Nikon D7000 help with lens choice
Discussion
Just want to highlight that the new DX 70-300 is not compatible with the D7000.
The 70-300VR you have I found to be utterly brilliant at an airshow, the range and the amazingly fast auto-focus was brilliant. I suppose it depends on whether airshows or fast sports are your bag.
My D7000 kit bag includes the following lenses:
Tokina 11-16
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Nikon 35mm
Nikon 50mm
Sigma 70-200 2.8
Sadly all my friends have AF-S only DX cameras so I can't gift them the 50mm.
For any gathering of children, the 70-200 is my go-to lens as they are normally held in big wide halls, but it's a big heavy beast of a lens.
My advice would be to forget the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200. Unless you're planning to do lots of airshows or kids parties, save your money and put it towards something second hand like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Nikon 17-55 2.8 if you can afford it. The Nikon 35mm is a fabulous lens but you'll find the range flexibility in the telephotos more useful for learning at this stage.
The 70-300VR you have I found to be utterly brilliant at an airshow, the range and the amazingly fast auto-focus was brilliant. I suppose it depends on whether airshows or fast sports are your bag.
My D7000 kit bag includes the following lenses:
Tokina 11-16
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Nikon 35mm
Nikon 50mm
Sigma 70-200 2.8
- For static family shots I use the 35mm
- For children's parties I alternate between the 70-200 as I can keep a distance from the whirlwind of preschoolers and switch to the 17-50 for finger food and cake.
- 17-50 and 11-16 for walkabouts, landscape and scenery
Sadly all my friends have AF-S only DX cameras so I can't gift them the 50mm.For any gathering of children, the 70-200 is my go-to lens as they are normally held in big wide halls, but it's a big heavy beast of a lens.
My advice would be to forget the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200. Unless you're planning to do lots of airshows or kids parties, save your money and put it towards something second hand like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Nikon 17-55 2.8 if you can afford it. The Nikon 35mm is a fabulous lens but you'll find the range flexibility in the telephotos more useful for learning at this stage.
Edited by eltawater on Friday 6th January 22:09
ExPat2B said:
So - the great Nikon DX lens debate.
The best options IMHO are :
The 35mm f1.8 lens. Yes it is a fixed lens, but it is so bright ( 16 times bigger aperture than your 70-300) , so much faster to focus and makes for such a neat package as its small and light. It is pretty much welded to my D7100. Every Nikon DX shooter should own one.
The 18-55 VR kit lens. This needs to be stopped down to f8 to get the best out of it, but it makes for a fine lightweight lens for getting landscape and "I was there" people snaps. A total no brainer, its £60 second hand to pickup.
The new Nikon DX 70-300. Nikon finally listed to the DX guys who wanted a light telephoto. its 400g, nearly half the weight of the FX version, affordable ( £270 ) sharp, accurate focusing.
Another telephoto option is the 55-200. I like this lens as it is really small and light and cheap and performs well in good light/away from the max aperture and zoom. Its not as good as the new 70-300 but it is very very cheap.
You could put together a fine 3 lens kit ( 35mm - £110, 18-55 - £60, 55-200 £85 ) for 250ish total second hand from ebay.
On the superzoom front, the general consensus is that the 18-140 is the the one to have vs the 18-200 and the 18-300. The 18-140 is sharper faster to focus and more usable at max aperture.
The next suggestion is to get a camera strap instead of the Nikon supplied one. Doesn't need to be too fancy, but this makes carrying a DLSR all day convienient.
https://www.caselogic.com/en-us/us/products/camera...
Once you have those basics, and you have been shooting for a while and getting the feel of what you like, then start to look at a specialist lens.
For portraits, Nikon 85mm f.18 is great.
For macro, Nikon 85mm DX f3.5 or 105mm f.28 for
For people shooting the 17-55 f2.8 is a solid performer on the D7000.
Telephoto the Tamron 150-600 is starting to look like an incredible bargain as a new tamron model has been released to replace it and Nikon brought out the 200-500 ( however if you can afford it, spring for the Nikon 200-500 as its fabulous )
Don't touch teleconverters, they are only for use with exotic primes like the 300mm f2.8.
Thanks again all I have decided on the plan suggested here by expat2b.Just bought the 18-55 for £60 and im zeroing in on the 35mm and the 55-200. The best options IMHO are :
The 35mm f1.8 lens. Yes it is a fixed lens, but it is so bright ( 16 times bigger aperture than your 70-300) , so much faster to focus and makes for such a neat package as its small and light. It is pretty much welded to my D7100. Every Nikon DX shooter should own one.
The 18-55 VR kit lens. This needs to be stopped down to f8 to get the best out of it, but it makes for a fine lightweight lens for getting landscape and "I was there" people snaps. A total no brainer, its £60 second hand to pickup.
The new Nikon DX 70-300. Nikon finally listed to the DX guys who wanted a light telephoto. its 400g, nearly half the weight of the FX version, affordable ( £270 ) sharp, accurate focusing.
Another telephoto option is the 55-200. I like this lens as it is really small and light and cheap and performs well in good light/away from the max aperture and zoom. Its not as good as the new 70-300 but it is very very cheap.
