D7000...now which lens?
Discussion
Having just upgraded from a D40 I'm now looking at which lens or lenses would be a good match. The only lenses I have are the 17-55mm kit lens that came with the D40, a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG, and the Nikon 50mm f1.4D which I have just bought.
I've read that the D7000 deserves a good lens so it's making me think I should upgrade from the cheaper ones I used on the D40.
I don't have a budget as such - if a few hundred pounds is all it takes to get a great lens then fine...but I'm equally happy to spend a lot more than that if necessary.
Most of my photography is typical holiday landscape stuff, portrait (hence the 50mm), and some sports (mainly tennis, but hopefully some motorsports in future).
I'm also thinking I should stick to FX lenses as I may upgrade to full frame in years to come.
Any recommendations gratefully received.
Jono
I've read that the D7000 deserves a good lens so it's making me think I should upgrade from the cheaper ones I used on the D40.
I don't have a budget as such - if a few hundred pounds is all it takes to get a great lens then fine...but I'm equally happy to spend a lot more than that if necessary.
Most of my photography is typical holiday landscape stuff, portrait (hence the 50mm), and some sports (mainly tennis, but hopefully some motorsports in future).
I'm also thinking I should stick to FX lenses as I may upgrade to full frame in years to come.
Any recommendations gratefully received.
Jono
jonott said:
I'm also thinking I should stick to FX lenses as I may upgrade to full frame in years to come.
Any recommendations gratefully received.
Jono
IMO a mistake. Unless you can deal with a full frames 'walkround' lens wide of 24mm , which is an effective 36mm on the D7000.Any recommendations gratefully received.
Jono
Remember buying a decent lens shouldnt lose much more than 15-20% of its value over time so your faced with eitehr losing a bit of cash over 2-3-4 years in the event you do switch to FX or spending all your time shooting with a poor focal range...
I'd look at the sigma 17-70OS or tamron 17-50f2.8
Or consider buying used?
Nice choice, I moved up from a D40 to a D7000 too.
In my bag is a Nikon 18-105mm VR, Nikon 50mm F1.8, Sigma 55-200mm and a Sigma 15-30mm.
I use the 18-105 mostly, started to like using the 15-30 alot more now (especially for landscapes and car shots).
I havent used the 55-200 for ages now.
In my bag is a Nikon 18-105mm VR, Nikon 50mm F1.8, Sigma 55-200mm and a Sigma 15-30mm.
I use the 18-105 mostly, started to like using the 15-30 alot more now (especially for landscapes and car shots).
I havent used the 55-200 for ages now.
RobDickinson said:
IMO a mistake. Unless you can deal with a full frames 'walkround' lens wide of 24mm , which is an effective 36mm on the D7000.
Remember buying a decent lens shouldnt lose much more than 15-20% of its value over time so your faced with eitehr losing a bit of cash over 2-3-4 years in the event you do switch to FX or spending all your time shooting with a poor focal range...
I'd look at the sigma 17-70OS or tamron 17-50f2.8
Or consider buying used?
This is good advice. Remember buying a decent lens shouldnt lose much more than 15-20% of its value over time so your faced with eitehr losing a bit of cash over 2-3-4 years in the event you do switch to FX or spending all your time shooting with a poor focal range...
I'd look at the sigma 17-70OS or tamron 17-50f2.8
Or consider buying used?
There are good DX lens that will suit the D7000 well. You will also find the zoom lens a bit on the large size for such a small body.
Having said that, I only have FF glass now, having ditched DX a while ago.
Maybe a second hand 70-200 F2.8 VR I which go for about £900 ? It's possible to use it for portraits and will obviously be good enough for motorsports where the aperture will be a massive help. If you need extra length above that Nikon's new 2x teleconverter is supposed to be the dogs danglies.
Or there is the 24-120 F4 which is supposed to be very good ? if you really need something wider the Tokina 11-16mm is supposed to be very nice.
I've just bought a D7000 and bought the new version of the 70-200 F2.8 VR II...it's bloody brilliant. I also have a 50mm F1.4 and have the 18-200 which I will use as a walkabout lens or when needing to travel light on family holidays.
Some lenses second hand go for crazy money IMHO. My 70-200 cost £1450 new as a grey import which with lenses isn't a problem as it's still got a manufacturers warranty....I've seen second hand lenses go for the same money
which obviously have no warranty unless you buy from a dealer.
Or there is the 24-120 F4 which is supposed to be very good ? if you really need something wider the Tokina 11-16mm is supposed to be very nice.
