Gear package- advice needed. « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Gear package- advice needed.

(22 posts) (13 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

gusman007

junior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 6
offline

Hey everyone,

Long time reader, first time posting. Let me just get this out of the way first....... I was a Canon shooter....*waits for booing to stop*
Canon have just been letting their customers down for too long so I'm making the switch to Nikon! The main reasons are for the better quality lenses and the CLS system which is awesome!

Now, I'm pretty much selling all of my gear and starting fresh. For the body I've chosen the D7000, because it's amazing. I will be upgrading to the D700 replacement when it arrives. I'm looking at purchasing 3 lenses to start my kit. I'm keen on the 14-24mm 2.8 as the tests I've seen indicate it's an amazingly sharp piece of glass. For the telephoto I was thinking about the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM II, the one without OS. And for my standard zoom the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 HSM version. Keeping in mind that I will be upgrading to a FF camera in the near future all the lenses would have to be FX.

I'm pretty lost in terms of the Nikon lettering system so my worry is I may have missed some quality Nikon items in my searching.
My budget is around the 5,000 mark and I shoot a wide range of events including outdoor/indoor sports, portraits and some landscape work. I'm not expecting to have the best lens for every job, but I'm trying to get the best range and quality that my budget will allow ( like everyone else )

Your thoughts and recommendations would be greatly appreciated in helping me make the jump.
Thanks!

Any recommendations would be really appreciated.

Posted 2 years ago #
Krevlin

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 316
offline

I must say I am quite happy with my D7000.

Also pick up the MB-D11 battery grip and an extra battery.

Also with the D7000 it's all about getting the best quality lenses.

The 14-24 is good but as for the 70-200mm Sigma, why not get a Nikon. The 70-200mm VRI may not be ideal when you move up to FX since it has light fall off which is why they introduced the VRII.

You could however consider the older and discontinued but still highly regarded 80-200mm AF-S not to be confused with the AF-D version which is still made new today. The only difference between that lens and the 70-200mm VRII or 70-200mm VRI is that it doesn't have VR but it has less light fall off than the 70-200mm VRI so it's more comparable with the 70-200mm VRII though the VRII also has a slight advantage in AF speed.

Or if you think you can swing it why not get the holy trinity.

14-24, 24-70, 70-200, I'm sure if you bought all of them together there would be some discount.

A little guide on the letters.

DX means it's for cropped sensors which are all 1.5x

AF-S means you can override focus by simply turning the focus ring without having to switch between M/A and it has an in-lens motor.

AF-D means it auto-focuses and includes distance information, this is the same as AF-S except you cannot manually override AF, you have to hit a switch. It's also not as fast because it does not have an in-lens motor like AF-S lenses.

G means gelded which basically means it's a lens without an aperture ring so it can't work on older SLRs.

VR is the same as IS for Canon

Posted 2 years ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

Your choices sound pretty reasonable, but if this was me, I'd prefer to spend money on the Nikon lenses rather than the Sigmas, especially for work horses like the 24-70 ad 70-200. For myself, I would actually skip the 24-70 and get a 50/1.8 instead if I needed to save money.

You should keep in mind the D7000 is a 1/2 frame sensor, so the field of view on your lenses will differ when you switch to full frame. This is mainly an issue with the 14-24 and 24-70, as the 14-24 isn't really all that wide on 1/2 frame- nowhere near what it is on full frame. Also, the 24-70 doesn't really start at the wide end, it starts more around the normal end and goes longer than you might want. That's why I put out the idea of waiting for the D700 replacement to come out before switching, since if you know you want to go to full frame, then why not start there.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

If going into this, knowing you'll be getting a Nikon FX body soon, I would get the following, based on your mention of sports photography:

1. AF-S 16-24mm f/4.0G ED VR
2. AF-S 50mm f/1.4G
3. AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR I, refurbished.
4. AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G VR, refurbished.

I saved quite a bit going with a refurbished 70-200mm VR I, which I actually prefer over the VR II version (it has a longer effective focal length at close-focusing distances). I haven't even noticed any visible light fall-off. You save another pile of dough with the slower, f/4.0 wide zoom over either of the f/2.8 short zooms. Its VR will also help to compensate for its slow aperture (although, will have no effect on subject-motion blur). The 50mm f/1.4 can shoot in just about any light, and can be used as a decent portrait lens on your "starter" DX body.

With this set-up, you've got good coverage, and some speed where it counts. Refurbished can save you hundreds per lens (refurbs often look brand new, and often are). Buy Nikon if possible. They really hold their resale value, whereas, comparative non-Nikon lenses aren't worth anywhere near as much, used.