You could put together a fine 3 lens kit ( 35mm - £110, 18-55 - £60, 55-200 £85 ) for 250ish total second hand from ebay.
On the superzoom front, the general consensus is that the 18-140 is the the one to have vs the 18-200 and the 18-300. The 18-140 is sharper faster to focus and more usable at max aperture.
The next suggestion is to get a camera strap instead of the Nikon supplied one. Doesn't need to be too fancy, but this makes carrying a DLSR all day convienient.
https://www.caselogic.com/en-us/us/products/camera...
Once you have those basics, and you have been shooting for a while and getting the feel of what you like, then start to look at a specialist lens.
For portraits, Nikon 85mm f.18 is great.
For macro, Nikon 85mm DX f3.5 or 105mm f.28 for
For people shooting the 17-55 f2.8 is a solid performer on the D7000.
Telephoto the Tamron 150-600 is starting to look like an incredible bargain as a new tamron model has been released to replace it and Nikon brought out the 200-500 ( however if you can afford it, spring for the Nikon 200-500 as its fabulous )
Don't touch teleconverters, they are only for use with exotic primes like the 300mm f2.8.
If you come back to it, this 28-300 is the best lens I've owned for all round general lens'ness
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300m...
It's the only superzoom I've used that wasnt a massive compromise for the stuff I wanted to shoot. I didnt like the barrel distortion and fringing on the 18-200, the 70-300 VRII G doesnt have the short scale and it's long/weighty.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300m...
It's the only superzoom I've used that wasnt a massive compromise for the stuff I wanted to shoot. I didnt like the barrel distortion and fringing on the 18-200, the 70-300 VRII G doesnt have the short scale and it's long/weighty.
andy-xr said:
If you come back to it, this 28-300 is the best lens I've owned for all round general lens'ness
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300m...
It's the only superzoom I've used that wasnt a massive compromise for the stuff I wanted to shoot. I didnt like the barrel distortion and fringing on the 18-200, the 70-300 VRII G doesnt have the short scale and it's long/weighty.
On an FX sensor perhaps.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300m...
It's the only superzoom I've used that wasnt a massive compromise for the stuff I wanted to shoot. I didnt like the barrel distortion and fringing on the 18-200, the 70-300 VRII G doesnt have the short scale and it's long/weighty.
28mm is not great for the wide end on a DX sensor
Just bought a 35mm prime so now im looking at a telephoto.The 55-200 seems like a bit of a no brainer however there is the 70-210 which seems highly regarded.The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger is the 70-210 has no VR stabilisation.The 70-300 VR was very good zoomed out but I assumed because of VR.
Anybody have any experience of the 70-210 or shooting a long lens without tripod or vibration reduction ?
Anybody have any experience of the 70-210 or shooting a long lens without tripod or vibration reduction ?
macp said:
Just bought a 35mm prime so now im looking at a telephoto.The 55-200 seems like a bit of a no brainer however there is the 70-210 which seems highly regarded.The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger is the 70-210 has no VR stabilisation.The 70-300 VR was very good zoomed out but I assumed because of VR.
Anybody have any experience of the 70-210 or shooting a long lens without tripod or vibration reduction ?
Nikon 70-210?Anybody have any experience of the 70-210 or shooting a long lens without tripod or vibration reduction ?
A google finds this for £85 or am I missing something? http://www.camerajungle.co.uk/products/25488/nikon...
Simpo Two said:
Nikon 70-210?
A google finds this for £85 or am I missing something? http://www.camerajungle.co.uk/products/25488/nikon...
Yes thats it sorry except there is a faster focusing version available but similar money.I am also now considering the Tamron & Sigma offerings with focal lengths of 200 - 300.Its a minefield but maybe im being too precious as I dont want to spend anymore than sub £200. A google finds this for £85 or am I missing something? http://www.camerajungle.co.uk/products/25488/nikon...
My views, based on owning some of these lenses over the years (using with a D80 and D7000) is:
18-200 (Former)
I bought this lens on the recommendation that it’s a “do everything,” lens. It does, indeed, do everything, albeit badly. When I could tell at a glance the photos that this lens had taken (grainy, etc) it had to go.
50mm f1.8 (Current)
Optically lovely but not a particularly useful focal length for a DX sensor
35mm f1.8 (Current)
Great. Forces one to learn how to frame and, given how much light this can allow in, very easy to get lovely results.
17-55mm f2.8 (Current)
These aren’t cheap…but really are worth it. Flexibility of a useful (if not massive) zoom range with lovely optics. This or the 35mm live on the camera.
80-200 f2.8 (Current)
Handy for Goodwood races. Not the quickest to focus and rather heavy but probably the more sensible call for the amount I use it than the 70-200, value-wise.
18-200 (Former)
I bought this lens on the recommendation that it’s a “do everything,” lens. It does, indeed, do everything, albeit badly. When I could tell at a glance the photos that this lens had taken (grainy, etc) it had to go.
50mm f1.8 (Current)
Optically lovely but not a particularly useful focal length for a DX sensor
35mm f1.8 (Current)
Great. Forces one to learn how to frame and, given how much light this can allow in, very easy to get lovely results.
