Recommendations for a 'Fast' DX Zoom for D7100 Sports

<p>After a previous thread became a 'Why No D400?' repeat, mostly due to my poor phrasing, I have re-jigged the question to be specifically optically based......</p>

<p>Anyone got any good suggestions for 'fast' Nikon DX zoom lenses to be used with the soon to be released D7100, the new 'flagship' Nikon DX camera? The usage would be action/sports, somewhere in the region of 40 - 160mm</p>

<p>Sure, you can use an FX lens, but the extra weight and unwanted 'crop factor' is not ideal for my needs.</p>

<p>As far as I can see the <strong><em>only</em></strong> Nikon DX 2.8 zoom, is the AF-S 17-55mm 2.8G. Apart from the somewhat aged 18-70mm AF-S 3.5/4.5, and the UWA 12-24mm f4 AF-S, they are <em><strong>all</strong></em> variable aperture and 2 full stops slower @ 5.6 at the long end.</p>

<p>I think this continues to give the impression of FX = Pro, DX = Consumer. If Nikon want DX to be seen as Pro Grade, it needs fast lenses to back this up.</p>

No personal experience but Sigma 50-150 f2.8 seems to fit the bill. Not sure how fast AF is.... Weight a little on the higher side, too....

<p>we've been down this road before... nikon wants pros to use FX. the d7100 is priced at prosumer level. also, no reason you can't use a 70-200 or 80-200 on DX.</p>

<p>that said, i have the original (non-stabilized) sigma 50-150/2.8. focus on there is pretty quick, about the same as AF-S. haven't tried the newer one, but the older version weighs a lot less and can still be found used. optically it's actually pretty close to the 70-200 VRII, which is maybe a little better at the long end and a tad sharper at 2.8. besides the optics, what i like about the 50-150 is the perfectly-dampened zoom ring and the compactness. i still grab it when the 70-200 is too much weight and i dont need to shoot at super-high ISOs.</p>

<p>The typical 70-200 on FX is not long enough for most outdoor sports. These see much better use on a DX body. If outdoor sports is the requirement then why spend money on a 50-150/2.8 when the same money can get you a 70-200/2.8 which when put on a DX body actually gets into the outdoor sports realm.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a walk-around mid telephoto style lens for DX then the aforementioned Sigma 50-150/2.8 seems to fit the bill and appears to be about 2/3 the weight of the various 70-200/2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>DX sensors were created when technology for FX sensors was either non-existent ( ie Nikon for many years ) or horribly expensive (ie Canon 1Ds ). The DX sensor required the standard zoom to go to wider focal lengths and so a bunch of convenient affordable zooms were created for the new smaller format. For pros the FX telephotos did very nicely especially with the added crop. Now that Nikon, and Canon for that matter, have seemed to ditch the pro DX body, things don't look hopeful for the pro series of DX lenses that you are looking for.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Using your parameters, the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is obvious.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>There's nothing inherently "wrong" with using FX lenses on a DX-sensor camera. An 85mm f/1.8G DX lens for example would be marginally smaller, if any, than the current 85mm f/1.8G that works on FX cameras as well as DX. Take advantage of the fact that we pretty much have two different formats that share the same mount, which gives us a full range of amazing lenses at an ultra-competitive price. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 mentioned above shows that a DX-specific lens provides only marginal gains over one designed for both FX and DX. So while it is about 25% shorter than the Sigma 70-200mm lens in focal length, it is less than 7% lighter. So, it becomes abundantly clear why Nikon never worried about releasing a dedicated DX zoom, when lenses like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 perform so perfectly on DX, with a minimum of shortcomings, the only real one being that for some it's too long, while with many other users, a 70-200mm equivalent would be too short. You can't please everyone. I used to work for a newspaper, and used the 70-200mm on a Canon D60, which was the precursor from the 10D from the early early 2000's. I never felt that it was too long, and in fact often carried a 300mm f/4 just to give myself a little more range.</p>

