Help on lens choice for a d7000 please.....

R

reality bites

Suspended / Banned
Messages
39
Edit My Images
No
I need help choosing a couple of lenses. At a wedding recently, i struggled with low light with my current zoom lens even with a flash gun. It's a 18-135 kit lens which came with my d80. I was fine when I had a 35mm 1.8 on but struggled with the fixed length when trying to get shots of moving targets (children playing etc). It was mainly due tonhigh ceilings and dark rooms but I've had similar issues trying to get shots of my boy playing when at soft play places etc. I've been looking at lenses like the tamron 17-50 f2.8 (can't decide between vc or non vc at the moment). This would give me the low light performance and flexibility of the zoom. Others in this kind of range seem hit and miss but this seems to get good reviews.

The other lens I'd be interested in is a UWA lens for landscapes and group shots. It's primarily landscapes so I've been considering lenses like the sigma 10-20 (not sure if I really need the f3.5 all through the range but may help with group shots or using indoors?). Also the tokina 11-16 f2.8 is highly regarded but not sure if I'd like the extra reach of something like the sigma. These will mainly be used on my d7000 although could get used on the d80 also. I appreciate money talks with this kind of kit but if I can get decent quality without spending thousands, great!.

Any advise and experience of these welcomed!
 
I initially used 35, 50, 85 1.8's but I was losing shots trying to juggle 3 lenses. So I switched to a 17-50 and 50-150 combo pair of zooms, both Sigma 2.8, HSM, OS.
 
I have read reviews and comparisons of the tamron and sigma17-50 f2.8 models and both have pros and cons. Is the sigma worth the extra on the price tag?
 
I guess it depends on what you want to spend. I picked up the Sigma 18-50 2.8 (Non OS) from the classifieds on here for £140, and consider it a bargain. I'm very pleased with the results on my D7000. I had the 35mm 1.8 and didn't get on with it at all, and when the Sigma came along it became obsolete for me. I did notice though, that I was mostly using the Sigma at either fully wide of fully long, so I thought I'd give the 50mm 1.8D a crack... and I've not taken it off the camera since, I love it.
 
NickD said:
I guess it depends on what you want to spend. I picked up the Sigma 18-50 2.8 (Non OS) from the classifieds on here for £140, and consider it a bargain. I'm very pleased with the results on my D7000. I had the 35mm 1.8 and didn't get on with it at all, and when the Sigma came along it became obsolete for me. I did notice though, that I was mostly using the Sigma at either fully wide of fully long, so I thought I'd give the 50mm 1.8D a crack... and I've not taken it off the camera since, I love it.
Click to expand...

The none Nikon based lenses are all similar prices to a degree. I've borrowed a 50mm 1.4 sigma and although it was a great lens, I found it too long for indoor use. Which is why i went for the 35. I think I've made the decision that the 17-50 type zoom is the range I want it's just which one. I do have the same thoughts that once I've made the choice on which lens the 35mm may get sold, or just kept at a backup.

I had considered a second hand Nikon 17-55 but would worry buying from somewhere like eBay. I will eventually build up the requirements again to access the classifieds here but until then.....
 
Personally I would wait and get the Nikon 17-55 2.8. I bought a solid as new one off eBay for £550 or so used it for a couple of years then resold it for the same price I payed when I upgraded to full frame. Amazing lens, sharp wide open, fast auto focus. The best dx mid zoom there is and well worth the price, especially if you get a good copy used.

The thing is with eBay is if you buy it and it's not as described, you send it back. I recently bought a Nikon 24-70 2.8 for £900 and after trying it out it had issues, I contacted the seller and got it exchanged.
 
surfg1mp said:
Personally I would wait and get the Nikon 17-55 2.8. I bought a solid as new one off eBay for £550 or so used it for a couple of years then resold it for the same price I payed when I upgraded to full frame. Amazing lens, sharp wide open, fast auto focus. The best dx mid zoom there is and well worth the price, especially if you get a good copy used.

The thing is with eBay is if you buy it and it's not as described, you send it back. I recently bought a Nikon 24-70 2.8 for £900 and after trying it out it had issues, I contacted the seller and got it exchanged.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying but I currently have a hate of eBay and the con artists that exist on there. I find forum dealing a little more personal. I would love the Nikon version, in fact, given the cash I would go out tomorrow and get a d600 and the 24-70 without a second thought.
 
reality bites said:
I get what you're saying but I currently have a hate of eBay and the con artists that exist on there. I find forum dealing a little more personal. I would love the Nikon version, in fact, given the cash I would go out tomorrow and get a d600 and the 24-70 without a second thought.
Click to expand...

What about Amazon marketplace. I've always found good deals on there and you get Amazon's excellent customer service to resolve any problems.
 
newsagent said:
What about Amazon marketplace. I've always found good deals on there and you get Amazon's excellent customer service to resolve any problems.
Click to expand...

Not thought about that to be honest, maybe worth a look.

A mate of mine is considering similar options. I guess we could always order them and and send them back if they aren't suitable.
 
the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a bargain as a used lens with prices typically around the £500 mark.
these are still selling for around £1050 or so new!
 
what about the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 ?

Just a thought

Les :thumbs:
 
Lez325 said:
what about the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 ?

Just a thought

Les :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I had thought about an fx lens but worry it wouldn't be wide enough on my d7000. Maybe next year, with different financial situation, I'd be in a position to go fx and that would likely be my first lens choice, but until then I have to stick with the bodies I have :-(
 
i know it seems the done thing to go FX but for most people who do it's not really necessary.
to get the most benefit from the larger sensor you'll need to throw some serious coin at your lens collection & your bag will get heavy. Bloody heavy :bonk:
 
Tirpitz said:
i know it seems the done thing to go FX but for most people who do it's not really necessary.
to get the most benefit from the larger sensor you'll need to throw some serious coin at your lens collection & your bag will get heavy. Bloody heavy :bonk:
Click to expand...

I kind of realise its the old saying of you get what you pay for. If I had the cash now I'd have bought a d600 and the nikon 24-70. I don't have it right now so opted for a bargain d7000. Still need lenses tho and as much as I would love the nikon 17-55, I can't justify paying new prices for something which will end up as either a backup or not used/sold
 
:plusone: for the tokina 11-16 (link in siggy)

As to the zoom - which ever you can afford. Perhaps see whether you could loan the lenses to test them, then buy the one that you feel is better?

Alternatively, look for a second body (d300 for 400ukp ish?) and then swap between bodies, a lens on each?

A friend used a tamron 17-55 I think and said it was really crisp.

good hunting!
 
ecniv said:
:plusone: for the tokina 11-16 (link in siggy)

As to the zoom - which ever you can afford. Perhaps see whether you could loan the lenses to test them, then buy the one that you feel is better?

Alternatively, look for a second body (d300 for 400ukp ish?) and then swap between bodies, a lens on each?

A friend used a tamron 17-55 I think and said it was really crisp.

good hunting!
Click to expand...

I'm tempted by the tokina, I do worry if miss the reach of the alternatives which go out to 20-24 etc. I guess if I have a 17-5x that would cover the gap anyway.

Going to look at the tamron and sigma zooms later this week. I think the tamron would get the vote but worry about the motor noise etc.
 
The Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G is a brilliant lens but it's expensive even second hand. If you're only ever going to use it on a crop body then the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G looks like much better value.
 
I've been having similar thoughts on my lens choice.
I have the 35, 50 and 11-16 Tokina (which is excellent).

I ordered and have now received the Nikon 24mm f2.8 D partly as I wanted a more "normal" lens but also I am a big prime fan, particularly with a Paris trip coming up next week and a further holiday later in the year,

However I'm swithering that I could be better with a zoom which might actually be lighter.

The Sigma 17-50 is very good and probably what I'd want to go for however the 16-85 also looks very good if not a fixed fast 2.8 aperture.

17-55 again seems to be the best regarded DX zoom on the D7000 but I ruled it out due to its weight and size, I may well just keep the 24mm but I do fear missing shots due to swapping prime lenses.
 
munkee said:
The Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G is a brilliant lens but it's expensive even second hand. If you're only ever going to use it on a crop body then the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G looks like much better value.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I had considered the 24-70 now as an investment until I can go full frame but worry it would be too narrow on a crop. The 17-55 would be lovely if I can find a good second hand example, can't justify new as it could be redundant next year.
 
chrism_scotland said:
I've been having similar thoughts on my lens choice.
I have the 35, 50 and 11-16 Tokina (which is excellent).

I ordered and have now received the Nikon 24mm f2.8 D partly as I wanted a more "normal" lens but also I am a big prime fan, particularly with a Paris trip coming up next week and a further holiday later in the year,

However I'm swithering that I could be better with a zoom which might actually be lighter.

The Sigma 17-50 is very good and probably what I'd want to go for however the 16-85 also looks very good if not a fixed fast 2.8 aperture.

17-55 again seems to be the best regarded DX zoom on the D7000 but I ruled it out due to its weight and size, I may well just keep the 24mm but I do fear missing shots due to swapping prime lenses.
Click to expand...

I've heard good things about the 16-85, but definately want the low light performance the 2.8 should bring. The reason I want a zoom and not primes is I will use it to take shots of fast moving objects (my son lol) and hard to compose any kind of shot with a fixed focal length.
 
reality bites said:
I agree with you. I had considered the 24-70 now as an investment until I can go full frame but worry it would be too narrow on a crop. The 17-55 would be lovely if I can find a good second hand example, can't justify new as it could be redundant next year.
Click to expand...

My kind of thinking. I took the plunge and bought the 24-70mm though. 24mm is roughly equivalent to 35mm on my D7000, which I've found to be wide enough to photograph people and even groups of people indoors. If I was photographing interiors then I'd probably look to go wider.
 
munkee said:
My kind of thinking. I took the plunge and bought the 24-70mm though. 24mm is roughly equivalent to 35mm on my D7000, which I've found to be wide enough to photograph people and even groups of people indoors. If I was photographing interiors then I'd probably look to go wider.
Click to expand...

I may just try my current kit lens at 24mm indoors and see how i get on. I could compliment the 24-70 with a 10-24 to cover the range.
 
i can't comment on the Sigma mid range zooms as i've not used one but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 i had was/is pretty good (well the second one is, the first one went back:gag:) but for me the main thing thaty sets the Nikon 17-55 in a class of its own is the near instant focus speed. :thumbs:
after using one of the fast focussing Pro zooms you other lenses will seem very lethargic :razz:
 
Tirpitz said:
i can't comment on the Sigma mid range zooms as i've not used one but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 i had was/is pretty good (well the second one is, the first one went back:gag:) but for me the main thing thaty sets the Nikon 17-55 in a class of its own is the near instant focus speed. :thumbs:
after using one of the fast focussing Pro zooms you other lenses will seem very lethargic :razz:
Click to expand...

Do you think the nikon misses the VR of the other lenses or doesn't it need it?
 
i have the non stabilised version of the Tamron so that would be a hard question to answer.......:thinking:
tbh i don't think VR (or similar) is a dealbreaker for a mid range zoom :shrug:

fast focus, constant f/2.8, decent sharpness contrast & saturation plus a sealed/solid build quality are more of a decider to my mind :thumbs:
 
Been looking at this myself,
I have a Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5
A 50mm f1.8 g af-s
A 70-300 tamron vc usd

Looking for a top range wide angle and maybe the sigma 150-500 or 120-400 to replace, but then I always come back to the "do I really need them"
 
Tirpitz said:
i have the non stabilised version of the Tamron so that would be a hard question to answer.......:thinking:
tbh i don't think VR (or similar) is a dealbreaker for a mid range zoom :shrug:

fast focus, constant f/2.8, decent sharpness contrast & saturation plus a sealed/solid build quality are more of a decider to my mind :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That was kinda my train of thought too......I thought it was useful on telephotos (well, longer than 50mm)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top