Lens advice needed

I'm going to say a brief and possibly unpopular word in defence of Gear Acquisition Syndrome. The photographer is the most important part of getting a good photograph, but everything contributes - how much depends on the shot. A novice at a wedding with a high-end camera will very likely take worse photos than an expert with a cheap compact (I say "likely" in part because luck is also a factor) - but the pro would likely do better still given better equipment. Take an image of a static subject with a decent amount of light and a balanced amount of dynamic range, requiring a moderate amount of depth of field and putting the result on screen, and almost any camera will cope well. Indeed, almost any recent camera will handle a large range of subjects very well indeed - there aren't really bad cameras and few bad lenses any more. There are a small number of shots for which the kit can make a significant difference, and if you're lucky enough to be able to afford it, there's something to be said for taking the equipment out of the equation as much as you feel willing to do. Sometimes the result is inspirational and can help your skills, sometimes retail therapy isn't the worst crime. 99% of the time I've been by far the most limiting factor in my photos for some years; I could have had a lot more money if I made that 95% of the time instead, but I made my choice. Even the best kit still has limits, and it's annoying to get the photographer's part (fairly) right for once only to have the kit get in the way.

 

I'm lucky enough to have some quite expensive kit partly because I don't want to spend my time thinking "this was good... but should I have spent a little more?" Many years back Thom Hogan did an article on buying tripods in which he promised to save you $700 on buying a tripod by telling you just to buy a $1000 tripod, rather than buying lots of cheaper tripods before eventually deciding that you needed the $1000 one anyway. There's the old argument that rich people stay rich because they only ever buy the best stuff once (also it lasts). Currently my personal biggest concern with this is the 200-500mm - it's very good, but probably not quite as good as either the 60-600mm Sigma or the 500mm PF prime, both of which are somewhat more expensive. When/if I eventually get one of those, I'll be out of pocket for the 200-500 (or at least the difference between what it cost me and however much I can get for it). Meanwhile, of course, I have some shots with the 200-500 that I wouldn't have taken at all if I was waiting to save up, so there's also an argument for "never look back".

 

In other words, if it makes you happy to buy camera gear, don't let anyone tell you not to. It almost definitely won't be the best way to improve your photography, but it probably won't make it worse. What's more relevant is deciding the best place to put your money - it's easy to throw money at an expensive lens (like a 70-200, which is perfectly decent and an aspirational lens to own, but won't help you much with birds or family photos) and find afterwards that it didn't solve as many of your problems as if you'd put the same money elsewhere. First find something you want to shoot that you can't with your current kit (or which it handles badly), then go shopping.

 

As others have pointed out, at least a 16MP sensor will be sometimes limiting the image quality more than the lens aberrations. This means you may not see the difference between an old 80-200 f/2.8 and the latest 70-200mm FL anything like as clearly as someone with more pixels to play with. That's a good thing for your sanity, but plan ahead. The big one is whether you ever expect to go to a full-frame sensor - buying only DX lenses will save you money, but limit you if you do that. By that time, you may be looking at mirrorless and a new mount anyway, of course. Video is typically even more forgiving - I still have an old 28-80mm zoom that I've used for video on my D810, because it's not bad, and HD video is 2MP - it won't show most of the quality issues. Video is one of the better arguments for a superzoom - it's much harder to do a good job of zooming an image in post-processing with any semblance of quality. Sometimes image quality isn't what matters anyway; I'm considering a 24-85 VR so I have a better lightweight lens to carry around, but I don't expect it to outperform the Tamron 24-70 I already own. The best camera is the one that's with you, and all that.

 

Specifically picking on the 24-120 f/4, I saw it appeared on Thom Hogan's "lenses I've fallen out of love with" list. I mention that because I came to the same conclusion. Even on FX, it's surprisingly big and heavy to carry around, and optically... "okay". It's still much better for image quality than the publicly panned 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 which came before it, but it's also appreciably chubbier. I found I'd usually carry my Tamron 24-70 instead, so I got rid of my 24-120. The other thing about it is that, as a stand-alone lens, the 24-120 f/4 is remarkably expensive - more so than, say, getting a Sony RX100 VI to carry around as a travel camera, and the Sony fits in a pocket (with a phone...) It's often bundled with cameras, and when people break up the kit you may find one for a more reasonable amount of money, but to my mind it's not much lens for the money. On a D7000 I'd find the 24mm end limiting and it very big for the camera - but that's my personal preference, and if it personally works for anyone else, I'm not going to claim I know best. Just... caveat emptor. Like I said, I'm considering the 24-85 as an FX lens where I was hoping the 24-120 would work for me, but that's for my set of requirements. :-)

