Hi Thecaz,

Good shots! Hope your fishing was good, too. I like fishing in that 'area' but further North on the Gallatin and the Madison. I live within 45 miles of Glacier National Park.

My best.

Mike

Lots of good comments on this post. I'm right now in similar shoes as Ernie. I have a d40 thaty I'm selling to upgrade to a d700 or maybe the new "d5100" depending on specs, etc. Incidentally, I solved my $400 budget for a new lens by buying a used 18-200 on eBay for $450 and selling my 55-200 for about $110. The 18-200 was the red VR, not gold, but since I saved about $250 versus new, I'll live with a touch of lens creep.

One of my questions is what do I really get with a d7000 besides the obvious addition of video? Ernie, would you comment on the two cameras now that you've been using the d7000? In particular, does the extra weight of the d7K make a difference? Are there noticeable differences in the shots? Have you used the video? I'd also like to hear from anyone else who has made the switch. Thanks.

P.S. While the 200mm didn't work for you, I've found it very useful. Go to http://yellowstonecaz.com/chase.html to see what the 200mm and a little luck can bring you. It's a sequence of an eagle chasing an osprey to steal away the fish that the osprey caught. Of course, had I been using the 70-300, it might have been even better, but then I'd be giving up low end that I now have with the 18-200. What's cool about lenses is that nothing is perfect. There's trade-offs everywhere.

Michael DeRose said:
not sure if you have made your mind up or not, but the 35 is what i use 95 percent of the time on my d7000. It pretty much rocks my world. If you want to see some test shots, try pixel-peeper.com There is a large section just on that lens as well as the others you mentioned.

Its on its way - cant wait! Bottom line: with my budget, this was the best possible set up I could get - in my opinion.

aetas said:
Im throwing my .02 in for the 50mm 1.8. The 1.4 is a tad faster and way more expensive. But I like the shape of the bokeh of the 1.8 And for around $100 it leaves you some money for something else....

I bought a 50mm 1.8 for walking around and general snaps. The 50mm is a whole lot lighter to carry than my 14-24mm f2.8, and the cost of the 50mm gave me a financial rest after the $1,800 I paid for the 14-24. For me, the 50mm 1.8 is a keeper, and will stay, no matter what I decide for my next Nikon Dslr.

spraynpray said:
The 35 and the 18-105. No brainer.

My vote for sprayand pray and lovetheberry.

For the money you have to spend, the 18-105 will give you good walk around and everyday coverage, and the 35 fantastic indoor, lowlight lens.

not sure if you have made your mind up or not, but the 35 is what i use 95 percent of the time on my d7000. It pretty much rocks my world. If you want to see some test shots, try pixel-peeper.com There is a large section just on that lens as well as the others you mentioned.

Guys: I wish I could get more lenses but I don't have the money to cover everything I need haha - keep that in mind

Yeah, I would say 18-105 with 35mm 1.8.

LOL I am happy with people swapping all their gear any time they want .. switch over to the other brand if they like . doesn't make my gear any better or worst :-)

Seems to me like you have made a great decision. The D7000 plus 35 prime will give you good low light capability. the 18-105 is a nice upgrade to the 18-55 with a bit more reach which is what you felt you lacked. I have played with teh 18-55 its nice for what it was. (I didn't think i needed more reach maybe because I accepted its function. I had a 18-70 but with that one I felt I needed more reach! (go figure! heh!) You have basically refocused your tool set to what you felt YOU want from your photography. Great!

However, you have not added any new functionality. and there is nothing new to really explore(besides the low light which you already know you like) I guess you are just consolidating. all good. Good choices and have fun with your gear!

oh and post some pics !!

( i need a witty sig )

One I would have to say you asked for opinions and you got them...like people's response or not. IMO it sounds like you already had your mind made up what you want although I am not sure what that is. You will gain some with the new body but you will still not have the equipment for half of the shots you mentioned. You will still have a slow zoom lens...sharp or not. The 35 is nice but not really the answer to all low light photos. I will share my opinion that you got a better body but you didn't really gain all that much. Do as you wish though. As I said before more money towards a lens seems more beneficial especially for the pic types you described. And I am out of this one now.

