D7000 +18-55VR lens. Wise choice for a beginner?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR » [D7000]

D7000 +18-55VR lens. Wise choice for a beginner?

(84 posts) (20 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1 234 Next »

Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

casperwb said:
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.

Hey Casperwb, I know you're right and that fact is certainly mentioned all over the place however... where does one go and what does one do to become a better photographer? That's the tough question to answer..

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

If I were asked that question I would have to say you go anywhere that you can take pictures you are interested in and then you look at them and learn where they need improving i.e. technically or artistically.

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

Drdobs

I can think of two quick answers to your question.

1] get in touch with a photographer close to where you live, see if they will take you under their wing. learn all you can and then after a while , you will start to develop your own style, see things your own way and develop a liking for a particular type of photography.

2] take a photography course, I do not think that I will be allowed to give you names on this forum, however, there is one in NY that has a very good reputation, and you will expand your knowledge on exposure, compositon, view point and everything having to do with photography.

the home work alone will make you happy

for the cost of a good lens, [spread out over the length of the course], its worth it weight in gold.

good luck my friend on a journey that will last you a lifetime.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

It was funny when Casper had published that note because just a few days ago I read this over at Thom Hogans site
http://www.bythom.com/blame.htm

Excellent article which really speaks to virtually the same thing; however I left myself with the thought of - it's easy to say make the art of photography first and your technical aquisitions second, but it's a lot easier to discuss and talk about the technical components of good photography...

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

Drdobs said:
It was funny when Casper had published that note because just a few days ago I read this over at Thom Hogans site
http://www.bythom.com/blame.htm

Excellent article which really speaks to virtually the same thing; however I left myself with the thought of - it's easy to say make the art of photography first and your technical aquisitions second, but it's a lot easier to discuss and talk about the technical components of good photography...

Drdobs

true on both accounts.

I started two threads that are meant to stimulate the photographer [technique] as I find that most discussions are along the lines of equipment.

Mostly to get people thinking and looking at the fantastic work of others.

the results of works posted has been fantastic.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Back on-topic guys. D7000 + 18-55VR

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

Another addition to casperwb's good suggestions: If you're anywhere near an independently owned camera shop (a vanishing breed, unfortunately), stop by and see what they have to offer by way of classes. They're typically of a shorter duration, granted, but also less expensive as a result.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

Ok, my personal opinion is that one should not buy a D7000 with either the 18-55 or 18-55VR. Are they horrible lenses? No. Can you make nice pictures with them? I think we've already covered that the photographer matters more than the gear...

but in the end, you are STILL buying a Lexus frame and putting a Ford Festiva engine in it (no offense to you festiva lovers)...

I just dont think it makes a lot of sense to start with either of those small range cheap zoom lenses when you have such a capable body - unless - you HAVE to for cost reasons...

Next step up would be to go to a 16-85VR or 18-105 - in this regard you are respectable; especially if you throw in a 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 on top of things...

Jon

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

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

NikoDoby said:
Back on-topic guys. D7000 + 18-55VR

Well, since Niko has re-posted here, I guess the thread will live to see another day . . . and yes, one more opinion!

My $0.03:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR is a cheap, sharp lens, with VR. I use it as an 18mm wide-angle with VR. But it's the only kit lens I would recommend. It's only my opinion, but there aren't a whole lot of shots I would choose to take at 105mm, stopped down to f/5.6 (e.g., AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR). The long end of kit lenses are so slow, I find them virtually artless to use at that length, and completely useless in low light. Here's what I would suggest:

1. AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR: Gets your wide end covered cheaply, sharply, and with the added bonus of VR.
2. AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G: Short telephoto with excellent speed--shoot in any light.

OR

3. AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D: Affordable. Sharp. Excellent portrait length on DX. Pretty fast.

Posted 2 years ago #
padlockd

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 118
offline

@bharatwd1:

D90 + 18-105 + 35 1.8.