You must not have a 35mm DX lens (50mm for FX). There is a reason they sell quite well, they are fairly low cost and have quite good optics - but mainly because many "experts", "pros", teachers and dealers say that is where any serious photographer should start. There is also a reason for the large second hand market for those lenses, a lot of people end up never using them. I have a 50mm for my D850. It is the cheapest lens I have ever bought new, but considering lens cost per photo taken with it, it is the most expensive lens I have ever owned. (Even my very expensive super telephoto lenses come in at a much lower cost per photo taken.) So do not get a 35mm DX lens just because others say you must have one. Like any other lens, only get one if you have the specific need for it.

 

The Nikon 18-200 lens was well regarded and loved back in the day of <10 Mpix DX cameras. When the D7100 and its 24 Mpix sensor arrived, many people began to notice that the lens really was not optimized for those high resolution cameras. The same has been said about the 10/12-24 mm Nikkors. The D7000 is 16 Mpix and when I had it, I really loved using the 10-24mm lens on it, thus you might very well be happy with the 18-200 as well for travel. If anything, a wide-angle would add more opportunities to take photos otherwise not possible than a 35 mm lens would.

 

The Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR could serve as a do-nearly-all-lens, but like Andrew wrote above, it is a heavy lens that does not go wide on DX. As a DX lens, it makes no sense compared to the smaller, cheaper and sharper 18-140 VR DX lens. I also have the 24-120mm lens, and it does see some use, but I prefer using the 16-35+70-200 combo most of the time when I travel.

 

Since it seems you look at the 70-200mm lenses, why not have a serious look at the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR? It is smaller, lighter, optically better than the first two versions of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. The 70-200mm 2.8E FL VR is another beast, but it does require the specific need for f/2.8 and a willingness to pay for it.

 

If you, in the future, desire to take up bird photography, I would advice against the 70-200/300mm zooms for that purpose. Get a Nikon 200-500mm zoom, a Tamron G2 or Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife, once you decide to cross that bridge. For birds, you will almost always be focal length challenged and 300mm is just too short.

"Nifty fifties" (and their DX equivalent, 35mm)... I have to agree. I don't really like normal lenses - I usually prefer either wide or at least telephoto length, to provide a slightly more interesting perspective, but YMMV. Historically they're easy and cheap to make, and up until the latest Z-mount versions, I've considered every Nikon version to be not worth the money (okay, I've not used a noct-Nikkor). I have a 50mm f/1.8 series E (only because it's tiny), the f/1.8 AF-D (bought very early, and it is small), and the f/1.8 AF-S (because it's better than the AF-D at moderate apertures, and fairly small). The f/1.4 versions are twice the money for also not very good (for me) performance - particularly LoCA. The bokeh on the AF-D is ugly, too. They're all okay stopped down to f/5.6... but so are a lot of zooms. I carried the AF-D in my "travel pack" essentially in case I got stuck somewhere in the dark, where I might prefer a soft image over a noisy one or ugly bokeh over a more visible background; I rarely bother now. I overstate things a bit, but still, they're not my choice. I did get the Sigma Art 50mm (and 35mm), which were... somewhat better. Even then, I shot at f/2 or below if I could. I now have the 40mm Sigma, which is better still and usable at f/1.4... but it's huge (I keep confusing it with the 85mm) and expensive. Cartier-Bresson did shoot with a 50mm lens a lot, but the joke is that Leica lenses are so expensive he couldn't afford anything else. I suspect there are even more unused 50mm lenses out there than the used market would suggest, because they're worth so little that people don't bother to get rid of them - at least, that's an argument I've used.

