I most certainly did :) and it did influence me towards the D7000 :P
My gf is a model...so she is not going to pose infront of cheap cameras hehe.. yes, i know i know...the photographer matters...not so much the equipment :)
D7000 +18-55VR lens. Wise choice for a beginner?
(84 posts) (20 voices)-
You didn't tell us that the gf is a model. Instead of just being focused on lenses, you need to focus on lighting as well. I'd also start with the 18-105, not the 18-55, because it will give you an improved ability to do portraits. As for lighting, get the SB-400 at a minimum and read some of Rockwell's work on using it to start, but that's just a beginning.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It sounds like you have "locked on to" the D7000.
As for a first lens you could go for a 50 1.8. Great lens for taking pics of your GF. Good chance to learn and play with DOF. Take it from there when money permit.
Posted 2 years ago # -
well henrik, the topic was opened with a lock-on to D7000 :P my concern were the lenses to go with it?
ok, im not buying the camera to take pictures of my gf :P that was a joke :) for indoor im again locked onto the 35mm. i do need to narrow down my search otherwise we will endlessly discuss this issue...
so a LOCK on d7000+35mm/1.8 + 70-300 (thank god there was no difference of opinion on the 70-300) hush hush
NOW, which zoom lens should i go for below the 80-85 range.....
1) 16-85 Nikon 16-85 f/3.5 - 5.6 VR or
2) Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or
3) ? Please remember that this should complement the 70-300 n 35mm :PPosted 2 years ago # -
Nikon 16-85mm .. It probably has a much higher resale value and gives to a little more range.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have the tamron you mention, bharatwd1 (the non-VR version). It's very sharp and the constant (large) aperture is nice. I still think the 18-105 might be more useful for you, though. It's really up to you, of course.
Posted 2 years ago # -
bharatwd1 said:
Well the only reason i opted for D7000 is that i dont want to reinvest in a camera again after a year. From what i read, I felt the optics of 18-105 lens were the same as the 18-55 (but more range), hence i prefered the 18-55 + 70-300 combo... and later on replacing the 18-55 with a 16-85.ill pick the 70-300 after 6 months with the 16-85. would it be that bad to use d7000+18-55 for the next 6 months to familiarize with the camera and its features?
I do intend on getting into wildlife photography but as a hobby....hence the d7000+70-300 combo....i dont buy into the megapixel hype but i know speed will be of concern when i try to get my subject right :) again from what i read, the d7000 6fps n 39 AF points will come in handy at that stage..I was in the same boat as you 6 years ago, and got the D70s (that was the latest camera from Nikon) even that at the same time other lower level cameras existed on the market).
Remember the D7K was tested up to 150K shots, while the older cameras do not go so far.
bharatwd1 said:
I most certainly did :) and it did influence me towards the D7000 :PMy gf is a model...so she is not going to pose infront of cheap cameras hehe.. yes, i know i know...the photographer matters...not so much the equipment :)
Another reason why to get the 18-105VR: It is better for portraits than the 18-55VR, you don't need to be few feet from the subject, giving the model some privacy. For portrits, the range between 60-100 is the best, some like even more tele lenses.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@bharatwd1 - you've got a lot of good advice here all the way from considering a D90 (and perhaps saving money for a later Full Frame camera purchase) to getting the 18-105mm kit lens.
What I had to learn (and I'm still fairly new at DSLR photography) is that you will eventually find limitations within all lenses. If you spend $600 on the 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6 you'll get a solid, sharp lens with good range and very nice image quality in bright light. As the lights get dim or sun goes down you will need to up the ISO and/or use flash which might not be what you'd like. That is the reason you should really consider getting the kit 18-105mm for now and save the extra money for something else.
The 70-300mm has the similar personality as the above f/3.5-5.6 lens. And if you're anticipating using it for portraits you might not get that blurry background that you might be going for. Thus, another limitation. So, if you want to take really nice portraits of your model gf then you're best to do research into "faster glass" with a longer focal length and wider possible aperture.
