Hello from Virginia

[linda_marceau]

<p>My name is Linda and I become interested in photography while taking shots of my kids playing sports. I moved from a Cannon Powershot to a Nikon d70 about 5 years ago. I really enjoy action shots and have been taking pictures at games for several years. I am still camera illiterate and rely on auto most of the time. I would like to learn more about photography in general. But have a specific need right now.<br>

I use a 70-200 f/4 lens for my sports shots which works great on bright sunny days. However, my son wrestles so all my recent shots are indoors with poor lighting and fast paced action. I have been relatively lucky in anticipating moves and getting some pretty decent shots but it is frustrating (I do share photos with the whole team). I am usually able to sit on the side of the matt which gets me fairly close to the action. I do prefer to get close up sports shots while catching the action at the same time.<br>

I am wondering if a different lens is all I would need or is it time to change cameras? My son graduates next year so I won't use the lens for much more indoor sports shooting but I do want to get some good shots of his senior year. I looked at the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens and wonder if it would be a good lens for the price and work well on my existing camera. I would appreciate any suggestions and thoughts about this. I am so new to all of this but really want to get some great shots this year (but not break the bank).<br>

Thanks for your help!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>When you're shooting indoors in that challenging light, at which focal length are you usually using the lens? Closer to the 70mm end, or the 200mm end?<br /><br />Certainly a newer camera body (like the D7100) would allow you to shoot at much higher ISO settings, and thus be able to support much faster shutter speeds than you're currently able to. But if you think that, say, 85mm is a good focal length (just set your 70-200 to 85mm, and see how it treats you), you might consider something like the 85/1.8 ... it will gather several times more light than your nice f/4 lens. <br /><br />But that's a great lens (your 70-200/4), and you might really enjoy having a newer generation body. The D7100 is practically from another planet, compared to the D70. You might want to handle one at a store, and see how it feels. You can easily shoot at ISO 1600 with that body - while the older D70 would be making some very noisy images at the same setting.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Linda - I have <strong>way</strong> <strong>less</strong> expertise than Matt and others on Photo.net. However, my experience has led to me conclude that learning one's camera as well as the basic principles of photography (which T still am learning) are the way to go before spending money on a new instrument. Hope this helps.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I agree with Michael (about learning your gear and getting outside of the automated settings modes!), but I do know enough about that particular camera and low-light action scenes to know that you're dealing with a pretty limited platform for that situation. Hence my question about focal length, as that has a lot to do with your options.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Longer lenses that let in a lot of light can be expensive especially if you choose a, say, Nikon or Canon lens. I think you should look at third-party lenses like Sigma. There is some amazing "glass" out there these days.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Wayne has an excellent point. I am very pleased with a Tamron 18-270 zoom.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>For the money it would be hard to beat the 70-200 that you already have. An upgrade to a Nikon body that allows higher ISO settings at high image quality would serve you well. Just a one stop increase (like going from ISO 400 to 800) would be equivalent to moving to an f2.8 lens. </p>

[linda_marceau]

<p>Thanks everyone for your suggestions.</p>