I sure wonder about the Tamron 70-300. I have never seen a positive endorsement of it. The 70-300VR Nikkor though is one of my favorites. That Nikkor lens is NOT a macro although I have some of my best closeup bird and wildlife shots but within 10 the lens will not work. But at slightly more than that (minimum focus distance) the 300 end of the Nikkor 70-300VR is very useful.

golf007sd said:
@casperwb: add...as in advertisement? Sorry mate I have no affiliation with either of these companies, nor am I in the marketing/advertising business. Just to clarify, I only recommend those equipments that I have personally acquired and have a good knowledge base on. As for some pic, I leave that to the individual seeking the gear. As they say, "just google it!"

was just pulling your legs

really should have said, well written, good enough to be an add.

I also use a manfrotto tripod, however my monopod is big and heavy and can take up to thirty pounds.

I don't mind hauling it around and it is tough enough to be used as a weapon. not light and fancy like the new CF models, but thick heavy aluminium.

for some strange reason, it gets more use than the tripod.

bogen is/was american brand for manfortto. both manfrotto and gitzo are owned by Vitec Group.

adamz said:
manfrotto and gitzo are manufactured by the same company and IMHO there's not too many differences between them. gitzo is positioned a little bit higher, and towards more professional users than manfrotto, but in real life use both of them work quite good.

I learn something new every day :) Where does the Bogen come in (or should I google that one)?

I will say that most of the manfrottos have really shrunk since I started using them (10 years ago?) Mine goes up to 8 ft...

manfrotto and gitzo are manufactured by the same company and IMHO there's not too many differences between them. gitzo is positioned a little bit higher, and towards more professional users than manfrotto, but in real life use both of them work quite good.

I'm a bogen/Manfrotto user myself but glitzo is a good tripod... With $90 you can get a decent tripod...

@casperwb: add...as in advertisement? Sorry mate I have no affiliation with either of these companies, nor am I in the marketing/advertising business. Just to clarify, I only recommend those equipments that I have personally acquired and have a good knowledge base on. As for some pic, I leave that to the individual seeking the gear. As they say, "just google it!"

golf007sd said:
When it come to tripod/monopods, keep in mind that if you get the right one it will last you a long, long time..so spend some time getting the one that meets your needs (i.e., your height, the weight of your equipment, carbon or aluminum...etc.) As for which ones to go with, I personally would recommend Really Right Stuff and Gitzo. RRS has some outstanding equipment for you to consider...such as L-pates (they make them specifically for every camera), that work amazingly with their ball heads. You pay for what you get when it comes to their gear however, but I have found that their performance, quality and customer service to be the best in the business, that is why I have most of their gear. Gitzo make a variety of monopods and tripods. I use their monopod in conjunction with RRS monopod head.

Hope this helps a bit...cheers.

add, nicely written,

now just add a few photographs,

taken with a Nikon, of course

When it come to tripod/monopods, keep in mind that if you get the right one it will last you a long, long time..so spend some time getting the one that meets your needs (i.e., your height, the weight of your equipment, carbon or aluminum...etc.) As for which ones to go with, I personally would recommend Really Right Stuff and Gitzo. RRS has some outstanding equipment for you to consider...such as L-pates (they make them specifically for every camera), that work amazingly with their ball heads. You pay for what you get when it comes to their gear however, but I have found that their performance, quality and customer service to be the best in the business, that is why I have most of their gear. Gitzo make a variety of monopods and tripods. I use their monopod in conjunction with RRS monopod head.

Hope this helps a bit...cheers.

Thanks all. I had a mare really with Jessops, bacically it got to Thursday and i said look i work around the corner from a store, have it ready for me to collect or cancel the order. Picked it up within an hour.

I've not had much of an oppurtunity to use the camera properly yet, the weather is against me! And the 50mm is still to arrive...Nightmare.

I'm very happy with the camera and to be honest the kit lens is better than i was expecting. The Tamron lens is... good in good light, not so hot in so-so light. Its kind of a good weather lens. Then its not bad. I need a bit of practice with it though.

Although i realised pretty quickly that i'm going to need a tripod to get the most out of it.

So just wondering if you recommend any tripods? I'm not sure about the budget, what do you think is enough to buy a good quality tripod?

Thanks,

Neal

Congrats on your new gear nmcdonald. Please note, that if you hang around those in this forum, like I have and you develop the passion, as we all have for photography, it will lead you to part with some capital...which leads itself in acquiring more assets...them being the lens. Just a little humor to start of the up coming weekend....

