Nikon D7000 with lens buying « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Nikon D7000 with lens buying

(36 posts) (15 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

I have been using non-SLR cameras till now. I am very interested in photography. I have read couple of posts related to DSLR buying guide. I am looking to get D7000 as first DSLR. I have couple of questions before I purchase it.

I want to buy D7000 body only and lens separately. I am going to do road trip with my family in August and want to take great pictures in the journey. I am debating between D5100 vs D7000. I am planning to get 4 year extended warranty on the camera. From what I understand, price of D7000 may go down in December by 10-20%. However, I need good camera in August and need to purchase within next 15-20 days so that I can learn DSLR by that time.

(A) Is it worth to buy D7000 if I am not planning to upgrade the body in next 4-5 years? - Durability, performance, image quality is important for me.

I am planning to take portrait(40%), nature(20%), landscape(30%), other(10%).

(B) Which of the following lens would be ideal for me? Currently I want to buy only one and upgrade it in next year. Fixed f stop, image stabilization, image quality is important to me.
1 - Tamron SP 17-50MM F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical (IF)
2 - Tamron SP 17-50MM F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
3 - Deleted (didn't realize the problem)
4 - Tamron SP 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

I appreciate all your help.

Posted 1 year ago #
shawnino

preferred member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 234
offline

I don't know about the Tamron lenses, but one of them you mention is the:
Tamron SP 24-70MM F/2.8 Di VC USD
which is $1299 @ B&H.

For virtually the same price ($3 less) you can get a Nikon 24-120 f/4. I don't own that lens, but have shot it on DX (I have a D90, the D7000 predecessor) and it's a really good piece of glass IMO. It should hold resale value better than the Tamron. Unless you think you're going to need the extra stop down to f/2.8, please consider the extra reach this good-quality Nikkor will give you. It's not always in stock, but I had great luck with the copy I borrowed and will buy it someday. No image stabilization, but very good IQ IMO.

(And I'm not prejudiced against off-brand lenses. I absolutely love my Sigma 8-16mm, so much so that people here are tired of me talking about it.)

Posted 1 year ago #
prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

I didn't realize that it will cost $1200, I can not afford it. I am trying to keep lens price in the range of $400-$500.

Posted 1 year ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

shawnino said:
I don't know about the Tamron lenses, but one of them you mention is the:
Tamron SP 24-70MM F/2.8 Di VC USD
which is $1299 @ B&H.

For virtually the same price ($3 less) you can get a Nikon 24-120 f/4. I don't own that lens, but have shot it on DX (I have a D90, the D7000 predecessor) and it's a really good piece of glass IMO. It should hold resale value better than the Tamron. Unless you think you're going to need the extra stop down to f/2.8, please consider the extra reach this good-quality Nikkor will give you. It's not always in stock, but I had great luck with the copy I borrowed and will buy it someday. No image stabilization, but very good IQ IMO.

(And I'm not prejudiced against off-brand lenses. I absolutely love my Sigma 8-16mm, so much so that people here are tired of me talking about it.)

It does have VR, the 24-120 ...

Posted 1 year ago #
shawnino

preferred member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 234
offline

Correct--my mistake. Good catch.

Posted 1 year ago #
prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

Thank you for the info, however I didn't realize the cost of that lens. I can not afford it. I may consider it when I upgrade next time.

shawnino said:
Correct--my mistake. Good catch.

Posted 1 year ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

D7000 definately will last for years if you aren't tempted to move to FX. Great little camera.

If you are building toward a system a 17-50/2.8 is not a bad place to start.

I would suggest 17-50 vs. 28-70.

17-50 GOOD:
If you ask people what 1 prime lens they walk around with, most say 20,24,36, or 50mm. The zoom lens covers all 3 and more. However, you barely get into telephoto so you have to work your shots around the lens you have...

28-70 BAD:
28-70 covers portrait range beautifully but <35mm on this lens is wasted (not wide enough to do much for you). I wouild rather buy used 35-70 from Nikon which is smaller, lighter, and cheaper on eBay. 24-70 is of course more practical but Nikon's is very expensive.

Posted 1 year ago #
prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

The Man From Mandrem said:
D7000 definately will last for years if you aren't tempted to move to FX. Great little camera.

If you are building toward a system a 17-50/2.8 is not a bad place to start.