<p>Also, just to be clear, your statement about crop factor makes it sound like you believe that there is a crop factor that occurs with FX lenses that doesn't occur with DX lenses. There is no "crop factor" that occurs with a DX lens that doesn't also occur with an FX lens. For example, the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens provides the same crop factor as the full frame 35mm f/1.4G lens, which provides the same crop factor as the 17-55mm f/2.8 when zoomed to 35mm. Crop factor only gives you an EQUIVALENT focal length, so that you can compare lenses across multiple formats. To be exhaustive with yet another example, let's use the Nikon V1 with the 10-30mm lens. If you came up to me, a seasoned photographer, and I didn't know about the Nikon V1 and told me "Here is a camera with a 10-30mm lens, you should go use it," then I would think to myself, "Wow, that is an ultra wide angle zoom lens, I should go find some landscapes and architecture to really see what this lens can do!" However, if you came and told me, "Here is a Nikon V1, and it has a 27mm-81mm EQUIVALENT lens on it," then I would think to myself, "Great, thanks for giving me a camera with a midrange zoom, ideal for shooting 95% of what I may come across!" I hope that it is dreadfully clear that placing a different sized sensor behind a lens doesn't change the physics of a lens. If I put the 70-200mm lens on a Nikon D800, the actual focal length of the lens is 70-200mm. If I put the 70-200mm lens on a D3200, the actual focal length of the lens is still 70-200mm. And when I take the lens off of the camera and put it in my bag, I can look through the optics with my eyes and verify that even without a sensor behind it, it is STILL a 70-200mm lens.</p>

<p>Now, with all of that out of the way, if you're looking for a shorter zoom lens, consider the 24-70mm f/2.8 if you want to stick with Nikon. As mentioned, if you don't mind going with Sigma (I didn't), then grab yourself the awesome 50-150mm f/2.8. I also owned the earlier non-IS version and overall enjoyed it, even with the optical shortcomings. The newer one performs much better, but at the price of having to be large enough to have the space inside to correct most deficiencies.</p>

<p>Also, you give a focal length of 40-160mm, which gives you an equivalent focal length of 60-240mm. Just to be fair, there is no FX fast lens that covers all of this range in a single lens. Even getting both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 would still leave you wanting; your needs require a rather unusual range. And your last sentence about what Nikon "needs" to do reminds me of Einstein's greatest failure. Einstein, when faced with quantum mechanics, claimed that he was convinced that God doesn't throw dice. Neils Bohr famously demanded that Einstein not tell God what to do. Nikon released the D7100, which has an incredible resolution compared to nearly every other APS camera out there, with an autofocus system straight from the D4, weather sealing, and a host of other amazing features and capabilities. Unless it's bound by some laws of physics of which I'm unaware, it should perform just as well with the full gamut of Nikon lenses (better in fact, since it can autofocus with f/8 instead of being limited to f/5.6) as all of my current and past Nikon DSLRs have. If you feel that it is for some reason not professional, then that's your prerogative, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that the D7100 with the new 80-400mm is just about up there when it comes to a wildlife/safari lens. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that there's ANY better combination for a professional, at any price.</p>

<p>I have the original Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM (no OS) for sale. I recently bought the OS version, which is larger and heavier, but I really need the optical stabilization. That said, the non OS version a great lens, fairly compact and light, fast and sharp. It is a perfect Dx lens (75-225) compared to a 70-200 on Fx.</p>

<p>You're right when you say Nikon is not covering certain focal ranges within their DX lens line.<br /> But I don't agree with you when you talk about FX lenses for pros and DX for consumers because Nikon uses the same mount for both sensor sizes and DX lenses are made to allow lighter ones, but this means that the image circle given by this lenses are smaller than the one give by the lenses that cover the 35mm format, and as there is no free lunch even here DX lenses can pose more problems at the corners than a 35mm, because this one just uses a part of that circle.<br /> Therefore the crop factor plays in your favor if you use a 35 mm lens.<br /> According to the range you indicate the Sigma could be an option (besides it doesn't cover the 40-50mm range) but as you require a "fast" lens (meaning F:2.8) I guess you'll use it for interiors where lens stabilization is important. If this the case, you'll end up with a DX lens that doesn't weight that much less than the Nikon's 70-200 VRII.<br /> With the new body and its improved focusing system you could even consider the 70-200 F:4 that weights almost 1/2 of the F:2.8 and has even a better VR.<br /> You could cover the 40-70 mm range using the 24-70 mm F:2.8 that is fast and would give you more room for some narrow interiors, or as a cheaper option you could add a 50mm prime instead (I've a 35-70mm F:2.8 AFD and a 50mm F:1.8 AFD, to cover this range).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 mentioned above shows that a DX-specific lens provides only marginal gains over one designed for both FX and DX. So while it is about 25% shorter than the Sigma 70-200mm lens in focal length, it is less than 7% lighter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sigma 50-150 f2.8 dx: 770g<br /> sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS: 1430g<br /> sigma 70-200 f2.8 non OS: 1345g<br /> nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRii: 1540g<br /> nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRi: 1470g<br /> nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS: 1470g</p>

