Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 77 total)
  • Lenses for Nikon D7000
  • mikey74
    Free Member

    I’ve been using my 35mm 1.8 or a few weeks now and I am impressed by the sharpness of it, which leads me to think about upgrading my 18-55 kit lens: what alternatives that don’t break the bank should I be looking at? I would also like to extend the zoom range a little, to around 18-100/140mm, if possible.

    Cheers.

    metalheart
    Free Member

    Replacement for kit lens I’d recommend the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 which can be had for £279 (Jessops, they’re usual around the street price).

    My advice for longer reach would be go for a f/2.8 lens as if you buy lesser you’ll regret it and end up buying it in the long run anyway (or wishing you had). Not got a sensible suggestion on that front I’m afraid.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    My favourite DX lens is a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which I use on my D7000.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    DrJ
    Full Member

    The “walkaround lens” (stupid expression) I use on my D800 is the 24-120 which I find good for most landscape situations. Otherwise I use the 70-200 f/4 which is very sharp and not too heavy, or else Sigma ART primes.

    stevepitch
    Free Member

    +1 for the sigma 17-50 f2.8 although the Tamron is meant to be very good.

    I’ve also got the sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it’s bloody fantastic imho, not sure if the link will work as on my mobile but the lens is pretty sharp. Only problem I have is due to my personal circumstances o find it difficult walking around with it.

    Woburn Tiger Cub

    Russell96
    Full Member

    Another +1 for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8

    metalheart
    Free Member

    I’ve also got the sigma 70-200 f2.8

    This what I would’ve suggested (or the Tamron equivalent) for longer reach. Bit expensive though @£700+

    Ideally I’d say a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 (+ the 70-200 above) but that’s going to sting LAMF! (~£1.5k). FF lenses, only need a wide angle to complete the trinity 🙂

    dannybgoode
    Full Member

    For the D7000 I would not go for the 24-70 as the focal range is designed for full frame cameras and is not quite wide enough at 24mm.

    That’s where the 17-50 comes in as it’s just about the equivalent focal range on a crop sensor camera (multiply the final length by 1.6 to get an approximation of the equivalent focal length so 24mm on an ff camera will give you an equivalent length of 38.4mm).

    I’d go for the Tamron 17-50mm. I had one when I have a crop frame camera and it was very good.

    Then get whatever Nikon’s DX sensor 50-200 or 250mm telephoto (not massively up on the exact Nikon range but there’ll be something around that mark).

    If you want to have some fun then get a 60mm or 100mm macro as macro photography is great fun and it doubles as a nice prime portrait lens also.

    mikey74
    Free Member

    Interesting reviews for that Tamron 17-50: Most seem to like it, whereas the Ken Rockwell site hates it, saying it is “fatally flawed”, mainly with regard to focusing. I don’t know if the Rockwell site has a deliberate bias.

    dannybgoode
    Full Member

    I don’t take much notice of Ken to be fair.

    If he is the only negative review you can find i think he can safely be discounted.

    For some reason people take his reviews as the Gospel truth with everyone else being wrong but this is rarely the case.

    stevepitch
    Free Member

    ^ +100

    Uncle Ken needs to be taken with a huge piece of salt Imho.

    Re the 70-200 I paid £650 from Amazon, would have loved the Nikon f4 or even the f2.8 but roughly at £1000 & £1500 for them it’s hard to justify unless your either a pro or a super enthused amateur

    metalheart
    Free Member

    Rockwell can be safely ignored. Places like dpreview.com are much more reliable. Hell, even Wex & Jessop customer reviews are better than that Muppet.

    Re danny’s 50-200/250 recommendation be vary of the cheap nikons. I got 55-200 off amazon (~£230?) and hate it. Slow, noisy and hardly use it as a result. Can’t remember the exact one but iirc mr Rockwell recommended it…

    ETA: I’d agree with Danny that FF lenses are OTT for a 7000 (which is why I didn’t mention them in my first post). However I dont think you’d regret buying them once you had them. Where as I’d not buy any of my existing lenses again (bar the 17-50, except I’ve the older 18-50…)

    dannybgoode
    Full Member

    @metal head. Thanks for info re Nikon 50-200. The Canon made one is actually pretty ok for the money.