Good luck!

Posted 2 years ago #
Michael DeRose

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 277
offline

i would think you would want to get a nikkor 50mm f1.4. It will be a great portrait lens on the dx (d7000) and would be a nice walk around lens for your FX camera, when you get that. The lens is also super sharp.

Also, i would skip the Sigma lens and get the Nikon ones, if you can afford them. Out of the lens you listed, i would to own a 14-24. For the limited time i had to play with one, i have decided that is going to be the next lens i am going to buy.

Lastly, i would disagree with krevlingoodspeed on getting all those d7000 accessories, unless you plan to keep and use the d7000 a lot. The money would be better spent on FX related gear. Thats just my opinion. (i do love the d7000 battery grip :p)

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi,

You've got some great advice. I'd stick with Nikon lenses - I think that's why you have the F-mount in the first place.

You don't mention how 'tight' your budget is. The trinity makes great kit, but if your sports is outdoors at daytime, the 70-300mm is sharp, but slow, and a sight cheaper. It's not in the same league as the 70-200mm, but then it's a lot less taxing on the wallet.

You might also consider an 85mm 1.8 lens - the 1.4 has a spectacular DOF, but is 4 times the cost. The 1.8 is just terrific and terrific is pretty good.

The same is true of the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 - you can decide on that for yourself. I have the 1.8 and it's fine for me.

I would get the 14-24 zoom and really consider the 24-70 zoom. The later is the tough one. Either you'll use it the most of the time or not at all. If you get the a prime 50 and 85, you might let it go, and be dollars ahead.

If you are sure that you'll have an FX body, you likely should maximize your lenses to both DX and FX use - which is pretty clear thinking on your part.

Good luck and my best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

He said about 5000.

I would skip the 24-70 and get a Nikon 70-200 VRII and a 14-24. When you have an FX you can get a prime in the 24-70 range. A slow (well, 2.8) zoom will do nothing for you in that range, you will have too much depth of field.

Posted 2 years ago #
gusman007

junior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 6
offline

Thanks for the advice everyone!
Well after having a little look around i quite like the look of the 80-200mm AF-S. That could be a good choice instead of the Sigma 70-200. What are peoples thoughts on skipping the Sigma 24-70 and just buying a 50mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/1.8G? Bare in mind these will be 50mm and 75mm on the D7000. Will those two primes be enough to cover the 24-70 range?
Im pretty keen to stick with the 14-24mm 2.8 because it's the best of the trinity and the focal length is perfect for a DX 21-35, nd great for a full flame as well ,I think it will be a great fit.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

The AF-S 80-200 is a great value, but, at least for me, the lack of VR (vibration reduction) on a long lens is a deal-breaker. Doesn't mean it's not right for you--it may be just the ticket. The 50mm is great, but the 35mm (50mm-equivalent) while great on FX, won't get you anything wider than "normal" on DX. There are plenty of other affordable short Nikon FX lenses you could choose from instead, for use as your "DX wide-angle:" 18mm, 20mm, 24mm (all f/2.8, each about $500-$600). The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is also good, but it's DX-only.

Posted 2 years ago #
gusman007

junior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 6
offline

Yeah that a good point about the VR, it would come in handy for the indoor sports I shoot. I'm hesitant on te 24-70 because everything I've seen ( mtf charts, resolutions tests) have it pegged pretty close to the sigma equivalent, I'm sure it's AF is better but it's double the price of the sigma. Compared to the 14-24 it's a little soft.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

I recommend the 14-24. The 70-200 is VRII is great because it is corner to corner VERY sharp. However the VR will not help you in the slightest for sports. If you are shooting slow enough to need VR (1/200 or slower at 200mm) all of you fast moving sports players will just be a big blur.

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

For sports I would have a look at the the 28-300mm VR as this will work on FX and DX
a landscape lens that good for FX and DX is more of a problem
I use a 16 -35 f 4 on a D700*, but that not very wide on your D7000
for portraiture go for the NIKON 70-200 f2.8 it really cant be beat
*the 16 -35 does have distortion and vignetting but this can be correct automatically in LR3

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

sevencrossing said:
For sports I would have a look at the the 28-300mm VR as this will work on FX and DX
a landscape lens that good for FX and DX is more of a problem
I use a 16 -35 f 4 on a D700*, but that not very wide on your D7000
for portraiture go for the NIKON 70-200 f2.8 it really cant be beat
*the 16 -35 does have distortion and vignetting but this can be correct automatically in LR3

In good light the 28-300 might be usable, but I doubt it will be when he's shooting indoors.