I would suggest 17-50 vs. 28-70.

17-50 GOOD:
If you ask people what 1 prime lens they walk around with, most say 20,24,36, or 50mm. The zoom lens covers all 3 and more. However, you barely get into telephoto so you have to work your shots around the lens you have...

28-70 BAD:
28-70 covers portrait range beautifully but <35mm on this lens is wasted (not wide enough to do much for you). I wouild rather buy used 35-70 from Nikon which is smaller, lighter, and cheaper on eBay. 24-70 is of course more practical but Nikon's is very expensive.

Thanks for the input.
Which 17-50/2.8 is good from Tamron or Nikon? There are multiple. Will this lens cover portrait(40%), nature(20%), landscape(30%), other(10%) type of shots?

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

prapoon said:
I didn't realize that it will cost $1200, I can not afford it. I am trying to keep lens price in the range of $400-$500.

None that you suggested, fit that price range. Honestly the 18-105vr seems to fit your needs and the only one that fits your desired price range. Your only other option in this price range is the pair of 18-55 vr & 55-200vr.

I just used/rented the Tamron 17-50VC for an event and it was good but I didn't like it for portraits as I found it too short. I also had my metering go wacky (over expose by 3-4 stops) where I had to turn the camera off and on again to fix it. That only happen about 1 out of every 200 shots. For 1/2 the price of the Nikon version and with VC, it wasn't a bad lens to use and it an option for sure.

Posted 1 year ago #
justindayphoto

new member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 2
offline

Some of these people are nuts. If you want to buy a D7000 then just buy a D7000. However, I would just buy the body only and then pair it with the 50mm 1.8 in your choice of D or G. The D7000 is a fine camera and I think you would love it. Although, if you think your just going to move on from this camera, then you might want to consider a D90 instead. You can get your hands on D90 at a really great value now. I saw one at a swap meet the other day for only $400. The reason I suggest a D90 or D7000 is that these two cameras are of the current generation technology. I feel the D80 and below are just a little long in the tooth now. Plus the D90 and D7000 allow you to use the fine lineup of D lenses that Nikon has to offer. If you buy into the D5100 or below you are confined to only the G series lenses. Trust me that D90 is a fine camera and shares many of the same core features of the D7000.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

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

justindayphoto said:
Some of these people are nuts.

Blah-blah

Trust me that D90 is a fine camera and shares many of the same core features of the D7000.

From what you advise, you have no idea what you are talking about. Firstly some of the people who have contributed to this thread have - judging by your contribution - forgotten more that you seem to know, and secondly, one little 'core' feature of the D7000 that is not approached by the D90 is the superb sensor. A small thing to you it seems, but good enough to warrant many people upgrading from the D90 to the D7000. Oh, and if you had ever owned both of these you would know that there are many other additions in the D7000 also which make it more likely to last the OP the 4-5 years he requires than the D90.

Good first post, welcome to the forum...

@ Prapoon: From your experience level at present, I'll bet that you will look back in a year or two and wish you had bought the 18-105mm VR Nikkor or perhaps the more expensive 18-200mm VRII and a 50mm f1.8 D short lens for portraits. If you buy a good used or refurb (which is as good as new) you may be able to afford the 18-200. You could add the 50mm later when you are sure you need it.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

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

prapoon said:
, image quality is important to me.
1 - Tamron
2 - Tamron
3
4 - Tamron
I appreciate all your help.

This is a Nikon forum so dont be too surprised if , for mid range zooms, we recommend Nikon lenses

If you can afford it, the 24 -120 f4 if that is outside your budget the 18 - 105

both the 7000 and the 5100 are fine. Only you can decide if you need and can afford the extra features of the 7000. The D90 was a fine camera in its day and still represents value for money, but the image quality of a 5100 or 7000 is going to be noticeably better

Posted 1 year ago #
shawnino

preferred member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 234
offline

Just another question to the OP:

You very clearly define:
I am planning to take portrait(40%), nature(20%), landscape (30%), other (10%).

That's cool. How big are you going to print your finished images?

Posted 1 year ago #
prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

shawnino said:
Just another question to the OP:

You very clearly define:
I am planning to take portrait(40%), nature(20%), landscape (30%), other( 10%).

That's cool. How big are you going to print your finished images?

