Going to buy a D7000, just what to get to start with?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR » [D7000]

Going to buy a D7000, just what to get to start with?

(42 posts) (21 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

nmcdonald

junior member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 6
offline

Hi,

I'm going to order a D7000 tonight, it will be my first DSLR. I've been lucky enough to play with a D300s in the past so its not all completely new to me. But that was always with nikon glass.

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.

Its a cheap lens but I have seen a few people get pretty good shots out of it, so to start with it looks like an OK value for money lens. Overtime I'd look to replace it though.

The extra focal length may be handy as well for dog shots etc, although I don't think its great at longer focal lengths.

On the other hand the extension tubes would be a keeper, at least until I bought a dedicated macro lens.

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?

Any advice welcome,

Thanks,

Neal

Posted 1 year ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Skip the 50mm and get the new 40mm Macro and you wont need to waste your money on the Tamron.

Posted 1 year ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

I used to have the Nikon 70-300ED (Non-VR, not "G") which was rumored to be a rebadged Tamron (The Tamron had great reviews back then and was only $50 cheaper. It took quite stunning images at <200mm, softens above there; slow focus though-- good copy on ebay is I think $200 or so. I destroyed mine this summer after over a decade of happy use: fell on concrete from 6-feet, optics fine but plastic bits in the barrel broke and tube distorted by severely out of alignment-- D7000 survived : ) The Nikon VR is so much superior (AF speed, VR, 200-300 sharpness) that <$450 used it's a better choice. Though I have primes and 2.8 zooms to cover the same range, the 70-300 zoom is a go to for travel photography -- you can carry an extra lens or keep the weight way down.

Posted 1 year ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

THe 70-300 VR Nikkor is a wonderful lens. It is one of the single best buys in new lens. I also still own two 70-300 Nikkor D lens which I believe The Man From Mandrin refers to. The 70-300 Nikkor D lens is VERY good. It is a HOT used item. It is also smaller than the new Nikkor 70-300VR and of course is not VR. They all work on F5 Nikon and D700 perfectly. The 18-105VR kit lens is really good and makes a wonderful mix with the 70-300 Nikkor. Friends who bought other manufacturer lens had failures within 2 years=therefore did not save a nickel.

Also concur with SquamishPhoto on the 40mm Macro. It is a wonderful lens. I do not own one but my exposure to it proves its worth to me. I do own the 60 micro Nikkor and it is my close up lens.

You can't go wrong with the D7000!!!

Posted 1 year ago #
nmcdonald

junior member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 6
offline

thanks,

In the long run I guess i'd like a longer macro lens (105mm) and the 50mm kind of just fits the bill as an all purpose lens that I would want to keep in the long run, the 40mm micro will be quite slow to focus wont it? So probably wouldn't be as good in general use?

The Tamron lens is available for £99 when bought with a DSLR.

The Kenko extension tubes are around £100-150.

Posted 1 year ago #
nmcdonald

junior member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 6
offline

Sorry Davey missed your reply, I decided on the camera sometime ago but something always got in the way. Cant wait to receive it.

So you both think skip the 50mm and Tamron, get the 40mm and try and find a used Nikon 70-300 D lens.

Decisions decisions.

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

I beg to disagree

get the 50mm, you will never, I repeat never regret that purchase.
run a search on this site on the 50mm, G or D.
I have the D, auto focus is fast, the G may be faster, but that is splitting hairs.

if you buy the D, you may have enough to get a refurbished from Nikon 70-300VR
again, run a search on this site for this lens.

all micro/marco lenses are good when you use them for what they were designed.
the problems happens when people use them for other things, then you hear complaints, however, if they were good for the other things, then they would not be as good with macro.

18-105VR, good walk around lens
50mm portraits, low light, indoor shooting, fantastic lens
70-300mm vr unless you spend big money on the f2.8 or pro lenses , this is the best buy for a zoom.

save some money for a macro, I use the Tokina 100mm, however, all macro lenses are good.
used Nikon 105mm [non vr] is a good buy, but a new Tokina or Tamron is the same price as the used Nikon

Posted 1 year ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

oops, nevermind.

Posted 1 year ago #
heartyfisher

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

Love some of the tamron lenses .. but stay away from that 70-300... if it was re-badged as a nikon. its one of the worst nikon lenses ever! . the newer Nikon 70-300VR is heaps, HEAPS better.

Posted 1 year ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

If Macro is your focus, I would have misgivings based on the lens performance at the longer focal length for the 70-300ED. I think a dedicated macro lens is a much better investment if you are mostly interested in macro photography. My previous comment was about the 70-300 lens for general usage for which it is awesome.

I use the 55 AIS for macro which has some good and some bad points.

Regarding the other lenses you refer to, I had an 18-105 briefly-- though the optics are good it was more plastic than any lens i had previously owned, but is a great range to have on DX and the low cost dx lenses are all like that...