    To the op secondhand from a good dealer is a good shout. Wex, Park Cameras, Clifton Cameras and Harrison Cameras can all be trusted and give warranties on secondhand gear.

    Ebay can be on if you know what you’re doing and what you’re looking at but the stores mentioned above are much safer.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Interesting reviews for that Tamron 17-50

    Never had a problem with it myself and very impressed by it.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    When I bought my first DSLR it came with a Nikon 18-70 kit lens which was absolutely cracking. I later replaced it with the “pro” 17-55 and to be honest there was no difference in sharpness between the two except at the widest aperture. No idea why they don’t supply it still.

    Creg
    Full Member

    I’ve been very happy with my Tokina 12-24 F4 DX Pro lens, easily my most used lens on my D300.

    Its obviously pretty wide but can be had quite cheaply now should you want something towards the wider end of things.

    mikey74
    Free Member

    I would like a wide angle lens but I find 18mm to be wide enough for the majority of stuff and I think an upgrade in performance is more important at the moment.

    bomberman
    Free Member

    Ive got the Tamron 17-50 non-vc (sharper than the vc). Sharp at 2.8, wicked sharp at f/4 and nice colours and bokeh. Only complaint is that the af is noisy.

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    what alternatives that don’t break the bank should I be looking at?

    That depends. What kind of photographer are you; how would you describe your approach to photography?

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    “The “walkaround lens” (stupid expression) I use on my D800 is the 24-120″

    I use the same lens as a ‘general purpose’ lens for when I don’t want to carry lots of kit, and/or will be in a situation where I can’t control my shooting position so easily. I had been using a 28-70 f2.8, but found I still needed to carry a longer lens, so the 24-120 was ideal. I do plan to buy a longer zoom, but the current 70-200 f2.8 is a massive heavy beast. So I’m wondering when I would actually make proper use of it.

    My own experience has shown that I’ll mostly use a zoom at either end, although the 24-120 is very versatile and I find I use it at different focal lengths in between. Many people tend to use shorter zooms at either end of their range though, so perhaps carrying two primes would offer better ultimate quality.

    “(multiply the final length by 1.6 to get an approximation of the equivalent focal length so 24mm on an ff camera will give you an equivalent length of 38.4mm).”

    That’s on a Canon. On Nikon, the multiplication factor is 1.5. So a 24mm will give you a 36mm equivalent on DX. For 24mm, you’d need a 16mm lens, and I’m not sure if much is available in that length. The Nikkor 16-80mm f2.8-4 would be more or less equivalent to the 24-120. I’d probably go for that if I were on DX. Offers a wider angle and longer tele than the 18-55. With a larger range zoom, you start to suffer from the inevitable manufacturing compromises. ‘Do-it-all’ zooms (18-200mm) are ok if you only ever want one lens on your camera, and aren’t overly fussed about ultimate image quality.

    If you like the 35m, then have a think about the 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses. The older ‘D’ lenses are significantly cheaper second hand, than the newer ‘G’ lenses, yet offer superb image quality. If you’re serious about landscapes, then perhaps think about the Nikkor 12-24mm f4. And a decent, heavy tripod.

    “what alternatives that don’t break the bank should I be looking at?”

    “I think an upgrade in performance is more important at the moment.”

    You sort of know the answer to this already. If you want better, you’ll have to spend more.

    jim
    Free Member

    I have a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 that I’m looking to sell if that would suit?

    PimpmasterJazz
    Free Member

    Replacement for kit lens I’d recommend the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 which can be had for £279 (Jessops, they’re usual around the street price).

    My advice for longer reach would be go for a f/2.8 lens as if you buy lesser you’ll regret it and end up buying it in the long run anyway (or wishing you had). Not got a sensible suggestion on that front I’m afraid.

