Recommendations for close-quarters lens w/D7000 (Or Any DX Camera)

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Recommendations for close-quarters lens w/D7000 (Or Any DX Camera)

(18 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

humboldt

junior member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 5
offline

Hi all,

Have been reading this forum for a while now and want to start off by saying thanks to everyone for all of the great info on here. I've definitely learned a lot as a lurker so far...

My current D7000 kit includes a 35/1.8, 70-200, and a Tokina 11-16/2.8 - so far, this has suited me very well in my getting deeper into this hobby over the last 8 months, however I'm stuck with a dilemma that I was hoping to get some input on.

More and more it seems that I end up shooting a lot of offshore fishing tournaments, where I'm obviously very limited as to where I can position myself on the boat to get my shots. I've been using the 35/1.8 which gives great results, but is a little too narrow in the FOV. I love the Tokina for a lot of things, and find that the 16 range is nearly perfect for the field of view that I need, but with this lens there are some distortion concerns that need to be worked with.

With that in mind, I was considering a lower cost lens for these situations such as the 18-70, as this will almost always be used in brightly-lit conditions. While not looking for spectacular artistic shots here - I was hoping to be able to still get decent action shots. For the price difference I think that the 16-85 or Tamron 70-50/2.8 (while no-doubt better lenses) will be overkill for my needs here. At the same time, while the 18-70 seems to get decent reviews, I'm not sure if pairing it to the D7000 would create more visible flaws than with some of the older bodies which this lens was reviewed with.

I'm open to any suggestions at this time, but my main concerns are this:

1 - Am I being pound foolish by trying to get into a lower cost lens like this to do what I'm looking for - or am I correct in thinking that a higher-end lens is overkill for this particular situation.

2 - Are there better alternatives out there that I may not be considering? I'd like to try to stick with a midrange zoom for some added flexibility.

3 - Zoom range aside, am I overlooking the usefulness of the 11-16 for this application? Is the natural distortion of this lens at 16mm correctable enough in pp to eliminate the fisheye effect?

Many thanks in advance to any who can offer advice. Always nice to be able to learn from those with the experience :)

Posted 1 year ago #
alchse

senior member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 79
offline

Can you post some pics you took with the 11-16?

I'm curious as to how much of a fish eye effect there is

Posted 1 year ago #
humboldt

junior member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 5
offline

I will find something to post that shows what i'm talking about when I get back to my comp. Thinking now, I may be calling it fisheye but that may not be entirely accurate. At the long end its not so much rounded distortion, but the image sides are stretched somewhat. Nature of the beast I suppose, but more noticeable close quarters.

I suppose one option could be to widen up the Tokina and crop the sides out some for a "flatter" image.

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

D7000 does not get to go out on the water.

I have a waterproof olympus that gets involved in the fishing.

can get it fishy, wet and close to the water, over the side of the boat.

sorry, to get back to what you are asking, I would go with the 18-55 fo ruse on the boat, cheap and good quality pictures, the 18 should be good enough for the size of boats used offshore.

18-105 is a little more expensive, but will allow you to cover boats nearby.

Posted 1 year ago #
rbid

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 344
offline

I had the 18-55 (the low end of it), and I did not like it (It was the D40 Kit lens), I prefer the 18-70 that came with my D70s (I still have it).

On the D7000 I use the 18-105 and I'm very happy with it.. On my D70s I have it's kit lens (18-70) and it is a great lens for an amateur like me :)

The only good thing about the 18-55 is it light weight.

Edit: Get a rain protection for the camera/lens, I guess that the water is not a friend of the camera/lens, I have one that works nice, but I do not know its brand :(*

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

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

I think there are several options for you. Nikon makes a pretty wide range of zoom lenses in that range if you want to spend the money...

The 12-24 f4, 14-24 f2.8, 16-35 f4, or the 17-35 f2.8

Obviously the f2.8 lenses giving you better DOF and probably better performance, but since you are outside and probably have the light the F4 lenses would be great too I am sure.

I reread and you said you wanted a low cost lens, but hey get one you really want that you will use for a long time instead ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
humboldt

junior member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 5
offline

Thanks tcole... There are definitely some good options there. In all honesty - if money wasn't the object, I'd go with the 16-85 and call it a day - I use primes for my low light stuff anyway.

As of now i'm even tempted to expand range a bit to something like the 18-105 (be nice to be able to grab a shot of a marlin or mako tailwalking 50-100ft off the stern).

I completely agree that a better lens is money well spent, I just have a feeling that it may be way more than I need for this particular application. Plus with my current skill level, I may not even be using the capabilities of the better glass just yet :) with these cheaper lenses available for around $200 it gets even more tempting.

Also, this may be a case where the lighter weight consumer lenses would be nice in some respects. I usually use a blackrapid strap, and in 6-8' seas some of the better glass swinging around may be asking for a day of kidney punching :)

Keep the suggestions coming - that's what's great about this site, getting new options that I didn't even think of...

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

remember , salt air and spray are not friends of DSLRs.