Once you think you've met the limitations of that kit _as a photographer_ then move up. Learn the ropes on the D90, and then possibly get the D7000 replacement or move to full frame if you think you're going to make a living off of photography. Remember, a LOT of people have D90s right now, and if you look of flickr there are tons of great pictures taken with that camera. Don't think you need all the latest and greatest.

As for the 70-300 VR, it's slow. I would skip it. If you find you really want to get into wildlife (because you only have a max of 105mm), go for something with 2.8 or faster. 70-200, 300 f/4, etc. You will hate f/5.6.

I would advise not to bite off more than you can chew...

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

Well i did go for the d7000 + 16-85 got a b+w kaesemann crc polarizer with 16gb sandisk extreme 10 class and an extra battery + sbs 700 n a nifty cleaning kit with a pro bag.
gf feels ignored heheheh :P
picking the 35mm/1.8 as well n after 6 mnths will think bout the 70-300......meanwhile loads n loads of reading n loads n loads of practicing....will not be in peace until i exploit the d7000...ya i ditched the 18-55 cuz i was tired of hearing that im putting worn out tires on a ferrari :P
playing mainly in auto now n i know will be a while till i go on manual...but ill come through :)))
currently playing with exposure and shooting in different light conditions... understanding exposure is a nice newbie book...that everyone should read :)))) learnt alot from that one
drdobs, how you doing :))))))

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

padlockd i think initially ill go for a 70-300/4.5-5.6 n play around with it for a few yrs...only if i develop good skills, ill gift myself the 300mm f/2.8G vrII..that station is long long away :) but its where i know ill enjoy wildlife photography at its best....meanwhile nikon can lower its damn prices on the 2.8 :P-i know they wont :(

P:S i also bought a tripod but i doubt ill be using it for now......the only thing im paranoid bout is taking care of the camera...humidity worries me as its always high here in Mumbai...lots of silica gel :P

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

Excellent... You have a great setup there, seriously... I honestly think you made the best decision... And down the line you can think about the 70-300 vs a 2.8 lens etc..

I'm a little surprised to see all the down opinions on those "slow" 5.6 lenses.. What does everybody shoot at in daylight or outside conditions? Or how about with flash? Don't they say your very sharpest images will come at the medium aperatures of between 5.6 & 11? What is wrong with those aperature numbers provided there is enough light to still shoot at 1/100 or faster?

I guess I'm still learning a lot myself but I'd love for people to enlighten me on what is so bad about these mid-ranged sharp zoom lenses..

Jon

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

likewise drdobs...i saw many samples of a d90 with a 70-300 4.5-5.6 and ill say..they were pretty darn good.... and until i can take similar photos, ill not even think bout the 2.8 version......for beginners n intermediates..i think the 4.5-5.6 will do wonders..besides anyone that has owned that lens has sung only praise for it except when its at 300... not at all bad for a 400$ lens. :)

http://www.bythom.com/70300vrlens.htm great review on the 400$ model... btw this was out of stock in the store since demand is ultra high.......

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

Yes, you have plenty to cut your teeth on right now and you just shelled out some good coin.. Stick with this for some time, master your D7000 (I *highly* recommend the Magic Lantern Guides or Thom Hogans D7000 guide) as a manual... - there I go again, getting you to spend more $$...

I look forward to seeing your wonderful photos in the future..

Jon

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

damn right Jon :) i got plenty of nice guides..bout 20 of them :P

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Egh there are haters of the kit lenses, but most like me can't afford to just buy every f2.8 lens out there. I frequently see pictures in magazines that have been taken by people with kit lenses. A faster lens will increase usability, but I don't think the kits lenses are as bad as some make them out to be. When you don't make money with your camera then it is hard to justify to your significant other a $3000 lens purchase.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

Absolutely and like I've said before, it isn't in Nikons best interests to sell bodies with junk lenses attached.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

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

Drdobs said:
I'm a little surprised to see all the down opinions on those "slow" 5.6 lenses.. What does everybody shoot at in daylight or outside conditions? Or how about with flash? Don't they say your very sharpest images will come at the medium aperatures of between 5.6 & 11? What is wrong with those aperature numbers provided there is enough light to still shoot at 1/100 or faster?