    + another. I bought the earlier 18-50mm of a pro ‘tog several years back and, for the money, it’s a great bit of kit. I’d argue Nikkors are better build quality but unless you’re using every day I’d say you can’t go wrong.

    If you like the 35m, then have a think about the 50mm and 85mm f1.8 lenses.

    I have a 50mm. It’s a steal. Great lens.

    I have a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 that I’m looking to sell if that would suit?

    This was going to be my recommendation for a second lens. Memory suggests it was developed as a wedding ‘tog lens, but I was put onto it by a Seb Rogers post somewhere. It’s a brilliant lens for intermediate distance sports shooting, only let down by a lack of vibration reduction. I seriously considered swapping it for a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 until I used one – brilliant piece of kit, but a lot more lens to lug about.

    I should add, I’ve used these on a D90, D300 and now a D7200, so all cropped.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Nikkor 70-200 f2.8

    My most used lens….

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    How do you get on with it, Footflaps? I’m worried I’ll buy one, then leave it at home all the time because it’s so big and heavy. Do you have the latest VR2 model? I’m also considering the older 80-200D as it’s a good bit smaller and lighter, and even the 180 f2.8, as I already have the lower end covered. A 200 f2 would be nice, but that’s massive!

    footflaps
    Full Member

    I use it a lot as I mainly shoot Sports stuff.

    It’s big and heavy, but worth it for what it can do. It pretty much lives on my D4s (which is also big and heavy).

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/cPLZVW]Sabine Spitz, Silver Medal, Women's Olympic Mountain Bike Race 2012[/url] by Ben Freeman, on Flickr

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/cQ5QHL]Emily Batty, Canada, 24th Place Women's Olympic Mountain Bike Race 2021[/url] by Ben Freeman, on Flickr

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/cKxTzb]Jessica Ennis in the Heptathlon 200m, 2012 London Olympcs[/url] by Ben Freeman, on Flickr

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/q2PvdJ]Nomads M1s vs City M4s-017[/url] by Ben Freeman, on Flickr

    dannybgoode
    Full Member

    Yeah the Canon 70-200 L f2.8 IS mkII is my favourite lens also and very much the equivalent of the Nikon one.

    Superb piece of glass!

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    Ah, I don’t do sports. I do indoor events quite a bit, so was looking for something to get in a bit ‘closer’. The long end of the 124-120 is usually sufficient, but I’ve had to crop now and then to get a good head shot, as I can’t get physically closer, so thought a long zoom would be useful. Plus, having to be pretty mobile with bulky lenses becomes challenging. The 180mm looks interesting because it’s not absolutely massive; not much bigger than some long kit zooms. And by all accounts it’s a stunning lens in terms of quality. I’ve avoided the common route of using the 24-70 and 70-200, because that’s such a lot of kit to lug about. I’d then probably end up buying a second body, then another flashgun, and end up with a massive heavy kit. The 24-120 is the best compromise without resorting to ‘megarange’ kit zooms which are awful to use in low light situations, not to mention heavily compromised.

    donald
    Free Member

    Thom Hogan’s recommended lenses for Nikon DX

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Ah, I don’t do sports. I do indoor events quite a bit, so was looking for something to get in a bit ‘closer’.

    Good for corporate events eg picking people out of a crowd without then noticing you e.g. Gold Medal Olympic Rower Ben Hunt Davis doing a motivational show and tell:

    [url=https://flic.kr/p/8j23XD]Ben Hunt-Davis[/url] by Ben Freeman, on Flickr

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    Good for corporate events eg picking people out of a crowd without then noticing you.

    Sure but will it make the boat go faster?

    Pyro
    Full Member

    I shot on a pair of D7000s for a long time before upgrading to two D750s and a D7200. I do a lot of shooting outdoor sports (kayaking, biking, adventure racing) and the occasional wedding. Something people haven’t really mentioned above is the practicality of certain lenses, which I guess matters to different people depending on what they’re shooting and for why.