Maybe a D3 would be better, but salt air gets in everthing and down the road...........

that is why I use the waterproof point and shoot.

also remember to use a uv or some kind of protective filter on your lens, you can take the filter off and wash it in fresh water at the end of the day.

salt gets on everything and it is hell to clean dried salt off a lens after a windy day.

plays havoc with your front element coating.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

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

I love the effect my 10.5 mm fisheye gives and so do My clients. If the distortion is killing me Ill just use a photoshop action (batch played) on all of my fisheye shots.

While the 18-whatever (50mm, 70mm, 105mm, 200mm etc) arent horrible lenses but for 1 they flare like crazy at times (especially if a uv filter is used) and they arent really wide enough. I know because I use my 18-70mm frequently enough

To answer each one individually

#1... Yes and no. A lower cost lens gives you more zoom but will be much more likely to get water damage and not be wide enough. A higher end lens isnt so much overkill as it is not completely necessary. The lenses to avoid are still most of the 18-XXX lenses especially the 18-55mm and the 18-105mm. They are not that durable or good with too much humidity (gets sticky, fogs on the inside, plastic mount) nor are they that optically forgiving (flares like crazy with highlights (water backlit sun), soft on the edges, definately not wide enough for close quarters)

#2... Your best non fisheye option is the 16-85mm Nikkor f/3.5-5.6G as it is wider and doesnt have a plastic mount. The 18-70mm and 12-24mm arent too bad. Even better get a second body and put 1 lens on one and the 35mm on the other...

#3... The 11-16mm is very usable and yes it isnt that hard in pshop. I shoot with my 10.5mm every day and seldom bother to correct it as people like the look of it.

In all honesty it is the minor things that make me perfer my 10.5mm, 17-35mm, and 35-70mm f2.8's over my 18-70mm for sports. I just usually use 2 bodies...

Posted 1 year ago #
humboldt

junior member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 5
offline

I'll second that salt and spray do seem to stick to everything... I'm typically pretty careful out there for that reason (and will definitely pick up some of those rain covers for those days).

Slightly OT, but when I use my dslr in humid conditions i've been using my pelican case stuffed with a few silica gel packs when its not needed to be on hand. Maybe it doesn't matter, but figure it can't hurt - At least that way its not exposed to those conditions constantly for 2-3 days at a time.

Regarding the 16-85, it that lens weather sealed at all? I know the 7000 doesn't have D3 level sealing, but with the proper precautions I'd hope it would keep more moisture out than say, a d90 in similar conditions...

Posted 1 year ago #
heartyfisher

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

For your particular application I would recommend only 1 lens.. the Nikkor 12-24 F4.0. Why?
It does not change size when focusing or zooming so wont suck in salty air. weather sealing is good. People have dropped it in water and it still works. The toughest lens I have! solid as a rock!

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

I'm not familiar with offshore fishing tournaments but are you saying that you need something wider than a 35mm (50 equiv) from 100+ feet away? Just checking since the subjects to me would seem to be too small to even see.

That said every lens you mentioned for wide angles will have distortion especially if you are keeping your cost under $600. The 11-16mm lens you have, has some of the lowest distortion for this wide of a lens I have ever seen. Nothing that Nikon or anyone else makes is better at that range and price. That is the name of that game for wide angles.

From what you have described with environment and wants, the only lens that is wide, lower distortion, fairly cheap, and that is weather resistant (there is no such thing as weather sealed) is the Tokina 12-24mm (version 1 or 2). The 16mm focal length has very little distortion in comparison, it will get you a little more on the long range, and as you know with your 11-16mm, it is built like a tank.

I have the version 1 and the only difference is the AF motor in the lens on version 2 which, you do not need. You can pick up version 1s for $400 usually. Nothing else comes close to what you are describing.

Posted 1 year ago #
humboldt

junior member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 5
offline

Thanks Tao... The majority of what I'm looking for is in the wider range, as we're usually crammed into a maybe 12'x12' square as far as camera and subject. The little extra zoom range was what I was referring to for subjects 50-100' away, and the wide for everything else.

Posted 1 year ago #
heartyfisher

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

The more I think about it the more I think what you would really find useful is the Panasonic FT2.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

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

The 16-85 isnt really weather sealed but that is the compromise you get with purchasing a cheaper lens. As to the D90 I can safely say that for not being weather sealed it certainly works as if it has seals. I've never had a problem with mine which has been dropped, used in poring rain (unprotected), covered in mud and dust, shot in heavy humidity, used in both 28 and 112 degree weather, splashed on by seawater, and just plain used everyday... Believe me while the stickiness and fogging may be a lens issue, it should hold up fine in the weather...

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

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

humboldt said:
....., and a Tokina 11-16/2.8 - so far, this has suited me very well ......... I love the Tokina for a lot of things, and find that the 16 range is nearly perfect for the field of view that I need, but with this lens there are some distortion concerns that need to be worked with.

Have you looked at correcting this in post production

I have the sigma 10 -20 f4-5.6 ,it does not seem to suffer from too much distortion

Posted 1 year ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I would go for the N16-35/4 VR - it will also help You with panning.

Posted 1 year ago #
DutchNikon

preferred member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 241
offline

Mm I'd go for a P&S for these circumstances ... ( P300 maybe ? )

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Recommendations for close-quarters lens w/D7000 (Or Any DX Camera)

Reply