All of the lenses you are looking at are very good for what they do. You just need to figure out what you need lenses to do.

Posted 1 year ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

nmcdonald said:
......or a Tamron 70-300mm 4/5.6 macro lens.

I have both the Tamron 70-300 and Nikon 70-300VR. The Tamron shoots sharper but the Nikon focuses much faster. The quality build of the Nikon is much better, as is the shots it takes. There's nothing wrong with the Tamron but I think you'd be much happier in getting the Nikon.

Posted 1 year ago #
nmcdonald

junior member
Joined: Aug '11
Posts: 6
offline

Thanks,

At £99 I think the Tamron is kind of hard to say no to really. I know your a bit split as to it being ok or not. I totally agree as well, i'm sure id be much happier with the nikon.

I did find the Nikon 70-300 non VR online second hand for £135 which is tempting.

But adding the macro lens (40mm) and the Nikon 70-300mm does push the price up by roughly a £100.

I'm also strangely drawn to the 50mm lens and I do think its perhaps a better long term investment.

Id want to replace the 40mm macro with a longer focal length but the 50mm is a keeper for me.

I also decided to add a compact monopod(£50) and another memory card as the one I ordered off amazon somehow wont be shipped for 1-2months??? So another £65. But the card off amazon is much faster so I still want it at quite a good price.

So the price is creeping up a bit.

Which is making me think that the 50mm would be my quality lens, the kit and 70-300 Tamron would cover the focal range cheaply for now, and allow a little bit of macro work at the same time.

My next step would probably be to get a tripod and dedicated macro lens. Then further down the line to replace the 70-300mm.

I imagine i would get much more out of the tripod and macro lens in the warmer months of the year, so it makes me think they will be worth waiting for.

Although with use I may find my priorities change but I'll be looking to put money into the lens.

I've not ordered yet as I realised it wont be delivered until Tuesday at the earliest.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

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

As ever it depends on what you shoot

I have a Tamron 70-300 but rarely use it, as mine has no VR

My favorite DX lens is the Nikkor 18-200 VR II

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

18-200 VR and you may not need any additional lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

donaldejose said:
18-200 VR and you may not need any additional lenses.

.
.
.
the problem with "jack of all trades" is that they might be able to do a bit of everything, however, the specialist will do his thing better than the Jack.

it all depends on where you intend to go with your photography.

general do everything lens is good for just that, general do everything, however when your intrest in different types of photography starts to grow, then you will need specific lenses to acomplish what you want to do.

as an example: landscape, macro/micro, wildlife, birding, sports, portrait if you get my drift.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

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

Here are my thoughts on your potential setup and the other lenses being suggested:

D7000: Love it. Love it. Love it. Excellent camera. I know you won't regret it.

18-105mm: I'm not really a big fan of super zooms myself but I can imagine how they can be very useful for others. It actually might be a good starter lens.

50mm 1.8G: Excellent lens with great bokeh. If you're just getting into photography this lens will do you wonders but on a DX camera like D7000 it will have an effective focal length of 75mm. Not so comfortable for street (or general) photography anymore. This might be fine if you don't want to focus on street photography. It would be better for portraits though.

35mm 1.8G: No photographer who's serious about their photography should be without at least one f/1.8 (or wider) lens. Whether you choose 35mm or 50mm is up to you and your shooting style but generally 35mm is more suited to street photography when used on a DX camera (52.5mm effective focal length).

40mm micro: Three words. Minimum Focus Distance. While the images I've seen from it are impressive, you will have a hard time with it if you want 1:1 true macro images. I also can't recommend it as a prime vs 50mm or 35mm because it's maximum aperture is only f/2.8.

Tamron 70-300mm: If you're considering it mainly for it's macro capabilities then I wouldn't get it. The maximum magnification it will get you is 1:2 or half size. Plus quality wouldn't be as good as a Nikon + extension tubes. If you're getting it as a telephoto zoom then it might be nice specially at the price you're getting but you might want to consider a used Nikon 70-300 non-VR or even a used 55-300 VR.

Kenko extension tubes: I haz them :3. Very versatile. Will allow more creativity and give you more options. You can always keep them with you and you can turn any of your current lenses into a macro. Even better, you can stack them and get higher than 1:1 magnification.

As for an actual macro lens, wait and save for a 105mm 2.8G. It's worth it.

Good luck.

Posted 1 year ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

Yes the 70-300mm VR is a fantastic lens and a real bargain. I was discussing the 11-16mm Tokina on another topic on this forum and you eventually should have this as your only wide lens too. My friend on Flickr uses the 11-16 Tokina/D7000 combo and his results are fantastic. I've used the 11-16 before on a D300 4 years ago and loved it.

Posted 1 year ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
swame_sp

senior member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 96
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

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!

Posted 1 year ago #
inpakto

junior member
Joined: Nov '11
Posts: 6
offline

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

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

@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.

Posted 1 year ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #