stuart_h1

Thanks David and Andrew. I have just been

offered a trade for an 80-200 for my 80-400

but have decided not to take it and am now

selling the 80-400. I have also just invested in

a Tamron 70-200 f2.8, very excited to pick it

up. Lets hope this lens works well for me :) I

hink for now its best to hang on to the 70-300

purely because of its smaller size and lighter

weight. Just find it such a nice lens.

David I will try and get some shots at a hugher

iso like you say and now at a lower apeture

and will see how the pics turn out.

I am looking at making a facebook page

where I can post some of my pics. Once I

have done that I will post it on here and if

anyones interested in checking the page out

and giving some constructive critisism that

would be amazing :)

Thanks again,

Stuart

The new 50mm 1.8 primes are amazing and

are reasonably cheap especially if you buy

second hand. In NZ they are around $250

second hand. So maybe $150 American. I

have owned both the 35 and the 50 and found

the 50 much better. Better bokeh (background

blur) and less intrusive. The 3m is a great lens

but by having the 50mm you will get the same

frame 2-3 steps further back from your subject

which I realy liked. Another amazing lens is

the Tamron 70-300mm VC usd. I have owned

the Tamron and the Nikon version. I found that

they are both very sharp lenses and will give

you great zoom length. They are not too

heavy also. The great thing about the Tamron

is the fact that is almost half the price of the

Nikon version and takes photos that are just

as good. There are plenty of debates online

saying the Tamrons better or the Nikons

better. So realy theyre both good. For a mid

range zoom, the 16-85mm would be a good

lens to own. This will give you a decent range

and also a very wide shot at 16mm. And again

quite affordable. hope this helps :)

Hi David, I have been shooting at a much

higher shutter speed to capture the smaller

faster movements such as the ball

movements and peoples feet etc. They seem

to be muh harder to capture. So around

1250/1500. Then iso will need to be around

800/1000. As soon as the clouds come over

im shooting at 1250/1600. I feel like thats

getting a bit too high but maybe its not.

Thanks for that, I will look up the optics pro

program after work tonight and have a play.

Maybe its best I stick with the 70-300 because

of how light it is. It still takes very nice

pictures. I am quite impressed with it when

you consider its price tag.

Thankyou for all of the responses. Yes even

over here in NZ we often call it soccer but still

feels like a grose word ;). I think for now,

wothout changing my camera to a full frame

camera, the best bet is to try out a Tamron 70-

200 f2.8 focus speed and feel etc. If it can do

can focus quickly then it could be the way to go. It is within my price range also. I have

noticed on some other blogs that alot of

people are recommending Nikons 80-200 f2.8

as a more affordable option. Apparently is still

a very good lense although its older now.

Another factor I have thought of is The d7200s

1.3x crop factor that you can shoot in. It will

drop the camera to 16mp but you gain extra

distance. Does anyone know a little bit more

able this feature? The pros and cons?

Thanks!

Hi everyone, and

I currently own a Nikon d7200 and my zoom collection consists of a Tamron 70-300 VC Usd and a Nikon AF 80-400mm. I am shooting

field sports such as football and I have found that the 70-300 is very very good as it has great vibration reduction, is light weigt and is very

smooth to zoom. The only problem is as soon as the clouds come over it is very hard to get light photos without reducing the quality of

the photos. (High shutter speed to avoid blur) I though maybe the 80-400 would be agin better for reach and also might let some more

light in but the lense is very heavy and the zoom ring is close to the body which I find is very anoying. The Tamron has the focus ring

closest to the body.

I thought maybe a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 would be the way to go? Lighter than the Nikon, good in low light, reasonable zoom range and the

zoom ring is located after the focus ring.

If anyone can give me their thoughts that would be very helpful :)

Thanks!