Lens Question.....

[Luckyhunter]

I am thinking about purchasing a 70-200mm 2.8 lens for my Nikon D7000. I am looking into taking pics at rodeos and need a fast versitle lens. Any good/bad thoughts or opinions before I drop a chunk of change?


Thanks, Ken

[wassaw]

serious chunk of change. I would look into renting and taking some pic's before buying. (hopefully this is a situation where you can make some of your investment back)

I would think that with the lighting (at most rodeo's) you could get away without the 2.8 ED2 price tag and go with the 3.5 area
just a thought. 2.8 depth of field is shallow

[WyoBull]

Lens Question.....

I shoot the 70-200 2.8 on my D700. It is on my camera body probably 85% of the time. It is tack sharp and the workhorse lens of professional photographers. If the arena is indoors, you will definitely need the 2.8 speed and a higher ISO. I am not sure how the D7000 performs at higher ISO's, you would know that better than I.
This lens is not cheap but I always tell people to purchase the best glass you can afford. You can have the best camera body out there but if you put cheap glass in front of it, you will get lower quality photographs.
Another option at a lower cost is the predecessor to the 70-200 2.8 VR, the 80-200 2.8. I had one of these for many years and sold it for $600 dollars in A+ condition.

[scotty]

In my opinion, that is the very first lens a serious photographer should buy. It's that good. I use mine for sports, wildlife, and portraits.

If you would like a bit of help on camera settings for low light sports, shoot me a PM.

[Henry]

The Canon counterpart is an amazing lens. Very sharp and not as thin a depth of focus as a prime.

[Luckyhunter]

Thanks for all the input y'all! I may try and rent one to see how I like it.

[WyoBull]

Thanks for all the input y'all! I may try and rent one to see how I like it.

If you rent one, be prepared to buy one because you will be extremely impressed. Like Scotty said, this lens should be in any serious photographer's bag.