D7000 - lens help!

<p>Hello<br /><br />I am buying aNikon D7000 and am just overwhelmed with lens options....I just need some basic understanding for them<br />The two kits available with the body are 18-105 and 18-200 and someone said, 18-200, that'll be a crappy lens, why is that? Is it just because zoom lenses compromise quality of picture?<br /><br />My primary goal will be to do more people photography, street photography, some landscapes maybe, and I'd like to get lenses which are good for motion and low light too<br /><br />I don't have a very high budget and just want to understand also why some lenses are so much more expensive (like a 70-200 is more exp than an 18-200, why?)<br /><br />I've been told a 35 mm or 50 mm prime will be a good choice, and I think a 50 mm is good for portraits no? It shows the subject as is without zoom? While a 35,, would provide some zoom factor?<br>

And if I get the 18-105, why would I invest in another lens like the 16-85? Trying to understand as range overlaps no?<br>

<br /><br />Thanks for any help!!</p>

<p>Buy the body if you can I get the nikon 17-55 2.8 or 16-85 is nice lens prime are good too but buy nikon lens </p>

<p>It can be quite overwhelming. The 18-105 is a little sharper than the 18-200 in my experience. (why I grab my 18-105 sometimes and my 18-200 almost never) The more expensive lenses use larger glass elements (to essentially let more light in) and producing these with high quality optical performance gets expensive. If you're just starting out you might not want to spend a lot of money on all the gear. You can't go wrong with any of the lenses you've listed above. If you stick with the photography you're going to have lenses that overlap. Something must be said about the need for the appropriate lens for what kind of photography you want to do. Macro vs people vs landscapes vs sports are going to have different requirements. See what people recommend for the type of shots you want to get. Stick with the brand names and you really can't choose too poorly. </p>

<p>The 18-105 will be a good startup lens that should answer 90% of your needs. It's quite light, not too big, and produces decent image quality.<br>

The 16-85 is another great option but more expensive, it has the advantage of going wider without losing much on the high end of its range.<br>

For low light and portraits a cheap 50/1.8 will do the job. Add a 35/1.8 and you get a very versatile arsenal without spending a fortune. With a 1.8 maximum aperture these two lenses will allow you to shoot in the dark and to isolate subjects (out of focus, creamy background) when needed.</p>

<p>As to why lenses such as the 70-200 are more expensive, they are just faster (allow more light in when fully opened).<br>

Some recommended the 17-55/2.8, it's a great lens but probably overkill for your current needs. It can also be awkward to hold when mounted on a light body such as the D7000. The lens is big and heavy (and expensive).</p>

<p>Wow - Lot of questions...</p>

<p>1) the 18-200 is more of a hobbist / generalist lens in terms of price, design, and construction. Pricewise it is under $1,000 - compared to the $2,200 + of the 70-200 f2.8. Design wise - the 70-200 is huge compared to the 18-200...part of it is the larger glass elements to allow more light in. Construction wise - the 18-200 uses more plastic / composite materials whereas the 70-200 is almost all metal - built for abuse.<br>

2) on a d7000 the 50mm will give you the same field of view as a 75 mm lens on a 35mm camera - 50-105 mm is typically favored for portraits due to the lack of distortion and perspective. The 18-200 covers these ranges, but it generally is not considered a "portrait" lens in the classic sense<br>

3) 35mm would be right around 50mm field of view on a D7000 - which is good for portraits<br>

4) I personally would not get both the 16-85 and the 18-105. Both (if I remember correctly) are slower, variable f-stop lenses. I would overlap if one of my lenses was a 18-105 variable and the other was a 17-55 or 24-70 or 28-70 f2.8 fast lens.</p>

<p>As for the 18-200 being "soft" or crappy... Depends on which copy you get and who you talk to. I've met a lot of people who say the 18-200 is a piece of junk, but then i've met just as many who love that lens because it does cover a wide range... It really depends on your copy of the lens and what your expectations are going into it. Also, I believe that the VR 2 version is better.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I'd buy the body with the 18-105mm lens and add on a 35mm f1.8 lens. You'd have everything pretty much covered.</p>

<p>Keep in mind though, worrying about lenses isn't very useful. Any DSLR takes good pictures and all the kit lenses are decent enough. There are a lot of folks who worry far too much about having a "bad" lens, or an "obsolete camera", and that then limits how much photography they do. Don't be one of them. If you're on a budget the 18-105mm will give you great results. If you want a top-notch lens to start out with, get the 35mm. It's not a zoom so you won't be able to zoom in and out to frame your subject. You'll have to get closer or farther away.</p>

<p>I'm hoping a D7000 with the 18-105mm is under my Christmas tree in 29 days. I already have the 35mm lens and on my D3000 it's superb. If I didn't already have the lens I'd be hoping for the D7000 body plus that lens.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a great great lens...</p>

<p>...on 6MP cameras.</p>

<p>As soon as I upgraded to 12MP I saw where it really suffered.</p>

<p>I'd never buy a lens with a plastic mount, as it is a sign of other corners cut inside. I suspect that the Tamron or Sigma f2.8 zooms are the best deals out there. Then add a tele to taste...</p>