I guess I'm still learning a lot myself but I'd love for people to enlighten me on what is so bad about these mid-ranged sharp zoom lenses.

It's not that they're "bad." It's that you can't isolate your subjects stopped down that far--there's just too much depth-of-field. The issue isn't sharpness--it's aesthetic control over your image. Also, expensive f/2.8 zooms aren't your only option. Fast, short telephotos such as the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 are within nearly every photographer's budget. The first two sample photos below would be impossible to image with an f/5.6 maximum-aperture zoom at the equivalent focal length and subject distance.

IMAGE DELETED

Longer f/5.6 zooms (such as the AF Nikkor 80-400m f/4.5-5.6 VR, when lensed at 400mm), are able to attain shallower apparent depths-of-field, due to their narrow angles-of-view (i.e., their "telephoto-ness"). But, with slow, moderate-length telephoto zooms (e.g., 18-105mm), it's difficult to separate your subjects from the background.

IMAGE DELETED

Too much depth-of-field from this f/3.2-irised, point-and-shoot image, above, exhibits distracting background detail.

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

Studio 460, we cant see the samples. DrDobs, how do u like my new avataar....;) btw an offtopic question......do u guys think ill need a filter for a 35/1.8mm . ive got a 67 mm...i can easily step it down with a b+w ring..but will i really need it? i know i dont need a filter for indoor photography :P
P:S i have a hood with the 35mm

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

oh btw... i feel like a fat kid n d7000 is my new candy.....n my appetite has no limit.... ;) loving the d7000+16-85 combo n now the 35mm...a lil overwhelmed by the features of d7000...but whats the point if the art is not challenging :)

amazingly, the best book on d7000 is the FREE MANUAL...any new buying a dslr... read the manual prior to engaging in other books/guide

Posted 2 years ago #
bharatwd1

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 19
offline

i see the samples now...good point studio460.....btw why are the faces blocked? we know who they are :P

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

The point of the pics above is for you to compare the differential focus differences between the lenses.

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

Though spraynpray has nailed it, I want to mention one more thing:

Remember Focal Length / Aperture = Entrance Pupil

One really needs an entrance pupil greater than ~18mm to start getting soft background at sane portrait distances, and ~35mm to start getting into the really creamy stuff.

105/5.6 is just pushing the low end of my arbitrary scale, and never will get into the cream unless you subject is kissing close and your background is at the horizon.

FX forces you to stand closer to the subject with any given entrance pupil setup, thus sensor size is mistakenly believed to be responsible for better bokeh. It's not, but larger sensors do make pleasing bokeh much easier to achieve as one needs a longer lens to achieve any given framing, thus larger entrance pupil sizes OR a more forgiving subject:background distance ratio.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

Yes, I clearly get the fact that when you shoot at 1.8, 2.8 versus a 5.6 or 8 you are going to get a much shallower depth of field. If that's what you're going for, the DX has an advantage as the DX sensor has an even shalloer DOF than the FX sensor.

However, sometimes you don't always want that razor thin DOF. On his D7000, if he's at 85mm focal length, 8 feet away from his subjetc at F2.8, he is going to have a in focus range of less than half a foot. Most people's heads are more than that so he'll either need to step back significantly - thus changing the composition - or shoot at a higher aperature which - negates the effect of the F2.8 lens.

Obviously the faster lens the more flexability you have because you can shot fast, or stop down and shoot in 'normal' aperature ranges but I'm still not so sure why people pan these nice, clean technical strong mid-range zooms... His 16-85 is 3.5 at the minimum up to 5.6 at 85mm.

Jon

Posted 2 years ago #