I've just bought a D7000 and bought the new version of the 70-200 F2.8 VR II...it's bloody brilliant. I also have a 50mm F1.4 and have the 18-200 which I will use as a walkabout lens or when needing to travel light on family holidays.
Some lenses second hand go for crazy money IMHO. My 70-200 cost £1450 new as a grey import which with lenses isn't a problem as it's still got a manufacturers warranty....I've seen second hand lenses go for the same money
which obviously have no warranty unless you buy from a dealer.Thanks for all the replies guys. A lot of wise words. I agree going FX, especially at the wide end, is probably not the best move. Although am I right in thinking at the zoom end of things you actually gain? Photographing tennis I always feel my 70-300mm never gets close enough. Slappng an FX zoom lens on should get me that bit closer?
The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR certainly sounds tempting from what I've read. That would give me the equivalent reach of my Sigma at 300mm? I've too read good things about Nikon's new teleconverter. Does that mean combined with the 70-200 F2.8 VR that would give 600mm of reach on DX?
Cheers
The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR certainly sounds tempting from what I've read. That would give me the equivalent reach of my Sigma at 300mm? I've too read good things about Nikon's new teleconverter. Does that mean combined with the 70-200 F2.8 VR that would give 600mm of reach on DX?
Cheers
with respect I think you're misunderstanding how lenses behave on the different bodies.
The focal length of any lens is the same whether on a DX or FX body. What a DX sensor does is crop the central portion of the image and thus it appears to be zoomed in a bit more, 1.5x in this case.
Are you saying the Nikon 70-300 doesn't have enough reach for tennis? On an FX body the 70-300mm appears as a 70-300 and on a DX body it appears as a 105-450mm. If it isn't enough try a teleconverter on that lens.
If you try a 70-200 lens it will be less reach; 70-200 on FX, 105-300 on a DX. Save your money!!!! It is a better lens all round and faster thats all!
The focal length of any lens is the same whether on a DX or FX body. What a DX sensor does is crop the central portion of the image and thus it appears to be zoomed in a bit more, 1.5x in this case.
Are you saying the Nikon 70-300 doesn't have enough reach for tennis? On an FX body the 70-300mm appears as a 70-300 and on a DX body it appears as a 105-450mm. If it isn't enough try a teleconverter on that lens.
If you try a 70-200 lens it will be less reach; 70-200 on FX, 105-300 on a DX. Save your money!!!! It is a better lens all round and faster thats all!
DX cameras are naturally suited to sport and FX Landscapes because of their cropping/lens characteristics. Both can do either though!
The lenses you 'need' for sport are single focal length super zooms:- 300, 400, 500 or 600mm fast lenses are silly money. That's what's used on the terraces!
What I would do instead is stick with the 70-300, set the camera to shutter priority at min 1/1000s, select auto ISO and do moderate crops.
The lenses you 'need' for sport are single focal length super zooms:- 300, 400, 500 or 600mm fast lenses are silly money. That's what's used on the terraces!
What I would do instead is stick with the 70-300, set the camera to shutter priority at min 1/1000s, select auto ISO and do moderate crops.
ian in lancs said:
with respect I think you're misunderstanding how lenses behave on the different bodies.
The focal length of any lens is the same whether on a DX or FX body. What a DX sensor does is crop the central portion of the image and thus it appears to be zoomed in a bit more, 1.5x in this case.
Are you saying the Nikon 70-300 doesn't have enough reach for tennis? On an FX body the 70-300mm appears as a 70-300 and on a DX body it appears as a 105-450mm. If it isn't enough try a teleconverter on that lens.
If you try a 70-200 lens it will be less reach; 70-200 on FX, 105-300 on a DX. Save your money!!!! It is a better lens all round and faster thats all!
Thanks for putting me straight! I think that's clearer in my head now. As for the 70-300, it's actually a Sigma 70-300mm DG, for DX cameras.The focal length of any lens is the same whether on a DX or FX body. What a DX sensor does is crop the central portion of the image and thus it appears to be zoomed in a bit more, 1.5x in this case.
Are you saying the Nikon 70-300 doesn't have enough reach for tennis? On an FX body the 70-300mm appears as a 70-300 and on a DX body it appears as a 105-450mm. If it isn't enough try a teleconverter on that lens.