<p>Ariel, less than 7% lighter, really? Hmm...how's that, creative arithmetic? I've got 43 to 50%</p>

<p>Many Pro photographers are likely to have and use both FX and DX camera bodies. Wildlife and nature “Pro” photographers like to use a DX body with a long telephoto or telephoto zoom (sometimes with a TC) because it gives them reach. At the same time, they tend to like FX for landscapes and wide shots. So, I think both will be around a little longer.</p>

<p>Sorry for duplicated entry</p>

<p>@ Leslie<br /> Sorry but as the OP seems to consider F:2.8 as a must I did assume he needs it for low light situations and even interiors (due to the focal range he indicates) where lens stabilization can be of interest.<br /> Therefore I think we should compare the Nikon zoom with the Sigma's OS version and this one is said to weight 1340 grs., according to this page: http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/50-150mmOS.htm<br>

This was the reason I compared the weight of these lenses.<br>

I also referred to the OP that weight wise he could consider the new 70-200 F:4 as the new body focusing system can use the center point up to F:8 and ISO makes the 1 stop difference less important, unless he is valuing bokeh as a decision aspect.<br>

How would you see that, pls?</p>

<p>Antonio, everyone in the thread is talking about the non OS f2.8 compact version in the thread, do you not see or comprehend that? And OS/VR is not needed in action sport 99% of the time as stated on the thread topic, do you not see that? </p>

<p>Sorry if I didn't see and I didn't comprehend that.<br>

Within my limitations (this is serious because I'm not a sports photographer) I understand OS/VR just prevents photographer shake, it almost useless at slow speed to photograph fast action, unless you get a certain vantage point or at action pause moments, but for panning, speeds up to 1/400-1/500 or video (the topic didn't refer it but the camera is able to) I thought it could be of interest for the OP, my mistake.</p>

<p>I think Nkon has this covered admirably. IF one does not "need" F/2.8 nor intend to spend what it takes to get there, there is the new and excellent 28-300 VR. Yes it gets to 5.6 pretty quickly but it is fast, very sharp and I doubt many sports photographers will worry about a little distortion at the edges. The D7100 should be an excellent performer at ISO 1600 or even more so the F/5.6 should be not much of an issue. The lens is light and what harm is the long end?</p>

<p>So if one wants F/2.8 there is as everyone has said, either the 70-200 F/2.8 or for half the price the 80-200 F/2.8. They are the goto lenses for pros for a good reason. They are both stellar performers. The little 35-70 F/2.8 lens was my goto lens for boxing on DX for a time until I started to carry two bodies and two primes. a 28 f/2.8 and a 50 f.1.4. </p>

<p>I am curious. What sport is calling out for those focal lengths? If it is basketball from courtside then the 35-70 F/2.8 might serve. Or from a bit back again the 70-200 F/2.8. Perhaps the best for courtside basketball would be the 24-70 F/2.8. </p>

<p>I actually think Nikon is all over these. The difference between 50mm on the 50-150 sigma and 70 on the Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 is insignificant. (Or 80 on the 80-200 F/2.8 for that matter). </p>

<p>Do on the D7100 with the stipulation that F/2.8 was required for some reason, the old standby PJ kit of 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 AFS VR F2.8 and 50 mm F/1.4 would serve nicely. But it would also top $6000.00 which I am going to guess is why Nikon offers the far more affordable solutions on a $1200.00 body. </p>

<p>Leslie, here is Sigma's current 70-200mm OS for Nikon:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689579-REG/Sigma_589306_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html<br>

And here is Sigma's current 50-150mm OS:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689579-REG/Sigma_589306_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html</p>

