both inside, low light, and outside, natural light) I'm thinking of buying the kit lens as a starter. But what about a lens for the action shots? IWILL be needing to zoom in. That is why I bought the C-700 in the 1st place (10x optical zoom). I'm a poor teacher and do not have a ton to spend. I've read about the Sigma 28-300 and see it's smallest, numerical, apeture setting is 3.5 up to 6.3. ($230) I've also read about the Nikon 28-200 G, but this is much more expensive. Any suggestions in the $200-$300 range? Or am I too low priced for the shots I plan on taking? Should I skip the kit lens and save the $200-$250 for the zoomier lens?

One more question...where can I get this stuff under retail? Most of the reviews of the online stores are not good to say the least.

Thanks for any advice.

murphyc Oct 11, 2004 2:22 AM

A lens you may want to consider is the Sigma APO Macro Zoom II 70-300, around $200. I saw quite a few favorable reviews and got one myself, has worked well for the sports I shoot. It's a 4-5.6 lens which should be fine for your outdoor sports. Your problem will likely be the indoor dancing. I'm guessing you don't have an external flash, and I doubt the pop-up flash would be able to do much. I've been cheating somewhat with indoor volleyball pics, using my 50/1.8 and cropping the pics somewhat. Got lucky couple times last week when I got net shots of girls from opposing teams jumping and filling the frame, but for most shots I'm having to crop. Advantage to using the 1.8 is you most likely wouldn't need the flash (jump bump up the ISO). Plus the 50/1.8 is a steal at $100, probably about half the cost of an external flash.

brandofamily Oct 11, 2004 8:56 AM

Thanks for theideas. The Sigma 28-300 as a low numerical apeture of 3.5. And the reviews have been good, atleast the ones I found. What is the main diff. between this and the Sigma APO Macro Zoom II 70-300?

The indoor shots have one other issue....NO FLASH ALLOWED.

My current camera can only be set to 3.5 apature at full zoom. I get SOME good shots.

What brand is the 50/1.8 ? I do not mind cropping. I've done fairly well cropping with only a 2 MP camera in the past. I think w/ 6MP cropping would be OK.

A 50/1.8 on D70 would be equivalent to 75mm film lens right? How does this equate to # of times zoom?

I was told 28-300 was equivalent to 10x zoom.

Last question...are you at 1.8 when shooting the voleyball pics? My light levels are even lower though. These are performance theater shots. Dark auditoriums and theaters w/ stage lighting.



murphyc Oct 12, 2004 1:29 AM

I'll answer what I can; hopefully someone with more knowledge will be able to provide more answers.
I don't know much about the Sigma 28-300; since I got the kit lens I concentrated on zoom lenses starting at 70. The max f stop (aperature) on the 70-300 goes from 4-5.6; you mentioned the 28-300 has 3.5-6.3 which means at 300 that lens will require slower shutter speeds. With a 3.5 at 28, I imagine it would be at least 4 by the time it reaches 70 if not more. The 70-300 has gotten pretty reviews which influenced my decision--you could do a search on forums like this to see the reviews.
How close will you be able to get for pics? If you're out in the audience a zoom would be quite helpful, though without something like a 70-200 2.8 you'll probably have dark pics. The 50/1.8 is a Nikon, quite renown for its sharpness and value. But if you're in the audience pretty far away, the 50 might not do much good because that would require a LOT of cropping. I'm not sure how the 50 (or 75 due to the D70's 1.5 crop factor) equals in terms of 'optical zoom', I'd guess maybe 2x. With the 50, what you see through the viewfinder is equal to the 'zoom' you see with the naked eye, at least I think that's correct.
With my volleyball shots, I believe I'm usually between 1.8 and 2.5 and right by the net. Last VBall pics of mine that were used were at 2.2, ISO 1600.
But if you're pretty far away in a dark auditorium, your options become pretty limited. With the 50 you would be able to get higher shutter speeds but a lot of cropping would be needed; with a 28-300 or 70-300 would be able to get closer but shutter speeds would be lower and thus an increased chance of blurry shots.

EasyRay Oct 12, 2004 10:23 AM

28-300=10.7 X Zoom
70-300=4.2 X Zoom
Both lenses can see the same distance on the long end. The 28mm has a wider field of view on the short end.
I wouldn't get to hung up 10X optical zoom phrases.A Sigma 50-500 is a 10 X zoom but it is 200mm more on the long end than either of the other two and 20mm wider than the 70-300.
Another important aspect is aperture. Both serve their different purposes.
That is what is so great about DSLR.Many different lenses with many different options on distance, aperture openings,lens coatings,quality,etc. and one of the most important aspects to me??? PRICE! I'm just a cheapskate.:G
Oh, and don't forget the crop factor. That 28-300 is really a 42-450 and the 70-300 is really 105-450 when you figure in the crop factor.
Thats my two cents. Whatever thats worth?

Good Luck


Oh and to answer your question. I think you need a 70-200 2.8 aperture lens, for what you want to use it for.This would be nice.

brandofamily Oct 12, 2004 3:56 PM

$800 for 70-200/ 2.8? Is that a "cheap" price? I'm new to this. Still looking for the best deals before I buy. But want to buy the "right" equip. for my needs.


Morris Oct 13, 2004 4:58 PM

For sports, you will need fast focusing. This is not cheap.

I have the Nikon 70-300G ($100 usd). The image quality is acceptable, but quite often it does not focus fast enough. You need a lens with theAF-S focusing system (Nikon or HSM for Sigma). You will not find those focusing system in the cheap lens.

By the way, the kit lens is a bargain.

Also, a monopod ($30) is an excellent alternative to the VR (Vibration reduction) feature. I used one for a low lightmusic/theater show in june and the next day i shooted the same show with a tripod and the results with the monopod were just as good. Outside on the soccer field, it really helps as well.

I will probably changes my 70-300G for a Sigma 70-200 when i can afford it.

murphyc Oct 13, 2004 5:37 PM

A new Nikon 70-200 is in the $800 range; the Sigma equivalent like Morris mentioned (with HSM) is about $670 at a couple of places (new). I haven't seen many of the Sigmas used, but the Nikon has been around so long in so many forms (70-200, 80-200, AF-S, VR, etc.) they are plentiful in the used market, probably around $500 or so depending on condition. is a pretty good place to start since they seem to have a pretty good number of used lenses and, if nothing else, can give you a decent benchmark price. Your original post stated no more than $300 which is why I recommended the lenses I did. I'm looking at moving up to the Sigma 70-200 but I'm counting my pennies right now.
Also, I see you started an identical thread in the Nikon forum, sorry for not seeing that earlier. Guess I was too lazy to post the same answer in both threads. :lol:

brandofamily Oct 23, 2004 2:02 AM the 50/1.8 Nikon is not 1.8 throughout. What is its range? if you don't mind.


Bambus5 Oct 23, 2004 12:17 PM

the 50/1.8 has a fixed focal length of 50mm and it's minimum aperture is 1.8 at this 50mm. The "throughout" only applies to zoom lenses.

Anyway, I have a 50/1.4 on a D70 and I uses this lens in low light situations (along with a 85/1.8). If you buy a new Nikon camera, you should get a (maybe used) 50/1.8 for less than $100 in addition to whatever other lens you get.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:19 AM.