bill_allen4

<p>Something to consider that I haven't seen anybody suggest yet: for half the weight and a fraction of the cost of the 24-70 2.8, you could carry an AF 24 2.8 and an AF 50 1.8 which would probably give you closer to the perfection of photos (and much faster at 50) that you desire at the cost of having to change lenses. If you carry your camera in a bag that would hold the 24-70 2.8, it will carry both your camera, one attached and the other unattached lens in the same space.</p>

<p>I'd suggest that you rent before you buy. This might be a great lens for you, but my experience shooting my kids in hockey is that I get all my best shots when I'm positioned near one of the goals and the action is in that zone. At that distance 180 is too long, especially for DX. As other posters have said an 85 or so works best at that distance, so an 80-200 2.8 or an 85 1.8 would do the trick. From the stands, which is problematic since you're often shooting through banged up plexiglass or mesh, a 180 would be just about right for action not too far away. The problems of shooting hockey are documented elsewhere, but the combination of high speed, low/bad lighting, glare from the ice make it a difficult sport to photograph. Getting close to the action and low with respect to the players to minimize ice glare and shooting with fast shutter speed is what you want.</p>