<p>35mm f1.8 DX, it is a beauty,... sharp and fast (my preferred choice for street ph and people)<br>

50mm f1.8 D or G ... for portrait<br>

16-85mm DX for landscapes, sharper than the kit lenses<br>

70-300mm VR f4.5 - f5.6 for landscapes and wildlife</p>

<p>The reason that the 18-200mm is "crappy" is because of physics. The more focal range that you're going to try to cram into a single lens, the more compromises that you're going to make. If Nikon were willing to make it $1,700 and large, then it would probably have the same or better image quality compared to other lenses, like the 18-105mm or 16-85mm. But, they decided to keep it cheaper and realistically-sized, so the optics took a hit. Just grab the 18-105mm lens to learn with, and be done with it.</p>

<p>However, if you are getting tripped up by these kind of choices, I'm going to go out on a limb and recommend that you consider stepping down in cameras. The D5100 is much cheaper for the same image quality, so you might as well save your money and learn on that camera. The D7000 has capabilities that you probably won't need for your first few years of your photographic journey, and by the time that you're ready to use them, it will be time to upgrade cameras anyway. Just as you wouldn't learn to drive on a Ferrari, don't go up the ladder too fast with cameras. And yes, grab yourself a 35mm f/1.8 lens as well, it's the beginner's gateway into professional image quality.</p>

<p>I have had a d7000 since it became available and have relied on the 16-85 zoom and 50mm 1.4 D AF for 75% of my work. I also have the 17-55 2.8 which I use when the camera is on a tripod.<br>

I have used the 18-105 and the copy I used was excellent. The 50 1.4D is one of the best deals you will ever get and is a wonderful portrait lens with exceptional bokeh. <br>

-Good luck</p>

<p>I suggest you try the 18-200mm yourself before you pass judgement. You may like it. I did. Others do. And many do not. A lot depends on what type of photography you do and what print sizes you will make. For general use, it is a good and convenient lens.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>I'd never buy a lens with a plastic mount, as it is a sign of other corners cut inside."</em> My 70-200mm f2.8 metal mount lens had two major failures during the 4 years I owned it. Although Nikon repaired the lens both times under warranty, the repairs would have been quite expensive each time. I personally would not discount a lens because of its mount.</p>

<p>If your budget for lenses is low, you might want to consider getting a D3200 or D5100 instead of a D7000, and put more money towards lenses. Lenses last you a long time, and in most cases are more of a deciding factor than they body in the final image.<br>

Given your questions, it seems your not very familiar yet with quite some aspects of photography; you may find a body like the D7000 overwhelming (it has a load of options), while the D5100 is more "accessible" for learning. The story that people "outgrow" these bodies quickly is, IMHO, complete rubbish for most people. Sure, they have some limits, but it takes quite some time to hit those.<br>

Second, I'd start looking around for a course in photography, or good books (Bryan Peterson, <em>Understanding Exposure</em> comes to mind). This will help you understand the vital settings on your camera, and help you understand what all those lens options are about too.</p>

<p>Last but not least, I'd get the 18-105VR and for now, nothing else. Use it a lot, and you will find out what other lenses might be useful for you and your style of photography. Without any prior experience, it's useless to say if you're best off with (for example) a 35mm or 50mm lens (both do not zoom, by the way, their zoomfactor is zero) - you have to find out for yourself by experience.</p>

<p>I say get the body only and add the Nikon 35 1.8DX lens use that for awhile till you get used to the camera and then get the best lens your budget will allow don't skimp on lenses and don't just jump on the 18-105 I owned one and sold it quickly.</p>

<p>Agree with Alan on the d7000 body + 35 1.8DX</p>

<p>I use a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-F4.0 OS macro zoom on my D7000. It focuses down to about 8 inches. I have a lot of lenses but that's the one I use the most.</p>

<p>If you want to do "street" photography, and if the "people" photography is of strangers you come across, the best camera for this is the Nikon D5100. I have one and like it. I fold out the LCD screen and hold the camera at my waist. This does two things. First, the camera is much more steady in this position so I get less blur. Second, it doesn't look like I'm pointing a camera right at someone. I attract a LOT less attention. The D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000, so image quality is the same. A Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS lens plus the D5100 would be a great combination. I too tend to spend less on the camera and more on the lens, as the lens is more important.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>I would suggest the 16-85mm VR with a 35mm f/1.8 prime for low light. In my opinion, this will give you the best versatility for what you are planning to do. I would also suggest the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikon pro-level DX lens, but that is $1400 new and about $900 for a good used one. If you want to go third party, you can go with a Tamron 17-50 (?) f/2.8 and an Nikon 85mm f/1.8. You have a lot of great options. The 18-105mm VR Nikon with a 50mm prime would be good also.</p>

<p>What I would suggest is testing the 18-200 against the 16-85 , the 18-105, and other lenses. You can pixel-peep if you want, but I say pay attention to the color detail and distortion. I had an 18-200, and after three months the lens creep got on my nerves so much that I traded it in for a 16-85. Once I started using the 16-85, I was blown away by the sharpness and color difference over the 18-200.</p>

<p>You don't need to buy only Nikon lenses, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all have very good choices. For my professional work, I use a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS, and Tokina 11-16 f2.8. As for plastic mounts, I've had the old 18-135 for a good five years that I use for snapshots, and once dropped it with my old D70s, right on the corner of the hood, the hood cracked, but the lens had no problem, still one of the sharpest lenses I've used. For portraits I try to stay around 70mm (105 equivalent), gives a flattering look to the subject. </p>

<p>I agree with that, Michael! When I dragged my father into the digital SLR age with a D80, it came with an 18-135mm lens, right about when it was released. After years of use, he still doesn't have any issues with it, and I've also had incredibly good luck with my 55-200mm VR. Peter claims that a plastic mount "is a sign of other corners cut inside," but the opposite is true. They skimped on the mount precisely so that they WOULDN'T have to cut corners inside, and put more of the cost towards things like the optics, focus motor, etc. Optically, the 18-55mm, 18-135mm, and 18-105mm are very respectable lenses. Heck, those plastic lenses all beat the metal-mount 18-200mm, a lens that I had to send back twice for warranty repairs. Being afraid of metal mounts, or made in China/Thailand bodies and lenses instead of made in Japan, etc. is all just being afraid of the big bad boogeyman. Get with the times and move on.</p>

<p>+1 for 35mm 1.8G for street photography or 50mm 1.8G for more portrait. You can always add more lenses later.<br>

Have fun. D7000 is a great camera.</p>

<p>If you are going to get only one lens, get the 16-85 over the 18-105. Not because it is sharper or better built. Get it because the extra two millimeters on the short end is what you will end up appreciating in the long run.</p>

<p>I used an 18-55 VR for four years on a D80 and always though I was missing out in terms of IQ compared to the 18-105. When I got the 18-105 with the D7000 I compared the two lenses and noticed that the corner sharpnes was noticeably lower on the 18-105. Close-up capabilities was also much worse on the 18-105. Yes, the 18-105's AF is quicker and it has longer reach. Lesson learned - do not frown upon the cheapest Nikkor lenses. Even if they are made in Thailand/PRC, have plastic mounts and the cheaper version of the AF-S motor.</p>

<p>Getting the 16-85 also means the 70-300 VR makes a lot of sense with little overlap later on.</p>

<p>There are NO perfect lenses. All lenses have short comings. I got my D- 5000 about 3yrs ago with an 18-55mm afs VR Nikon and 55-200 afs VR and enjoyed them every time used them, knowing full well that they were not the greatest lenses, but I was making great photos with them. Now I have a D-7000 and I wish I had bought it with the 18-105mm afs with VR. A very nice walk around lens. I have since acquired an 18-70mm afs but no VR. What ever zoom you get, get one with Vibration compensation or a similar stabilization. I do have lenses that I can use but a nice zoom from 18-to whatever will really be your walk around buddy. Start simple and grow with it. When you ask advice about cameras or lenses here you could get hundreds of opinions. Only you know what you will use and can afford. By the way there some really good deals on the D-5100 with kit lenses on the internet now. Great camera! <br>

Autofocus and VR or digital were not even a dream when I started with a manual camera and one 50mm lens. I will say one more thing, I recently cleaned my low pass filter over my sensor on my D-7000 because of dust and changing lenses. A good zoom lens will keep you from changing too often amd getting dust in your camera. </p>

<p>Hello! Thanks for all the opinions...my head is spinning a bit now...<br /><br />The D7000 kit with the 18-105 DX VR is $1200 vs with the 18-200 is $1500....is the extra 300 worth it?<br>

I can't afford th 16-85 right now, but could add a prime 50mm f 1.8 to the kit, its like a hundred bucks...i like my pictures a little tight so don't mind the mild zoom, and I'd get better bokeh or picture quality using it than using the 50mm on my zoom lens right?<br /><br />Thanks!</p>

<p>Foram, I won't repeat what all I've said in the new thread you opened (and that got closed) - but good lenses keep value, bodies don't. Consider freeing up money by stepping away from a D7000. Spending $1000 on a body, leaving only $500 for the rest is not a good split, in my view. And no need to spend the whole budget in one blow anyway. In the long run, you'll want a flash too, a decent tripod, a good bag... it all adds up.</p>

<p>Is the 18-200 worth the extra $300 over the 18-105? No. Should you already get a 50mm prime for bokeh reasons? No. Start shooting tons of photos before worrying about bokeh. One thing you'll find: picture quality comes from the content of a photo, not the gear used. Seriously: get started. Make photos. Learn. Learn what gear you need to fit your vision. Then buy that gear.</p>

<p>I`m in the very same opinion as Wouter. Don`t try to know the lenses you`ll need/want before shooting... a bit of experience is good. You may find that you prefer a different route, or to save for other items, or that the gear you already own is more than enough.</p>

<p>The 18-105 is a good kit lens, capable of high resolution marks. Sincerely, I`d just start and learn with it.</p>