70-200 for sure, but if that's a bit too expensive, the 105mm 2.8 might be passable on DX.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I like Mike Gunter's suggestions and I think you might want to at least look at the new 24-120 f/4 VR instead of the 24-70 sigma you mentioned. The VR would be worth the one-stop sacrifice (to me) and it's supposedly as sharp as the 24-70 2.8 nikkor at f/4 [rotten fruit incoming].

Here's a good article to read before digging through nikkor reviews, though:
http://bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

Posted 2 years ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

The 35/1.8 and 50 should work well on dx (depending on what you are shooting), the 35 acting as your normal and the 50 as a short tele. You are still missing a widish lens (24 full frame equivalent), but if you go with the 14-24, you will have that covered. Don't worry about the 35 being crop frame only, since the full frame version costs about 10x as much.

Make sure you absolutely will never want VR before getting the 80-200 AFS. You may not need it when shooting high speed action, but it might be useful with low light static situations when you want lots of depth of field. Of course, if you change your mind later, you get always get the 70-300 VR for those situations when you need it.

Posted 2 years ago #
gusman007

junior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 6
offline

Ok time for an update guys. Im terms of most useable out of the trinity , i think the 70-200 2.8 is my pick. Pretty much nothing can match it, i need the 2.8 for indoor sport and concerts. The VR will be handy too. As for the 24-70, i think the sigma is still the best lens out there bar the Nikon 24-70 2.8. In terms of image quality it's competitive with the Nikon and less than half the price! I just cant seem to find any other lens that can match the sigma and Nikon (other than primes). That leaves the wide angle open, if I get the 70-200 Nikon i cant afford the 14-24 2.8. I am considering getting a DX lens for the wide angle and dont mind loosing a few $ on the resale. Any recommendations or advice?

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

I say skip Dx and get a used 17-35mm f2.8, you won't regret it. For midrange a used 35-70mm f2.8 while a little outdated works well for me (and isn't as hefty as my 28-70mm)

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I have the 35-70 very nice portrait range for DX. I use it specifically for portraits. and events and theatre and sometimes for street.

for the wide end 17 -35 seems a bit "normal" on dx. I have the 12-24 but I understand the new 10-24 is nice as well. If I was starting again I would get the 10-24 just for that extra 2mm !. Although that 12-24 is a tough ol cookie and will last and last and last.

the 70-200 is a good choice. I would say stick with it.
I think you only need one more lens for now and that is the F2.8 17-50 VC (tamron) or OS(sigma)(I suggest the sigma for better IQ but a bit more $) (both have VC/OS/VR over the nikkor 17-55)

Save up for your FX camera body and the nikkor 24-70. that sigma 24-70 is nice and you may opt for that instead but I think you are one of the people who wont enjoy the compromise and will want the nikkor in the end ;-) .

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

$5,000 - I'm hoping that is without the Bodies. Rule of thumb for Nikon glass - Anything that costs over $400 is awesome. (All primes but the 28mm are great too.)

I don't like Sigma lenses much at all. Exotics ok but the offsetting of build quality, sealing, Odd color fringing, and front/back focus issues just isn't worth the little savings they offer.

Unless you know you are a real wide angle shooter, there are cheaper and just as good options for DX. If you have DX now and probably for the next year or so, I would get a Tokina 12-24 F4 or 11-16 2.8 instead of the 14-24mm. The 14-24mm is a great lens but damn is it big. Tokina's are cheaper, just as sharp and are built like tanks. It would be an easy upgrade if you find you use the wide that often when you go FX.

70-200mm VR I referb is a great idea and great lens and miles better than Sigma's.
I do use my 70-300mmVR more than my 70-200mm- size and reach mainly. A bit slow though but for $600 easily added to any kit.

I'm not a big mid lens guy as I shoot primes for the 24-85 range but Nikon's two newer mid ranges (24-70mm 2.8 and 24-120mm vr F4) are fantastic.

Posted 2 years ago #
gusman007

junior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 6
offline

Im certainly locking in the tokina 11-16, what a lens!

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

I used a sigma 10-20 f 4 /56.on my D90 and was very happy with the results
its cheaper than the Tokina but only f 5.6
unless the subject is moving I tend to shoot panos for wide angel shooting ~ 4 vertical shots @ ~ 35 mm on an FX normally works OK

Posted 2 years ago #
gusman007

junior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 6
offline

Yeah I like having the 2.8, just a lot more useable.

Posted 2 years ago #