I love my 35mm f/1.8 lens inside the house and outside and I think you will too. I cannot comment on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Do a search because many threads have been dedicated to comparing that lens to the Nikkor and Sigma.
Guess I'm saying don't try to move too fast and put together that perfect kit right off the bat. Use the 35mm and kit 18-105mm and learn what you want that they can't do.
Posted 2 years ago # -
D7000 is a better specked camera than D90. D90 only came up because you seem to be "low" in the money department :-) I am sure you will be happy with the D7000.
As for zooms. They are all going to be a compromise. But they are very practical in use for most situations. If it were me I would go for the 16 - 85. with the 70 - 300 VR you will cover everything from 24 to 450 in FF terms. The 16 - 85 is not going to be "night and day different" in quality than the 18 - 105 just better.
I started out wanting a D700 + 24 - 70 2.8. That was until a got to hold that combo in my hand. Way to big and heavy for what I want. Then I wanted a D7000 + 18 - 105. Did a lot of reading and found out that D90 would do fine for now. Sooner or later I will upgrade.
I´m like you new to DSLR. There is a lot to learn. But it is fun.
Best of luck
Posted 2 years ago # -
me 2 henrik..reading alot since the past 6 months :P but ive got some good advice on this forum and i appreciate it alot... so i think im gonna start out with
d7000+16-85 (thanx to spraynpray) n then add 70-300 n 35mm/1.8 to this...
i dont intend on going pro so i think the above kit will be more than sufficient for me....sounds good? :P
Posted 2 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
bharatwd1, this is exactly why I wouldn't consider the 18-55 over the 18-105 in your situation. There is no downside to having an overlap in focal lengths and it can actually come in very handy.You may also find that the 18-105 is all you need in that range (which would save you hundreds of $$$). The main thing you get with the 16-85 over the 18-105 is a metal mount and 2mm on the short end (which does make a difference). But you lose some on the long end, too.
You'll love the D7000 (but you'd love the D90, too).
Johnnyapple I agree with you 100% , however he is following KR's advice and KR strongly suggest that you do not overlap when buying.
Some people take his advise as if its a manual, bull.
whish I was in the states at daytona, then I would really be having fun shooting instead of spending time at the computer and television.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You will not be disapointed with your decision...
Posted 2 years ago # -
TheCaz said:
You didn't tell us that the gf is a model. Instead of just being focused on lenses, you need to focus on lighting as well. I'd also start with the 18-105, not the 18-55, because it will give you an improved ability to do portraits. As for lighting, get the SB-400 at a minimum and read some of Rockwell's work on using it to start, but that's just a beginning.It's been said elsewhere on here, but bears repeating: Ken Rockwell should be taken with a grain -- if not a shaker -- of salt. First, re: SB400: Don't. Yes, it's better than the camera's built-in flash. But if you shoot at all in portrait orientation, you will likely regret having cheaped out on the flash, 'cause you won't be able to bounce it off the ceiling in portrait.
As for overlap in lenses, it's like a lot of other things... it's better sometimes to have something and not need it than need it and not have it. Sometimes that extra 50 mm (between 55-105) can make a huge difference, as was pointed out earlier. Specifically, the difference between whether or not you'd need to change lenses. Even overlapping with primes is useful, given that a 35mm 1.8 is going to give you options that your 18-55 isn't going to give you at 35mm. That's like saying someone shouldn't carry a ball peen hammer because a 9-pound sledgehammer already covers that weight range. ;)
Posted 2 years ago # -
sorry to thread jack but i was wondering what you guys thought of this lens combo with the nikon d7000.
I had a d5000 18-55mm + 55-200mm vr kit and sold my d5000 with the 18-55 so i could upgrade to the d7000. I still have the 55-200mm with me so i was thinking of just getting the Nikon d7000 with 35mm 1.8 prime and using the 55-200mm as well.