Thank you for the input :)
Frankly speaking, I would only pick 5-10% of my photos for printing between 8" × 10" and 12" × 18" (occasionally). However, I mostly use my photos for family shows projecting in the mini theater and things like that.

Posted 1 year ago #
Anaxagoras

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 145
offline

TaoTeJared said:
None that you suggested, fit that price range. Honestly the 18-105vr seems to fit your needs and the only one that fits your desired price range. Your only other option in this price range is the pair of 18-55 vr & 55-200vr.

I just used/rented the Tamron 17-50VC for an event and it was good but I didn't like it for portraits as I found it too short. I also had my metering go wacky (over expose by 3-4 stops) where I had to turn the camera off and on again to fix it. That only happen about 1 out of every 200 shots. For 1/2 the price of the Nikon version and with VC, it wasn't a bad lens to use and it an option for sure.

I agree.

The Nikon 18-105 is impressive, both in terms of performance - and also price when purchased with the camera.

I've just bought a Tamron 18-270 and have used it purely and simply as a holiday snapshot lens. True, it is a great holiday snapper, but it is no way as good as the Nikon 18-105.

And like TaoTeJared I had a few wacky overexposures - about 6 out of 750 shots.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

Anaxagoras said:
And like TaoTeJared I had a few wacky overexposures - about 6 out of 750 shots.

Thank god! (Well not really) but I was starting to think I was going mad with that.

I wouldn't consider a D90 at this point unless you are fine upgrading again in a year. I haven't seen many on ebay go for less than $650 and the tech is 6 years old.
Tamron has some good Super zoom lenses you may want to consider as well. It seems you were focused on f2.8 glass, but 60% of your shooting will be done at f/8 or higher.

You could go with any decent super-zoom or the 18-105 and pick up a older 50mm 1.8 for portraits when you want bokeh.

Just a note on the "4-year extended warranty" - if you are buying new, I personally wouldn't bother. Nikon will cover everything for a few years, and the D7000 is built very well. It is rare that anything goes bad past the first year and honestly in 4 years, you will probably be looking to upgrade. Heavy use can add to the chance, but you don't sound like you will be doing 100k+ photos a year. That might save you some $$ for a lens or adding a 50mm as well.

Posted 1 year ago #
prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Thank god! (Well not really) but I was starting to think I was going mad with that.

I wouldn't consider a D90 at this point unless you are fine upgrading again in a year. I haven't seen many on ebay go for less than $650 and the tech is 6 years old.
Tamron has some good Super zoom lenses you may want to consider as well. It seems you were focused on f2.8 glass, but 60% of your shooting will be done at f/8 or higher.

You could go with any decent super-zoom or the 18-105 and pick up a older 50mm 1.8 for portraits when you want bokeh.

Just a note on the "4-year extended warranty" - if you are buying new, I personally wouldn't bother. Nikon will cover everything for a few years, and the D7000 is built very well. It is rare that anything goes bad past the first year and honestly in 4 years, you will probably be looking to upgrade. Heavy use can add to the chance, but you don't sound like you will be doing 100k+ photos a year. That might save you some $$ for a lens or adding a 50mm as well.

That's a great input. I was focused on f2.8 and the reason was that I don't want to spend too much time from shot to shot. I am interested in taking shots quickly and especially without tripod on most of the occasions (depends on the situation). Let me know if my understanding of f stop is completely wrong or there are other factors. I liked your idea on converting warranty expense into lens.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

It is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with the speed between shots in the way you described it. I'm assuming you are referring to how digi-cams have a lot of lag between shots. DSLRs do not have this same issue.

Fast glass refers to how much light inters the camera for exposure so someone can take a photo at faster shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake.

I never do extended warranties as they usually just run for the same or even less duration of the manufacture's warranty. Rarely do they cover anything more either except cheap repairs.

Posted 1 year ago #
MikeWhis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 131
offline

I'd recommend the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, slightly over your budget though.

Posted 1 year ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

The Tamron 17-50 non VC is acceptable, I had that lens for 2 days before returning it (had some deal breaker, non qc issues with it). I would much rather use a 18-x5vr kit lens instead, those are a lot more reliable, even if not fixed f-stop.

Posted 1 year ago #
Anaxagoras

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 145
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Thank god! (Well not really) but I was starting to think I was going mad with that.

