Nikon lens upgrade.

I have owned a Nikon D7100 for two years. The kit lines that came with it is the AF-S 18-140 f/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR and I have been mostly pleased with it for shooting landscapes. How ever I grand children starting sports and I find it not fast enough for sports. I am looking at a AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17–55mm f/2.8G IF-ED as it should be faster and still be good for landscape. It is expensive and I am wording if this would be true upgrade over my current lens.

It would be an upgrade, but so would the much less costly, lighter and equally excellent Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I once had both, as a result of picking up the Nikon used for an irresistible price . After test one against the other, I sold the Nikon.

Ooch! - How are you going to benefit from a 17-55 shooting sporting grandkids? - You didn't tell what(!) they are starting but to put it simple: I can imagine using the wide end of your lens (18-35mm) to either shoot holding it through the ropes of a boxing ring or to cover a mass start for a run. Maybe somebody working out in a techy gym too. / a group performing aerobics / ballet or such. But the average sports like activity I'd end shooting at the long(!) end of your current zoom.

+ The difference between f3.5 & f2.8 at the wide ends of both lenses isn't worth anything.

As a consequence I'd ponder getting hold of some 70-200/2.8 for the dimly lit sports stuff and would stick to the 18-140 for anything else first or, (if exercising is contagious in your family) add a good 17-50 or a Sigma f1.8 zoom to go with the 70-200.

I am looking at a AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17–55mm f/2.8G IF-ED as it should be faster and still be good for landscape.

IDK how you are shooting landscapes. - Traditionally from a tripod? - If not: You'll sacrifice IMHO really nice to have VR by switching to the 17-55/2.8. - Thats fine if you want a blurry landscape to surround a cute girl but in most other cases I'd rather be able to stop down get DOF and still no camera shake or high ISO noise.

 

Some sports shooters say "Sod VR; I have to freeze subject movements with 1/500 sec anyhow." - I dare to disagree. It will surely get too dark for that and in those cases I'd rather live with motion blurred parts of my subject than without pictures of them. - YMMV, my assumptions might be off but go and check images you already took to find out which focal length you were using.

I don't know your energy level but I rather watch active kids from a distance than I'd try to manage to chase them crouch to get my camera closer to their eye level and get a wide shot of them from close enough.

I have owned a Nikon D7100 for two years. The kit lines that came with it is the AF-S 18-140 f/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR and I have been mostly pleased with it for shooting landscapes.

How ever I grand children starting sports and I find it not fast enough for sports.

I am looking at a AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17–55mm f/2.8G IF-ED as it should be faster and still be good for landscape. It is expensive and I am wording if this would be true upgrade over my current lens.

 

You need to specify WHAT sports, and in what lighting conditions. Examples:

• Indoor/gym; basketball/volleyball.
  
• Outdoor day-time; football/soccer/lacrosse/baseball/softball.
  
• Outdoor night-under lights; football/soccer/lacrosse.
  

By you saying 17-55/2.8, I am guessing your grandchildren are playing indoor/gym sports.

 

I shoot a fair amount of high school sports, helping the yearbook photographers.

 

The 18-140 is a fine outdoor day-time GP lens. But when the light gets dim, it struggles, and you have to crank up the ISO to 12800+.

I shot the 18-140 in the gym for volleyball and basketball. But part way through the year, I switched to the faster 35/1.8. This was to get the ISO down to 3200, from 12800 with the 18-140. Note that I shoot on the gym floor, not from the bleachers, so I am much closer to the players.

 

If you are going to replace the 18-140 with the 17-55, you will need another lens to cover the long end that you loose.

 

There are 2 other less expensive options to the Nikon 17-55/2.8 lens.

• Tamron 17-50/2.8:
  
  • But you have to research the lens, as I have not had hands on the lens.
    
  • The Tamron zoom ring turns in the same direction as the Nikon zoom, +1.
    

  [*]Sigma 17-50/2.8. I do NOT recommend the Sigma, for 2 reasons:

  • The zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than the Nikon zoom. This is a major issue for sports photography, if you are used to the Nikon zoom. I lost MANY shots, because I kept turning the Sigma zoom ring in the wrong direction. After 20 minutes of use, I just gave up in frustration, and switched back to my 35/1.8. If you shoot fast sports, the direction that the zoom ring turns, has to be burnt into your muscle memory. -1
     
    
  • The zoom ring is STIFF, IMHO it is too STIFF for fast sports, like volleyball. I think this is due to the short throw on the zoom ring, which then requires the zoom to have a steep cam (to lever out the zoom). That steep cam then requires more force to turn the zoom ring. -1
    

I also suggest you look at upgrading to the newer D7500. It has better low light performance than the D7100, and a larger buffer.

I shoot the D7200.

Thank you all for your comments. My first thought when I decided to get a faster lens for shooting in the basketball and volleyball to just get a F/1.8 50, but it does not come in the DX format. Nikon has a DX f/1.8 35 on sale for $165, but I find most of the basketball and volleyball shots I have taken are in the 40 to 50 range. The reason I was considering the 17-55/2.8 lens was because it gets up to the 40 to 50 range and it is faster than 3.5 to 5.6 and judging from price point I though it would be better glass then 18 to 140.

F/1.8 50, but it does not come in the DX format.

 

This doesn't matter - a FX lens will work perfectly fine on a DX body, so if the focal length is right for you, the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G could be an excellent choice.

+1 to Wouter and Hector's replies.

 

You just have to weigh up the flexibility of the 17-50 f/2.8 zoom against a faster aperture but fixed FL. Also bear in mind that f/1.8 gives you virtually no depth-of-field, with a consequent risk of lost shots due to missed focus, and that image quality at f/1.8, even when you nail focus, is nothing to shout about.

 

OTOH, the 50mm prime at f/2.8 will give better IQ than the zoom. Life is full of compromises.

 

Another thought to throw in the mix is that the Tamron lens is available in an image-stabilised VC version.

Edited December 11, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

P.S. My experience with Tamron's (non-VC) 17-50 zoom versus Nikon's 17-55 is the same as Hector's. Except I still have the Nikkor zoom, but rarely use it because it's just too darned big and heavy on my D7200, and with no real IQ advantage over the neat and lightweight Tamron.

Thank you all for your comments I lured a lot. I thank. I decided to purchase the DX 35 f/1.8. I thank it will work nicely for shooting basketball and volleyball games. The price point is great so I can start looking for telephoto lens to take to Alaska next year.