Cheers :D

Actually, that 18-105 is an excellent lens—one of the best values in kit lenses, IMO. It's just not very fast, but you'll have that with the 50mm 1.8. It looks like a fun kit to me. Post some pictures to the photo a day when you get some.

Thanks all for your advice.

I ordered the D7000, 18-105mm kit lens, 50mm 1.8g, the tamron 70-300mm, bag, monopod etc

Oh and a Sandisk 16GB 95 mb/s memory card. I'd already ordered the 8GB version but somehow it had a estimated shipping date of 1-2 months and thats no use really.

I guess i'd wanted the 1.8 lens and not too many people seem to think its a bad choice so i'm pretty sure i'm going to be happy with it. I did look at the 35mm and also the 1.4 versions of each, but stuck to my original idea.

The kit lens and Tamron i've gone for in a way to cover the focal length for a fairly small amount of money. They will never excel, but i'm aware of that and it may be a good thing to learn a bit more about len's strengths and weakness etc.

The kit lens would be expensive to replace right now, with the Tamron i think i need to find which focal length is most useful to me and go from their.

I guess in a way i do want to keep my options open so if in the future i do switch to full frame then i will have glass that will be useful.

Basically i'm covering the bases now and will look to add quality overtime.

And I'm certain my next lens will be a dedicated macro!

Oh, and none of it has arrived yet, Jessops had some kind of system failure over the weekend preventing any orders from being processed. Should arrive tomorrow now.

Jessops didnt have the 50mm in stock so i ordered that off Amazon, slightly cheaper and available.

The Man From Mandrem said:
The only thing I'd suggest different from Tao Te comment is to look at the 18-200

This is a very good "do everything" lens

If you start with this, you will quickly find out, if you really need something wider or longer

Nearly everyone recommends at least one wide aperture prime. using this lens, you will find out which one is going to be best for you, even if this turns out to be the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200mm F2G ED VRII you will still want to keep the 18-200

Good Morning,

Thank you all for your comments. I do owe a 50mm and the problem I always find is that sometimes i dont have the distance enough to have a stage wide shot, and I find annoying not being able to zoom into an action shot. Hence the need for a zoom.

What concerns me the most is that buying a tamrom 28 - 75 and a nikon 16 - 85 I will be owing two cameras on the same (sort of) range. Do you think I should get a tamrom (28 - 75 or 17 - 50 as suggested) and save the money from the 16-85 to another lens? or low light and walkaround really dont mix in which case is a good idea to owe both?

Thank you for all your help,

Carlos

Consider the tamron 17-50 f/2.8, inpakto. i have the non-vr version and it's almost always on my D7000.

There's also the Tamron 60mm/f2.0 macro lens. It isn't as small or light as the nifty 50, but it's close to that focal length, is only 1/3 stop slower (instead of the usual f2.8 or slower macro lenses), and it offers 1:1 macro. If I wasn't planning to go full frame (already sort of did with a couple old film Nikons) I would have gotten this lens to serve as both a macro and a low light lens on my D7000.

The only thing I'd suggest different from Tao Te's comment is to look at the 18-200 as well if you can afford it and really don't want to change lenses much. The extra zoom is good for closing in on distant subjects. That and a fast 50mm prime should do most of what you need. If you can't afford 18-200, the D7000 can be cropped quite well, so there are other things you can do for distant subjects. I would 2nd Tao Te's comment about 28mm not being wide enough. I have a Tokina 28-70 and couldn't back up enough to shoot a christmas tree on a DX sensor in my 19 foot deep living room.

@inpakto

Between the two, it would probably come down to your shooting style. You mentioned that you like to shoot in low light and for that the Tamron will be better suited but you will also sacrifice about 10mm of focal length on either end. In my opinion, the Nikon will be better suited as walkaround lens because of its wider focal length. If you have a lens like the 18-55mm, you might want to try to walk with it set at 28mm as a minimum vs 18mm and see what you're comfortable with. Picture quality of the Tamron will probably be good enough but not as good as the Nikon and the Nikon will also trump the Tamron buildwise but you always have to sacrifice something in order to gain something else.

iris chrome said:
I think this is true of the older Kenko extension tubes. The current model has electronic contacts to allow the lens and camera to communicate. Autofocus, aperture and VR all work.

I did try some and still found them finicky. I already have my set of macros and found cropping still created more consistent images to use. My overall experiences have taught me the "workarounds" pile up and just sit after one get's what they really wanted. In the end you spent allot of money, to save money, but then spend more, for what you really wanted.

inpakto

- the low light and walk around category do not mix well and are really two different beasts.