<p>Of course when comparing apples to oranges, such as you have done (across different manufacturers' design choices, or the same manufacturer but with different features), then you come up with 43% to 50%. But comparing the CURRENT Sigma 50-150mm that anyone reading this thread can go readily buy today, which has OS, to the CURRENT Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that anyone reading this thread can go readily buy today, without having to resort to buying used, then that is the current situation. I mentioned that fact as much as anything else to refute Mike's demand that Nikon should create DX-specific lenses to make DX cameras appear professional. Tell that to the thousands of photographers that used Nikon DX cameras, from the current D300 and D7000 all the way back to the D1. Putting up artificial barriers by refusing to use a lens that wasn't specifically designed for DX is one's own right, but it's not going to get the OP anywhere, and I thought I'd provide some insight as to WHY he isn't seeing any DX "pro" lenses (lenses like my 300mm f/4 are pretty professional to me, and they seem to work perfectly on DX). There are tons of lenses that work great on my camera, and I'm not going to worry myself over what the original intent of the design was. For example, 35mm film was originally designed for making motion pictures, not photographs, but look how that worked out. Imagine if all of the early still photographers had sat around complaining that the film was not originally designed for their intended use, instead of going out and advancing the art. Or consider where all the current Grammy-winning artists would be today if they would have listened to old fogeys' advice of "A turntable is made for playing music, not making it!" If the 24-70mm, 70-200mm, or any other not-specifically-DX lens will solve someone's problem, then by all means embrace it.</p>

<p>As I mentioned, I have owned the first edition Sigma 50-150mm lens, which was light and compact, and although I loved that lens, being fair and objective, its size came at a price, and the newer lens appears to have had to make size and price compromises to ensure that it performed to the standards expected of it.</p>

<p>And Antonio, don't let others bully you out of giving advice. You make valid points, such as IS/OS being VERY useful for panning, and other situations as well. What if you turn around and want to capture the expression of someone in the audience, or on the sidelines? What if you want to creatively blur some movement, or capture an athlete in a moment of stillness? If your advice makes other users angry, or they are unable to handle your facts and opinions, then that is their problem, not yours. Not everyone is talking about the non-OS version; only Eric and Michael specifically mentioned that version, which may be a moot point for the OP as it is a long-discontinued lens, and going by KEH's current stock, paying $500+ for a used lens when the newer one is noticeably improved optically, along with having useful features like a monopod foot and OS, plus a warranty for under $1,000 today.</p>

<p>Thanks for everyone's comments. I thought I'd just add a few things.<br>

<br>

Long before DX, ie the days of film.... the focal length of 80 (then 70)-200mm f2.8 was <strong><em>the</em></strong> gotto lens for a very large number of PJ's (along with the 35-70mm 2.8) and Sports photographers. That focal length and range was proven to be ideal for those users. They make a DX equivalent for the wider lens, the nice, fast 17-55mm AF-S 2.8....However, very simply put, Nikon doesn't make anything equivalent for DX users for the longer lens. <br>

<br>

That kinda implies that DX users don't need that framing at that distance any more. So, what's changed? There are plenty of slow 'travel' zooms, but they are not so useful for sports/action photography. That's precisely why fast lenses are made, despite what some have said, because they are needed! Sadly, f5.6 doesn't cut it!<br>

<br>

The 40 - 160mm was a <em >range</em> within which to find a lens, not necessarily the spec of a single lens! However, would anyone want a 40-160mm f4? I feel they might.</p>

<p>The long end of the 'wanted' lens is not the problem, it's the wide end. 70mm gets to be EQ to a 105mm and that's just a bit too much magnification for my needs with a moving target.</p>

<p>Looking at the Nikon line up in both DX and FX, there's a definite set of DX wide angle, focal length lenses that were un-achievable using an FX lens. Slow DX travel-zooms are there. The long end is not so well catered for, especially with fast lenses. Looking at the limited size and weight gains, I can see why it's a law of diminishing returns....to the detriment of sport DX users.</p>

<p>The question of VR/OS is a little more complex. Take horse eventing, the shooting falls into 2 types, 1) Action. With horses whizzing around jumping fences and 2) The awarding of rozettes/horse portraits etc. For 1), shutter speeds are ideally above 1/750, so VR/OS is not necessary (apart from speed panning...:-)). For 2), usually on a dull day, the ISO is lower, the required DoF deeper and the shutter speed slower, VR/OS may be handy.</p>

<p> For many events there is a 'good' distance to be from a jump and it usually coincides with the mid point in zoom range to allow for framing. Sadly, the horse doesn't know this and occasionally gets <strong><em>much</em></strong> closer. If one is used to a 70-200mm on FX, a 105mm minimum on DX reach can be too much if I can't go backwards.</p>