What do you guys think? Should I get another 18-55 or will the prime lens suffice? I was thinking that taking a few steps forward of backwards won't be that big of a deal. Or should I go for the 16-85mm?
Posted 2 years ago # -
For years I had a film camera with a 50mm lens and I was very very happy.
... but when I have discovered the zoom world, my world changed.
(35mm is like a 52mm on full frame/film cameras).What are your photographic habits?... I guess that there you will find the answer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well, i was wondering about another feature of the D7000 that will be quite significant to me :))) The two card available slot will allow us to backup our precious pictures for which we spend 1000s of $$$$$ I was initially planning to buy a class 10 16gb sandisk extreme but im now thinkin of buying two 8 gb of the same category...there is no price difference at all..so doesnt it make more sense to have two of 8gb instead of 1 of 16gb to enable instant backup of photos????????? :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
bharatwd1 said:
Well, i was wondering about another feature of the D7000 that will be quite significant to me :))) The two card available slot will allow us to backup our precious pictures for which we spend 1000s of $$$$$ I was initially planning to buy a class 10 16gb sandisk extreme but im now thinkin of buying two 8 gb of the same category...there is no price difference at all..so doesnt it make more sense to have two of 8gb instead of 1 of 16gb to enable instant backup of photos????????? :)I'm using this Transcent 16Gb Class 10 card in my D90 and am very happy - never had a problem. *Link Removed*
Posted 2 years ago # -
I used to own that little 55-200.. good little 'plastic' lens.. I think the poster was right when he said it depends on what you are photographing, but maybe just get the body only, stick with the 55-200, pickup the 35 1.8 for now.. when money is right, get the 16-85...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Guys please do a forum search for specific lenses. All of the lenses that have been mentioned so far have been discussed and compared many, many, many, many times before. Just because there is a new camera body on the market doesn't mean we have to go over everything again.
Please do some of your own research.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@ bharatwd1 : I think the 16-85 + D7000 is a good kit for you to start with. The 16-85 is very nice at 85mm for portraits. its so good that I think its no accident but by design. The bokeh is poor at all other focal lengths then suddenly becomes creamy at 85! so try to keep it extended when you are shooting your model GF ;-)
PS: Re the 70-300, don't get the cheap $150 version .. its really bad .. probably the worst nikkor in recent times..
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am confused why you would want to just keep trading one kit lens for another??? Just keep the 18-105 and save to get some fast glass. There is no point in bouncing around from kit lens to kit lens. Getting the 18-55 isn't going to help anything and really neither would the 16-85 minus 2 mm on the wide side. If you get the 70-300 and have the 18-105 you will have some overlap but IMO that would be good because it might help you not have to switch lenses as much where the 18-55 you would maybe have to more.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Forget kit lenses all together and get a 35mm f1.8 prime. Your GF will thank you for it as it will enable you to throw your Bg out of focus.
The 18-70mm, 18-105mm, 16-85mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm, 55-300mm, 70-300mm(and even 18-200mm to an extent), while good lenses, all fall in the "kit" lens category so the image quality and feature set is the same roughly across the board.
Posted 2 years ago # -
please remember that more expensive lenses does take better pictures, they just cost more.
If you cannot take good pictures with a kit lens, then an expensive lens will give you the same pictures, just at a higher cost.
Too many people get caught in the hipe that if I buy a D7000, D700, D3s or X and put a 70-200 vrII on it my picture will be better than those taken with a D90.
Sigh, and then they look at the pictures posted daily, or in the night series and wonder, why cant I get shots like that. check the equipment thats used for a lot of these pictures, 70-300s, 18-105s, you name it, the picture is an expression of the artist behing the camera, not the equipment.
Today its raining like crazy, all day, and I am stuck in the house, had planned to go afer some pelicans and frigates thats been feeding in the bay, too overcast, poor light, too much rain, hope the bait is still there and they come back tomorrow.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