Primes (35,50,85) for low light and (not or) your thought of the 16-85 or the 18-105 for a walk around lens are good choices. The 28-75 is a good lens but it will really leave you without a wide angle option.

With what you said referring to budget - I would go for a 50mm 1.8 and the 18-105mm. The 50mm will give you a good reach for indoors and portraits. The 18-105 will fill in for everything else.

TaoTeJared said:
...those will turn everything into all manual mode - which can be a pain starting out.

I think this is true of the older Kenko extension tubes. The current model has electronic contacts to allow the lens and camera to communicate. Autofocus, aperture and VR all work.

Hello Everyone,

I am having a similar doubt and I decided to ask for some help... hope you dont mind me getting involved.

As you see I am the new boy here and I believe I'm asking a very old and debated question. So here it goes:

I am just replacing my D40 for a D7000 taking chance over the price crash, body only.

I work in the entertainment industry and my job takes me to do designs in fashion, clubs, concerts, festivals and all sorts of indoor stages.

At the same time, I get to travel a lot. And these are the main things about my pictures, I photograph mainly portraits and "scenarios" (things I see in the street, Im not a fan of plain landscapes) and also I would like to be able to take good pictures of my work (very low light and flashes and video screens and projection and crazy artists jumping around)

more things about me: I am learning (although after 4 years of D40 i think i can handle a little bit more) and I am way too lazy to change lenses all the time.

so what am I looking for: I was considering to buy a 16 - 85 as a walkaround lens, and later on some other zoom lens with a fast aperture for work (and yes, i do need the zoom)

I am not extremely wealthy and I wonder though if it would be wiser to skip the 16 85 and buy a 2.8 like the Tamron 28 - 75 (that I would use as walkaround and concert camera, reviews seem to be acceptable and i cannot afford the nikon equivalent). That way I could save some money and buy some other toys (fish eye) or maybe just a present for the girl.

I've been looking at reviews and forums the last month and all I do is getting more puzzled. Maybe I should just make a decision and start having some fun instead...

I appreciate your help,

Carlos

/--
EDIT:

I also plan on using the camera (and the lens) for video on a few (not many) occasions

nmcdonald said:
I'm planning on getting the kit lens (18-105mm) and a 50mm 1.8G, a bag and either kenko extension tubes or a Tamron 70-300mm 4/5.6 macro lens. Budget limits me to one or the other at the moment.

Considering the time of year etc what would you go for? Would you totally ignore the cheap Tamron? With a couple of other little bits it comes to about £1400, would you spend it differently?

As you have found out, most here disregard your concern for how much you have to spend and will always suggest Nikon before anything else ;)

Your original thoughts are solid. Tamron lenses are a good alternative. I too would suggest looking at the 35 f1.8 vs the 50mm or both. Just depends what feels better through the viewfinder. I love both but find the 35 a bit more "nimble" (the wider view) for different situations.

I wouldn't mess with the 40mm until you are use to your system. I would say the same with the kenko tubes as well. Nothing replaces a macro and those will turn everything into all manual mode - which can be a pain starting out. I would suggest looking at a older AFD 60mm macro over the 40. One of the sharpest lenses made and will give you a bit more working distance of the normal macro range of 90-100mm on DX. The 40 is too close to a 50mm for me and I would rather have the 1 stop of light over the closer focus.

One thing to keep in mind, when companies say "macro" on zooms, what they really mean is "you can be closer to your subject than the Big boy's lenses." In other words you can be maybe 1-2ft closer to your subject when Nikon may have a close focus distance of 5ft. They are not "Real" Macros. That said, with some cropping, you can get a macro look with any lens, even the 50mm.

Don't mess with cheap SD cards - stick with Sandisk or Lexar. Nothing worse than having a cheap card fail and loose everything you shot.

Good luck!

iris chrome said:
I can't believe this thread lasted this long and no one mentioned the 35mm 1.8G yet!

Yes I agree with iris chrome, I bought D7000 + 35mmf1.8 as my first DSLR combo. I think that's one of the best decisions. 35mm is best for low lights and any close ups (not macro!!!)

For macro, I use 85mm f3.5, cheaper and also covers portrait (this is not my taste) for my use. So far survived with just couple of prime lenses. I don't vote for 18-200 or 18-105, have specific lens for specific purposes, that's just me.

See what you are interested and put your money there. I'm not a pro by any means, this would be 2 cents.

I don't shoot DX, but I do have the Nikkor AFS G 70-300 VR2, and use it when I need reach outdoors. This with your standard kit lens and a fast prime (50 or 35 1.8) would give you a nice set up, and cover most situations. Welcome to the forum, the D7000's a nice piece of kit.