17-55mm f2.8 (Current)
These aren’t cheap…but really are worth it. Flexibility of a useful (if not massive) zoom range with lovely optics. This or the 35mm live on the camera.
80-200 f2.8 (Current)
Handy for Goodwood races. Not the quickest to focus and rather heavy but probably the more sensible call for the amount I use it than the 70-200, value-wise.
EJH said:
17-55mm f2.8 (Current)
These aren’t cheap…but really are worth it. Flexibility of a useful (if not massive) zoom range with lovely optics. This or the 35mm live on the camera.
This is my general purpose lens too. I bought it for weddings so the price new (£1,000) was justifiable; however they are much cheaper s/h.These aren’t cheap…but really are worth it. Flexibility of a useful (if not massive) zoom range with lovely optics. This or the 35mm live on the camera.
Back to the question - I think first you need to decide what focal length/range suits you. The next parameter is then either aperture (if money's no object) or price (if on a budget).
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 16th January 17:29
macp said:
JThe 55-200 seems like a bit of a no brainer
It's s
t, save your money. I've tried 3 and they all were either a bit soft or had colour reproduction issues. They just werent accurate compared to a 35mm prime. Save everything, the 55-200 came out with a slight yellowness to it and didnt really pop the photo in any way. They're cheap, they're going to get you the focal length, but that D7000 will show it upYou'd be as well to buy an old film lens, 80-200's are cheap on ebay
Elderly said:
K12beano said:
andy-xr said:
.....an old film lens....
An interesting description 
lenses designed for the digital era have a rear coating that can cut down
on what is known as 'sensor flare'.
I don't really see the point. The OP already has/had a 70/300 VR which blows the socks off the AF-D and 55-x00 lenses. The 55 lenses win on weight but lose out on autofocus speed and image quality. Switch to 70/80-200 and there's likely to be a marginal difference in weight, might as well stick with the 70-300VR.
I think the OP really needs to stick with the 35 and the 70-300 VR for now until he gets a feeling for where his technique limitations lie vs his kit, then expand the kit collection accordingly.
My 70-200 2.8 lacks optical stabilisation but wins on image quality and aperture compared to my old Nikon 55-200 and tamron 18-270. Typically at the long end, I've found I can compensate for the shaky handiness better than I can the stabilised but soft image from the latter.
I think the OP really needs to stick with the 35 and the 70-300 VR for now until he gets a feeling for where his technique limitations lie vs his kit, then expand the kit collection accordingly.
My 70-200 2.8 lacks optical stabilisation but wins on image quality and aperture compared to my old Nikon 55-200 and tamron 18-270. Typically at the long end, I've found I can compensate for the shaky handiness better than I can the stabilised but soft image from the latter.
Im a dick, fecked up guys well and truly.I sold the 70-300 VR to fund what I thought would be more suitable lenses.As some of you had already mentioned the more suitable lens was probably the 70-300 and perhaps a prime to go with it.
To add insult to injury I then got a bonus at work which would have allowed me to keep the 70-300 and buy something else. Idiot
To add insult to injury I then got a bonus at work which would have allowed me to keep the 70-300 and buy something else. Idiot
Ah well, never mind
Stick with the 35mm for now and keep taking photos to work out in which direction you start "yearning" for more, whether it's to go wider or to go longer. Do not waste your money on a cheap telephoto, even if they are just the £80 ones. If you find the urge to shoot long often enough, then look into investing into the 70-300VR again or more expensive lenses instead.
Stick with the 35mm for now and keep taking photos to work out in which direction you start "yearning" for more, whether it's to go wider or to go longer. Do not waste your money on a cheap telephoto, even if they are just the £80 ones. If you find the urge to shoot long often enough, then look into investing into the 70-300VR again or more expensive lenses instead.
eltawater said:
Ah well, never mind
Stick with the 35mm for now and keep taking photos to work out in which direction you start "yearning" for more, whether it's to go wider or to go longer. Do not waste your money on a cheap telephoto, even if they are just the £80 ones. If you find the urge to shoot long often enough, then look into investing into the 70-300VR again or more expensive lenses instead.
Yes I can see me buying back the 70-300 for my aircraft photography because like you say anything else would be wasted money.What the hell was I thinking Stick with the 35mm for now and keep taking photos to work out in which direction you start "yearning" for more, whether it's to go wider or to go longer. Do not waste your money on a cheap telephoto, even if they are just the £80 ones. If you find the urge to shoot long often enough, then look into investing into the 70-300VR again or more expensive lenses instead.
Simpo Two said:
Well, at the outset you said it was to big and heavy. So either it's shrunk or you've been taking steroids!
NB I call my 70-300VR my 'airshow' lens (as opposed to the 70-200 f2.8 being the 'wedding' lens') and now you know why
Yes I thought it was too big & heavy for how I was using it generally but I realise now a 35mm lens is perfect for general photography and the 70-300 for aviation. NB I call my 70-300VR my 'airshow' lens (as opposed to the 70-200 f2.8 being the 'wedding' lens') and now you know why
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff