An Upgrade for Nikkor 70-300 VR F4.5-.5.6 G

<p>Hello, <br>

I've asked a question here before and got a very valuable advice so I am back in hopes to have the same treatment :o)<br>

I am a proud owner of D7000, Nikkor 17-55, Nikkor 70-300 VR and Sigma 105 2.8 Macro. I am very happy with the sharpness of my lenses. The problem is that I appreciate a creamy-dreamy bokeh and I am not really getting it unless I use my 70-300 on longer focal lengths. I am ready to shell some money for a faster lens. I've rented primes and even though I love the bokeh that they offer I now know for sure that I prefer zooms. Which zoom would you recommend in place of my 70-300? </p>

<p>Another question I have is this: when I try to use my macro lens I often get and ERR message. This never happened when I used it with D40X body. Is this something that is specific to my D7000 or do I need to send both the body and the lens for cleaning? </p>

<p>Lastly, I am also thinking of upgrading to a FX body so I am looking for a glass that will be compatible with it :o) Thank you so much for your help and support!</p>

<p>Not many choices for faster zooms. I know the Sigma 100-300 f4 which is a quality item in every way, but it is now discontinued and quite rare. It is long and front-heavy and I didn't stop to think of the bokeh.<br>

I tend to clean anything metal with Duraglit, never tried it on cameras. Some use erasers.<br>

Quite possibly the precise iteration of the electronics in the macro lens is not compatible with D7000, Sigma might possibly upgrade it under warranty.</p>

<p>If/when you upgrade to a FX body, the nikkor 17-55mm would have to go also. the 24-70mm would replace that. a fast and sharp lens from what I have read.</p>

<p>I love my 70-300mm VR lens also. I have used it for quite some time and have gotten great BIF shots. I'm in the same boat as you; I have been saving and plan on getting the new 70-200mm f/4. It has the new VRIII and seems to do as good or better when compared to the 70-200mm 2.8 VRII. this lens has it's own separate bank account. lol. I've been saving since the lens was announced last year. I've done a lot of research between the f/2.8 VRII and the f/4 and have found the f/4 to hold its own. It is as good at nearly half the price. at only $1400 (ok, $1400 is a lot) it is hard to beat in the fast zoom lenses. </p>

<p>ok, so other competition. the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS is only $1250. so, $150 from the Nikon. I've owned Sigma lenses in the past because they are so much cheaper than the Nikon glass. I've had bad experiences and some good. If you get a bad copy, send it back and try another. I feel that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the 70-200mm f4 (or 2.8 if you have the money) are some of the better choices. the new sigma 120-300 2.8 looks pretty cool. but, that's $2700. </p>

<p>I've already made up my mind with the nikkor 70-200 f/4. so that would be my choice. the bokeh between the nikon 2.8 and 4 is not much. I have seen numerous shots and done my own test shots and there is just a little difference in bokeh. $1000 less also. </p>

<p>It will depend on the budget and whether you wish to buy new or used. For about $1000.00 US you can get the excellent 80-200 F2.8. It is not fast on autofocus but it is a lovely lens. </p>

<p>For about $2500.00 you can get the 70-200 AFS VRII F2.8. A wonderful lens that is fast and sharp. </p>

<p>If you are considering used then either of the above or the first version of the 70-200 F2.8 would be nice choices. </p>

<p>Both Tamron and Sigma have their own versions of the70-200 F-2.8. I have used an older Sigma 70-200 and it was OK. I have never used the Tamron. </p>

I have the Sigma 105mm macro, and was told it would need an update for the D7000 and D7100, so I'm surprised it's working on your

camera at all. Sigma will update them--Sigma corporate told me $10, but then referred me to one of their vendors in a state closer to mine

who said they do it for free. You'll definitely need it done if you upgrade to a newer camera at some point.

<p>The 80-200/2.8 works great on the D7000. Here a shot taken with it on a D7000 at about 85mm, at f/3.5.</p>

<p><img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/PeoplePlacesandEvents/Ren-Faire-04102011/i-PrMfKMf/0/L/DSC_2327-L.jpg" alt="" width="398" height="600" /></p>

<p>Here's one at 200mm at f/3.5. The harsh sunlight sucked that day.<br>

<img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/PeoplePlacesandEvents/Ren-Faire-04102011/i-mq7FwXX/0/L/DSC_2376-L.jpg" alt="" width="398" height="600" /></p>

<p>Here's one more at 80mm at f/3.5. Again, really harsh light, and I was shooting in a big hurry, but you can get an idea about how it handles backgrounds.<br>

<img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/PeoplePlacesandEvents/Ren-Faire-04102011/i-QC67HsW/0/L/DSC_2455-L.jpg" alt="" width="692" height="600" /> </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure I shot <a href="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/PeoplePlacesandEvents/Ren-Faire-04102011/">this entire gallery</a> from a Renaissance Faire in 2011 with the AF 80-200 f/2.8D lens.</p>

<p>Thank you, guys, for all your responses!<br>

I am strongly considering buying Nikkor 70-200 F4 mostly because it is way cheaper and lighter than 70-200 F2.8, for me it's important.<br>

Sigma 105 macro is shipped to Sigma facility for a filmwear update :)<br>

I appreciate all your input, you rock, guys!!!</p>