Any time!

Let me drop some more information on you guys - it might make this easier to understand :

I mainly shoot: landscape/outdoor shots, low light (concerts, parties), long exposures - I sold the D40 w 18-55/55-200 and got a really good return on the money I spent on that stuff - it was a no brainer for me. I had outgrown the D40 as a photographer and needed to upgrade the body. I am not one of those people that gets every body Nikon makes, nor do I envy FX shooters, the D7000 is my ideal camera and will be for several years to come. Anyway, I had major issues with my 55-200 and never took to that lens - for me to switch lenses when I wanted more reach became annoying because I felt I was dropping down in quality (the 18-55 is a great little lens, I dont care what anyone says - it takes great shots and does OK with macro). My reasoning in selling this bundle and picking up the 18-105 + 35 1.8 is pretty simple - I wanted a zoom lens that was halfway decent and also a sharp prime lens. The MTF charts on the 18-105 are better than the 18-55 and it has gotten some great reviews. I can have one lens on my camera and do pretty much everything I could with my 18-55 55-200. I rarely shot anything at 200mm because the flare was so bad.

The 50 1.8 isnt practical for me, its too much with the DX body - I will use the 35 much more.

Thanks everyone for the great input.

I edited out the parts where I berated adamz - thanks taotejared!

TaoTeJared - I'm here to learn too, and to share my knowledge and expertise, but trust me my blood boils when I read that ppl are selling all the gear and buy more complex dslr at the same time, not upgrading their lenses and not even willing to use the core ability of dslr's - the ability to switch lenses. So, if You want to use just one lens, and take great snaps get P&S. There are many different P&S on the market that will do good.

as for the general discussion, guys we all can have our opinions, I don't know ErnieCF and we probably never gonna meet in public. My point of view is based only on his posts, and IMHO d7000 and dslr in general is not a way of camera for him.

ErnieCF - as for the first part of Your post, check Your PM. I've sent it to You couple minutes ago.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of restraint in partaking of such childish amusements.

Haha - love that line - Amen!

Can I get the first part of that post back before I said "s" word .....

haha.

Glad to see you found what you are looking for and you are confident in your choices! Great photos will come from it I'm sure.

Adamz comment is the first direct insult I have seen in months and by far not the norm here. Most of us are here to learn and help others with our experiences.

There has been a rise in insults and people trying to create heated arguments by posting contradictory remarks that they don't even believe in, just to get a rise out of people.

It is disappointing to see such a lack of restraint in partaking of such childish amusements.

It seems to me that the first two words listed there fit what you just did to a T.

Well - haha - I swore, so my post got deleted. You make an ill informed accusation and I swear and I get a warning and you come in here acting holier than thou. Haha - man.... dont want to bring any drama so I'll just let it go - kind of bummed I lost the first part of that post though - any way to get that back?

Just to clear up some things, becuase ErnieCF violated rule #2:
"2. No trolling, bashing or use of abusive language. Personal attacks on other members will NOT be tolerated and posts will be deleted. Try to keep your comments with the discussed topic and avoid discussing other forum members. This rule is valid for everyone, including the forum moderators and admin. Moderators word is final when there's discussion going among users (considering the rules) and admin's world is final when moderators have a disagreement."
his post got deleted, and as it was his first rule violation he received formal warning. Guys, if You disagree and want to use abusive language use PM not the forum.

It always amaze me when ppl instead of upgreading their skills upgrade their cameras. IMHO, and please don't take it personal the best option for You would be to sell all Your gear and change Your hobby into sth else, gardening maybe. D7000 is not a camera for YOU, get a P&S and be merry, You will never have to exchange lenses and Your photos will look nicer too.

Thanks for all the input - I'm on my iPhone now so I don't want to get int a lengthy respOnse but I will get one up as soon as I get back to my comp.