I wouldn't consider a D90 at this point unless you are fine upgrading again in a year. I haven't seen many on ebay go for less than $650 and the tech is 6 years old.
Tamron has some good Super zoom lenses you may want to consider as well. It seems you were focused on f2.8 glass, but 60% of your shooting will be done at f/8 or higher.

You could go with any decent super-zoom or the 18-105 and pick up a older 50mm 1.8 for portraits when you want bokeh.

Just a note on the "4-year extended warranty" - if you are buying new, I personally wouldn't bother. Nikon will cover everything for a few years, and the D7000 is built very well. It is rare that anything goes bad past the first year and honestly in 4 years, you will probably be looking to upgrade. Heavy use can add to the chance, but you don't sound like you will be doing 100k+ photos a year. That might save you some $$ for a lens or adding a 50mm as well.

As well as the wacky overexposures, I seem to have quite a few shots where the exposure is a little higher than it should be. And the image quality certainly doesn't compare well to my Nikon 18-105.

Nor am I impressed by the long zoom available on the lens; applying search filters in Apple Aperture shows that only 1 in 7 of my holiday piccies take advantage of the extended zoom.

I've been an amateur photographer for 45 years. I've never bought an extended warranty. I've never regretted not buying one!

Posted 1 year ago #
prapoon

junior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 9
offline

I just saw today and amazon.com has deal today

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-2MP-DX-Format-Digital-3-0-Inch/dp/B0042X9LC4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337266051&sr=8-1#productPromotions

D7000 - $1199
Save $100 on the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR Nikkor zoom lens. > $149 after rebate
Save $150 on the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor zoom lens. > $299 after rebate

Is any of above lens worth buying?
Is any of above lens help me shoot the photos that I want?
How about I pair with 50mm/1.8 lens?

Thank you in advance. I learned a lot from all you guys.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

I would go for the body and the 18-105vr - average to good price on that. If you have the cash left over, adding the 55-300 wouldn't be a bad deal. You would have a great range and a good beginner kit.

It seems you are moving away from the 18-105 - any reason?

I would add a 35mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.8 after you have the full range you want to shoot. If you are not going to be doing long outdoor shots much, skip the 55-300 for now and go the 35mm (which is a 50 equiv. for DX.)

Overlap in lenses in the mid range on dx (50mm-100mm) is actually helpful since that is your more ideal portrait length. Who wants to change lenses that much.

Posted 1 year ago #
MikeWhis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 131
offline

For the 55-200 or 55-300, I'd rather you buy a 18-200mm. It's the same quality as 18-55mm 55-200mm it with the flexibility.

Posted 1 year ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

Parapoon,

I too would suggest you look at Sigma if you are looking at 17-50 though that's a stretch for your budget. Their build is better, some have commented optics are similar quality; still check the lens thoroughly before using.

Re: 17-50 vs. 18-105, if you don't want wide aperture for subject isolation, the 18-105 is a better fit--> Optically very good lens though build quality is not rugged.

Notice that while TTJ says the 17-50 was too short for him for portraits, he's still suggesting you get a cheap 50/1.8 for portraits so while longer is beneficial (I typically use 60-70 indoors and longer outside) 50 does get you a USEABLE portrait-taking focal length, and 17 gets you wide enough for most tourism. On film I pretty much used my 28-70/2.8 (which is similar focal length to 17-50DX) for 90% of my shots for 13 years, adding a $400 telephoto (70-300) after a couple years that also allowed 1/4 macro. Between these 2 lenses, I was set for many years, only occassionally wanting something a little wider.

For me, wide aperture, subject isolation, and bokeh is not specific to portraiture and not an on-off knob so I have found it useful to go up to 2.8 even at 16-24mm.

When you get to longer focal length, the distance between objects is usually more so you get telephoto effect that typically helps with subject isolation so I find I don't usually NEED a 2.8 for longer telephoto. Telephotos are great for cropping interesting things out from the distance (animals, candid shots of people, distant landscape items that will show up as specs otherwise...). Macros are great for bugs, flowers, things like that. Again, if you are building a system, you would probably have to compromise and lose some shots in your 1st trip, but the 17-50/2.8 is NOT a bad place to start.

The only reason I belabor this though you say is not important for you is because most people I know who just started in photography ask how to get subject isolation after a few months of owning 4-5.6 zooms so I do think it is something useful to think about up front.

Posted 1 year ago #