If you try a 70-200 lens it will be less reach; 70-200 on FX, 105-300 on a DX. Save your money!!!! It is a better lens all round and faster thats all!
andy-xr said:
If you do change that, the Nikon 70-300 AF-S F4.5-5.6 VR G +somethingelseprobably works on both DX and FX. And it's fairly cheap, mine was around £320'ish. But it'll still be a 300mm lens 
Yep the Nikon 70-300 is an FX lens. I have one. I think its sharper than my 70-200 VR! I got mine for £300 in Gibraltar. Cheap as chips and very good.jonott said:
I think that's clearer in my head now. As for the 70-300, it's actually a Sigma 70-300mm DG, for DX cameras.
In that case its still a 70-300, will appear to be a 105-450mm on a DX but smaller in diameter than one designed for FX and lighter. If used on an FX it will darken or cut off the corners (vignette).A crop cameras extra 'reach' is purely down to pixel density.
A 12mp D700 is 5mp when cropped vs say 16mp of a D7000 in the same area.
This is OK if those pixels are of sufficient quality.
But a crop sensor with high pixel density is going to show any flaws in the lens or technique much sooner than a 5mp image will.
Also bumping the ISO up will effectivly reduce that resolution quite rapidy.
Though its easier to use a crop than buy 50% more reach with a lens...
A 12mp D700 is 5mp when cropped vs say 16mp of a D7000 in the same area.
This is OK if those pixels are of sufficient quality.
But a crop sensor with high pixel density is going to show any flaws in the lens or technique much sooner than a 5mp image will.
Also bumping the ISO up will effectivly reduce that resolution quite rapidy.
Though its easier to use a crop than buy 50% more reach with a lens...
RobDickinson said:
A crop cameras extra 'reach' is purely down to pixel density.
A 12mp D700 is 5mp when cropped vs say 16mp of a D7000 in the same area.
This is OK if those pixels are of sufficient quality.
But a crop sensor with high pixel density is going to show any flaws in the lens or technique much sooner than a 5mp image will.
Also bumping the ISO up will effectivly reduce that resolution quite rapidy.
Though its easier to use a crop than buy 50% more reach with a lens...
Hmm...A 12mp D700 is 5mp when cropped vs say 16mp of a D7000 in the same area.
This is OK if those pixels are of sufficient quality.
But a crop sensor with high pixel density is going to show any flaws in the lens or technique much sooner than a 5mp image will.
Also bumping the ISO up will effectivly reduce that resolution quite rapidy.
Though its easier to use a crop than buy 50% more reach with a lens...
When a DX lens is fitted to a FX camera the image circle from the lens doesn't cover the FX sensor size. Consequently, the camera electronically crops the 12MP sensor to a smaller size which as it is about 6MP will give a poor image compared to that DX lens on a DX body which can use the full DX sensor size (12MP).
The 12MP DX sensor on the D300 series cameras has denser light sensors than the 12MP larger FX sensor. The D300 can resolve finer detail, the D700 better colour rendition and low light capabilities.
Increasing ISO turns up the gain (amplifies) the signal from the sensor. A small light sensor has to be amplified more than a large light sensor which is why a D700 is better than a D300 in low light. Increasing ISO doesn't change resolution but increases noise in the resulting image akin to the grain seen in fast films of old.
An FX sensor gives a larger image that can take huge enlargements
Hope that clarifies whats going on DX vs FX
RobDickinson said:
A crop cameras extra 'reach' is purely down to pixel density.
Size of sensor. Otherwise a 12Mp D300 would have twice the 'reach' of a 6Mp D70. Well I see your point, in that you can fake extra reach by cropping the image (digital zoom!) but in terms of what you see in the viewfinder, it's sensor size that counts. How many bits you divide that image into is secondary.Simpo Two said:
Size of sensor. Otherwise a 12Mp D300 would have twice the 'reach' of a 6Mp D70. Well I see your point, in that you can fake extra reach by cropping the image (digital zoom!) but in terms of what you see in the viewfinder, it's sensor size that counts. How many bits you divide that image into is secondary.
True but if you had a FF camera with the same pixel density as a crop then there is no extra 'reach'.And you can crop more with higher MP bodies.
RobDickinson said:
Simpo Two said:
Size of sensor. Otherwise a 12Mp D300 would have twice the 'reach' of a 6Mp D70. Well I see your point, in that you can fake extra reach by cropping the image (digital zoom!) but in terms of what you see in the viewfinder, it's sensor size that counts. How many bits you divide that image into is secondary.
True but if you had a FF camera with the same pixel density as a crop then there is no extra 'reach'.And you can crop more with higher MP bodies.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff