Currently have a D7000 (looking for a 7200 soon) and this lens.   What would be decent jump up in photo capabilty, especially low light (like Friday night hs football games).   Overall I like the lens, but am wanting something better.   Can I make a decent jump up in capability for less than 2k??

Or, wld upgrading the body give me the biggest bang for the buck?


Stabilazation wld be nice, but not a deal breaker.    Thanks.

For the basic focal length range of that lens, there really is not much in terms of low light (with respect to aperture size) that is better except for the 200mm f2 fixed focal length.  That said, the newer 70-200mm f2.8 with VR will allow more low light flexibility as the VR can be worth 2 f stops.

Would you even have the stabilation turned on for high school football game under the lights?

I don't think that there is much (if anything) that will help you that is in that price range.  VR won't help motion blur from movement (sports) in low light.  It would help for more static shots though.

So, it's upgrading to the 7200 body time????!!!

Looks like the D7200 would gain you a bit more than half-stop of noise improvement and a much higher "native" ISO.  Not groundbreaking by any means.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Nikon%20D7000_14,Nikon%20D7200_14

That's a tough problem to try and crack.  The D500 and D7500 would gain even more from a noise reduction standpoint.

It also really depends on a lot of factors.

A lot of the people doing night football have multi-flash setups to help with illumination.

I've found that when shooting sports either daytime or under lights that two of the most important things are ISO and buffer size. You need a lot of both.

I'd definitely look at an upgrade to D7200 or D7500.  Both will be pretty decent and the large increase to buffer size and ISO performance will do you well.  Bang for your buck, I'd personally go D7200 unless you really want the 7500.

A lens with VR or the like would also help a lot.  I think most Nikon VR lenses give you ~3 stops worth of VR but it varies.

You already have the lens speed you need for sports, you can't really do any better in a zoom lens.

What you need is a newer body with a better sensor.

As the D7500 supposedly has the same sensor as the D500, that is what I would suggest. They both have the Nikon "flicker reduction" system which makes a huge difference if you have to deal with crappy mercury vapor lighting. I changed from the D300s (roughly contemporary to the D7000) and the D500 in low light is on a whole different plane.

VR is useless for sports/action, as you have to turn it off to track moving subjects. You need adequate ISO speed to get sufficient shutter speed for your lens and action, no way around that. You can do football as slow as 1/250 from a monopod (or if you're really steady) but at a practical level you want 1/500. With the D500... ISO 12500 is not even breaking a sweat so 1/500 or more is available even in poor light. Tonight I was shooting at 1/800, f4 and letting auto iso figure it out as the game started before sundown.

Once you get a new body, do autofocus fine tune on your lenses, it makes a huge difference when shooting at wide apertures. The newer AF systems are faster and more accurate in low light also, I shoot wide open at 2.8 (or 4 depending on the lens) and it's right there. With the extra camera speed I've been shooting some football with a 100-300f4 (that I got used at a really good price ).

On closer examination, is that a mechanical focus drive lens or an electronic focus?  Mechanical drive would be slower, not sure how that would do.

+1 on that, minus the VR bit.  At least with newer Nikon lenses (I'm not sure when they made the change) the lens can tell when you are panning and unlocks that axis of VR.  I use the hell out of it on my 70-300 ED IF VR on stuff.

For example:

I can't stress this enough.  Made a big difference to my eye.

I'm inching closer on getting a new (or newer zoom......doesn't have to be new).   Does anybody have any more recommendations on a zoom for less than $1500?   And a good review on the Tamron G2?

Thanks for any additional info.

If you were right at $15-1600 and want to stay in the 70-200mm f/2.8 range, I'd go this way.  If you want more reach but can deal with a prime lens, B&H has some similarly priced deals on a few 300mm f/2.8 lenses.

Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 G ED IF AF-S VR II Autofocus Lens $1600 used in EX condition With Case, Caps, Hood, and Right Stuff Tripod Mount
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f-2-8g-ed-vr-ii-telephoto-zoom-lens.html

I have an older Sigma 70-200/2.8 with their "HSM" in-lens motor, it's been a really good lens for me. Focuses pretty fast, the zoom ring is positioned well in the way I used it and it zooms quickly and easily, and the images look fine at least for my purposes. I think I paid under $400 for it used. Non-VR type lenses are often available inexpensively.

The Tamron is really starting to look good to me.   Looks like there are quite a few youtube videos for it, comparing it to other lens and real world shooting.  

Gotta get some sleep.   Thanks again for the links and info.

When I took the jump to full frame cameras and lenses, I never looked back.

I run both a D800 and a D810 and the only thing I regret about it is that now the lenses I want are pricier.  

But then again, the range of lenses I can use is huge, too.   I can still use DX lenses in crop mode so I've lost nothing, except for money!

My cameras and lenses are much better than the half-trained idiot hiding behind it.  

Assuming the same generation of camera,  the full frame (FX) body is going to have a lower noise floor than its DX counterpart.  


I pretty much have permanently mated my Nikon 200-500mm F/5.6 lens to my D810 for all long distance work.  My D800 and other
lenses are used for everything else.

Is there anything that can beat the Tamron G2 for $1300 or less?    Reburbished is fine.  

I never heard a peep about the Sigma equivalent, but, what about some type of older refurb Nikon?    Obviously never than my old Nikon.  

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm leaning hard towards the G2, but before pulling the trigger, want to make sure I have all my options covered.

Coming in late to the party...

Since the lens is already an f/2.8 zoom, getting better exposures will either come from a f/2.0 prime lens or a newer body with higher ISO and better high ISO noise handling.

What a newer lens like any version of the VR 70-200mm f/2.8 will give you is a better focus system, which may help depending on the unstated problems you are having.

Stabilization (VR) will not help you any because the shutter speeds you need to freeze the action will negate the use of VR. VR does help for panning shots, but that assumes a slower shutter speed.

Tamron is a great lower-price option for the 70-200mm f/2.8.

I'm still waffling around with this.    Still want to find something that is about as good as the G2 for less.   Plus, I like just finding a good deal.  

High school basketball is coming up soon, and want to try a different lens.    

What about this lens?    Is it close to the G2 in performance?    For less?   Can it even be found anymore for a decent price?  

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

If you want to hypothesize about a bunch of specifications on lenses, DXOMark actually tests lenses on various cameras. Lens performance does vary between different camera models.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses

What is important to recognize is what if any of those specifications actually mean in the usage you are looking for.

For example:  I shoot a whole lot of photos with a lens that is not particularly good in sharpness. However, it handles very fast, zooms quickly and easily, is light in weight, and (most importantly) focuses lightning fast. I get shots with that lens that I doubt I could get with any other lens. Applying a little unsharp mask in my post-processing action makes the photos look great. Nothing I can do in post will fix the problem if I don't get the shot to begin with or it's out of focus.