    I’ve shot with most of the Nikon 70/80-200mm range, hired for events over the years, but bought the newest 70-200mm f/4. The f/2.8s are lovely, don’t get me wrong, but I got sick of hauling that much weight around, especially when I’m on a bike or running along a river bank. I’ve not missed having the extra stop, the D7000s are good enough at high ISO that it doesn’t make a massive difference (and, depending on how much you edit and where you’re outputting shots to, camera noise can be more-or-less irrelevant). The depth of field difference is negligible or at least not noticeable to most people (me included), and the VR system is good enough that you can keep the shutter speeds down if you want to. The 700g weight difference has been the most noticeable thing!

    My favourite lens for the D7000s, which I’ve now sold on as I’ve gone mainly full-frame, was a Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8. Well built, great range, smooth zoom, lightweight and perfectly designed for DX. Slightly sad to get rid of it, but it duplicates the 70-200 range on a full-frame body, so was surplus to requirement. The only DX lens I’ve kept is the 17-55mm f/2.8, to fill in a gap between a full frame 16-35mm f/4 and the 70-200.

    PimpmasterJazz
    Free Member

    My most used lens….

    Yeah – I really liked using it. I just didn’t fancy lugging it around…

    I’ve shot with most of the Nikon 70/80-200mm range, hired for events over the years, but bought the newest 70-200mm f/4.

    Ooo…

    *Goes off to Google*

    the D7000s are good enough at high ISO that it doesn’t make a massive difference

    TBH that and the pixel count were the only reasons I sold the D300, which was an otherwise brilliant camera. Really miss some of the pro-level touches.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Sure but will it make the boat go faster?

    🙂

    He was pretty good I thought!

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    He actually came to an event that the company I work for ran and spoke as a guest speaker and like you, I thought he was great. Very personable, very likable – yes he was working his end pretty hard but hats off to anyone for doing that.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    That photo was from one of our work Dos, I double up as company photographer…

    yosemitepaul
    Full Member
    StuF
    Full Member

    We (well mostly the wife) went down the route of looking at second hand older lens as they still work with newer bodies and we were looking at D700 full frame lenses such as

    ebay

    Because we couldn’t afford the 1000’s needed for lots of various new nikon lenses.

    benp1
    Full Member

    What’s wrong with good old Ken? He’s the reason I bought my D40!

    My most used lens is the Nikon 18-200, then my 35mm f1.8. I don’t use the camera much these days, always have my iphone in my pocket. I find the 18-200 to be a jack of all trades and master of none, but I captures more shots as a result of having it than not, as I don’t have to faff around with lens

    I have the 70-300mm Nikon lens too, but I don’t use that much

    clodhopper
    Free Member

    “I’ve shot with most of the Nikon 70/80-200mm range, hired for events over the years, but bought the newest 70-200mm f/4.”

    That’s very interesting. I hadn’t considered the f4 version. 700g is a big chunk of weight to not have to carry about. Certainly an option. The f4 of the 24-120 isn’t a hindrance that I’ve really noticed, I have to say. People rave on about the 2.8s, but the f4 goes relatively unnoticed. It would only really be giving me the range from 120-200 though, so perhaps the 180 would be a better bet for me.

    “What’s wrong with good old Ken?”

    I mentioned Ken Rockwell in another thread. Ken Rockwell is all about promoting Ken Rockwell. There is some useful information in amongst the confused ramblings, it’s true. But he does spout an awful lot of shite. Contradicts himself quite a lot. If you want a laugh, google Froknowsphoto/Jared Polin. He really is a knob.

    dannybgoode
    Full Member

    I mentioned Ken Rockwell in another thread. Ken Rockwell is all about promoting Ken Rockwell. There is some useful information in amongst the confused ramblings, it’s true. But he does spout an awful lot of shite. Contradicts himself quite a lot. If you want a laugh, google Froknowsphoto/Jared Polin. He really is a knob.[/QUOTE]

    Couldn’t have put it better myself…

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 77 total)

The topic ‘Lenses for Nikon D7000’ is closed to new replies.