<p>To Summarize.......Loads of people do this with a D700/D3/D4 and the 70-200mm VRII, but I would like to do this same job on <strong>DX</strong> with the new D7100. Nikon do not make the optics to make this possible. This implies Nikon wants Sports/Action to be the sole preserve of FX, and currently that means the D4. The D800 and D600 aren't fast enough.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2390878">Benjamin Schaefer</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2013; 05:47 p.m. No personal experience but Sigma 50-150 f2.8 seems to fit the bill.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2013; 06:49 p.m.<br /> we've been down this road before... nikon wants pros to use FX. the d7100 is priced at prosumer level. also, no reason you can't use a 70-200 or 80-200 on DX.<br /> that said, i have the original (non-stabilized) sigma 50-150/2.8.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3655156">Michael Kohan</a> , Mar 10, 2013; 03:45 a.m. I have the original Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM (no OS) for sale...</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=620661">John Crowe</a> , Mar 09, 2013; 07:08 p.m.<br /> Sigma 50-150/2.8 seems to fit the bill and appears to be about 2/3 the weight of the various 70-200/2.8 lenses.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 10, 2013; 12:20 a.m.<br /> Using your parameters, the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is obvious.</p>

<p>To me, it seems obvious everyone here is talking about the sigma DX 50-150mm non OS compact version. Non sure what Ariel's reading?</p>

<p>@Antonio, you could buy any lenses you want for your need, but people are talking of the much lighter non OS version here for the OP. No hard feelings:)<br>

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If Nikon want DX to be seen as Pro Grade, it needs fast lenses to back this up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, Nikon <em><strong>seems</strong></em> to have decided that DX is no longer Pro Grade in 2013.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If outdoor sports is the requirement then why spend money on a 50-150/2.8 when the same money can get you a 70-200/2.8 which when put on a DX body actually gets into the outdoor sports realm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the older, non-OS version of the 50-150 goes for about $650 used; a used 70-200 I is about $1400-$1500. so it's not evern close to "the same money." as i've stated before, the 50-150 is an excellent lens, not just for its optics, but also its compactness. only reason to get the 50-150 OS is if you need both OS and 50mm.</p>

<p>regarding the OP's comments, just because Nikon doesn't make the 50-150 doesn't mean it's not good...had nikon come out with the exact same lens, it would have been more highly regarded. as it is, it's kind of a sleeper, if not a classic, and i will hold on to mine as long as i have DX bodies.</p>

<p>+1 Peter H.</p>

<p>+1 Eric A.</p>

<p>Various 'Official' Nikon voices have declared the D7100 to be the Flagship DX model, whereas others have strongly denied it. I wonder if they don't actually know the answer to this....as a part of the bigger question.....</p>

<p>'Should we let DX die (unlikely) or (more probably) re-enforce the simple fact that aspiring DX users will want to go FX because "That's where the nice Pro glass is"...?'</p>

<p>Mike, if you want an 70-200 to be like an 70-200 is on full frame, you need to get a full frame camera to do it. If the D4 is too expensive, and D800 too slow, there are many D3s, D3, and D700 bodies on the used market which will do the job for less money.</p>

<p>Ilkka, I meant I want a <em>lens</em> for DX to behave or 'capture the scene' like the 70-200mm VRII does on FX, there is no Nikon optical option.....it would require a lens of ~46-130mm f2.8 on a DX body. I hope this makes it clearer.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 40 - 160mm was a <em>range</em> within which to find a lens, not necessarily the spec of a single lens! However, would anyone want a 40-160mm f4? I feel they might.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think we may be pole-vaulting over mouse droppings. Nikon makes the 24-120 AFS VR F/4. Right? So that gives you what you want. It is 36-180 F/4. Has VR and is a very nice lens. So it is better than what you want. </p>

<p>Your perfect lens is 60-240 F/4 but I have to call the 24-120 close enough. What difference is that 60mm on the long end going to make anyway? Espeically in a camera that is going to give you 24 MP to crop to your heart's desire. So with the 7100 you have enough High ISO performance to make the difference between F/2.8 and F/4 academic for all but the most rare of circumstances. For your horses there is no difference. <br>

I think Nikon got there ahead of you. </p>

<p>Rick, your 24-120mm has the equivalent FOV of a 36-180mm on DX. My 40 - 160mm has an equivalent FOV of 60-240mm on DX. In the same Ballpark, but......</p>

<p>Sure I can crop.....and make up 1 stop......and that makes it better than I want? Interesting conclusion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>High ISO performance to make the difference between F/2.8 and F/4 academic for all but the most rare of circumstances.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So, the end of all f2.8 fast zoom lenses as we know it?.... even more interesting.</p>

<p>However, the new 'crop' mode on the D7100 does make your 24-120mm an idea. I await test pics of a side by side with an image from a 70-200mm VRII on FX. You never know, it might be viable after all...;-)</p>