ErnieCF said:
I have about a 400 dollar budget for some lenses - here is what I have found lined up and the prices I have found- what would you go for with 400$ to spend on lenses:

Sigma 18-250 - 320$
Nikon 18-105 - 175$
Sigma 18-200 DC (No OS) - 175$
Sigma 17-70 (No OS) - 254$
Sigma 18-200 DC OS - 275$
Tamron 18-200 - 139$

None of the above.

I'm actually quite surprised at the popularity of the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR here. I have one only because I didn't want to wait for the D7000 body-only kits to become available. Can't wait to unload it on Ebay.

You may have different goals, but as I've said before, I personally don't see any value in an f/5.6, 105mm lens, simply because its maximum aperture is too small to isolate your subjects from their background. A larger-aperture lens will allow you to do that by employing shallower depth-of-field. And, since 105mm is an excellent portrait length, you're likely going to want to do that more often than not. A head-and-shoulders portrait, shot at f/5.6, at 105mm, will tend to have too many distracting background elements still in-focus (unless your background is very far from your subject).

I know you already sold your 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens, but I would've kept it. It's sharp, small, and it has VR, which nearly makes up for its slow aperture. I basically use my 18-55mm VR as an 18mm wide-angle "prime," with the added bonus of VR.

ErnieCF said:
What would you do?

If I had only $400, here's the glass I would buy for a DX body:

1. AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR; $99, refurbished (used primarily as a 28mm-equivalent, wide-angle "prime").
2. AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G; $190 (50mm-equivalent, "normal" lens).
3. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D; $130 (75mm-equivalent, short-telephoto for portraits).

This is simply the modern, DX-version of the classic three-lens, beginner's set-up, back when we all used to shoot with "full-frame," 35mm film SLRs: a 28mm, 50mm, and an 85mm. In fact, those were the exact three lenses I first bought when I got my very first 35mm SLR (Canon). When I switched to Nikon, I changed to: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.

If I had a bit more to spend, I might replace the 50mm with either the f/1.4 version, or get the AF 85mm f/1.8D instead, for portraits. Later, as Tao mentioned, if you want to get some reach, you could add the 70-300mm, which is also pretty inexpensive. Also, an excellent way to greatly reduce lens-changes, is to carry two bodies (sorry, but I would've kept the D40 also). You may not think these lens choices are "right" for you, but that's what I would do.

Im throwing my .02 in for the 50mm 1.8. The 1.4 is a tad faster and way more expensive. But I like the shape of the bokeh of the 1.8 And for around $100 it leaves you some money for something else....

Hi all,

"Personally I use the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm combo for low light." Agree.

FWIW, I tend to be rather economical and have the 35, 50, and 85 in the 1.8. They are reasonably priced and while the 1.4 is faster and somewhat bokeher, the 1.8 is quite nice and a bargain. I've owned a couple a Sigma lenses and regretted both. I have preferred to save up to get what I really need.

Carrying the 50 or 35 might not matter one way or the other. I think I'd likely go 35, but that's just me. I might cheat and carry an 85, too. How you flavor your soup is up to you.

My best,

Mike

+1 on the 105vr and 35mm.

If you like getting more head shots in low light, the 50mm 1.8 might be a better choice. In rooms with people you might find the 50mm too tight of a field of view though. Something to think about. Personally I use the 35mm, 50mm, 85mm combo for low light. The 35mm and 50mm afs live on my camera.

I would look at a 70-300vr for more reach in the future. Overlapping is a plus in my mind.

Personally I would not consider any of the Sigma lenses that you listed. Low build quality, poor quality control, sharpness lacks, and they all have a large tendency to get allot of dust in them. The EX line are their top line but still suffer with quality control and large green and purple chromatic abrasions. Sigma's re-sale is terrible if you buy new. Sigma is best reserved to the "exotics" that others do not offer or are $1000s more - prime 1.8s, fisheyes, super wides, etc.

Get yourself a D700 and a 50mm f1.8. the IQ will beat anything you can get in DX!

Yup! that will be perfect for you.

;-)
seriously though you really need to tell us more of what your fav focal lengths are and your FAV subjects and scenarios. experience levels etc.. etc