 

50mm primes have their use, but I think that use is less now that zooms have improved, VR deals with a lot of the light gathering, and your image is no longer swamped in grain the moment you go past ISO 400. These days a 50mm is a passable portrait lens (in the "lose the background" sense) on DX, but a bit shorter than ideal. The 35mm DX is probably less bad, although it has plenty of LoCA, but it also loses the background less than a 50mm. If you're after a 50mm for DX, I vaguely point out to people that the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma HSM pre-Art isn't bad for the money - the corners are mush on full frame, but within the DX sensor it holds up. It's no Art, but personally I'd take it over the Nikkor equivalent if I wanted a DX option.

 

The 70-200 f/4 is an oddball. It's certainly not as sharp as the latest FL, but it's much cheaper (and lighter). The f/4 lens doesn't seem to be available any more in a lot of places - I'm not aware of it being discontinued, so this surprised me. Perhaps the biggest argument against it is that you can get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 for the same money, and that's a very good lens.

Here's my thought on your lens concern:

Based upon my own experience, I would start by using what you have. If you are regularly using the 18-200 at its maximum focal length (or any particular focal length for that matter), or noticing that it just takes up room in your bag, or regularly wishing that its maximum aperture was 2.8, or lighter, or smaller, or faster focusing, etc., etc, then your experience should lead you to a decision about it. Do you keep it and enjoy the opportunity that it offers when those few occasions demonstrate needing its features or is it a consistent limiting factor in what you wish to achieve as a photographer? In short, the best answer to your concern is to let your ongoing experience lead you to the tools you need to fulfill your vision. The "keep, replace, upgrade" question should then be easier to answer and the answer will be one that fits you.

Get a Nikon 200-500mm zoom, a Tamron G2 or Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife

Just go straight for the weighty (2700gm!!) Sigma 60-600mm.

 

As a x10 zoom, it's astonishing what it can achieve. Also, unlike other something to 5/600mm, it's actually optimised for the long end.... and that's pretty much where birding lives. Long end at 6.3 (wide open) it's way sharper than the Nikon 200-500mm at 500mm @5.6. For some daft reason I still own both...:D

 

It will also get you to 1:3.3 at 200mm for bugs.

 

It's AF isn't lightning fast, but you can adjust that with the Sigma Dock..... and of course AF fine Tune at various focal lengths.

 

If weight is an issue, give it a try first. It balances OK on a D850, especially if it's gripped... but the total package weight is getting pretty heavy by then.

Just go straight for the weighty (2700gm!!) Sigma 60-600mm.

 

To an extent, yes (for birding, if you don't suddenly find you can afford a 500mm PF or an 800 f/5.6...) On the other hand, despite my assertion that you should buy what makes you happy, we might be getting ahead of ourselves for someone who's just acquired a D7000 and a couple of smallish zooms. The Sigma 60-600 is a (checks...) $1760 lens. Perhaps work up to it. :-)

 

On the topic of slightly pricey Sigmas (no, I'm not going to bring up the 200-500 f/2.8...) I guess I should have mentioned the 18-35mm f/1.8, which by all accounts is very good, so long as you don't mind it ending a bit shy of the traditional range. Possibly an alternative to the 17-50 and idea of a 35mm prime, anyway. Choices choices.

Here's my thought on your lens concern:

Based upon my own experience, I would start by using what you have. If you are regularly using the 18-200 at its maximum focal length (or any particular focal length for that matter), or noticing that it just takes up room in your bag, or regularly wishing that its maximum aperture was 2.8, or lighter, or smaller, or faster focusing, etc., etc, then your experience should lead you to a decision about it. Do you keep it and enjoy the opportunity that it offers when those few occasions demonstrate needing its features or is it a consistent limiting factor in what you wish to achieve as a photographer? In short, the best answer to your concern is to let your ongoing experience lead you to the tools you need to fulfill your vision. The "keep, replace, upgrade" question should then be easier to answer and the answer will be one that fits you.

 

For my most everyday photography I am happy with the Sig 17-50 F2.8. Awsome lens. From past experience I found that when I was using any zoom lens at or near its longest zoom, I found that I was running out of light. Had to bump up the ISO to compensate or increase the shutter speed. This would either end with grainy photo or out of focus subject. Keep in mind I am talking birds or any subject that was moving. In the past when I was using my dads rig (Canon) Few times I borrowed his 70-200 F2.8 IS lens and I had great results while photographing rally cars or animals at the zoo etc. I found that 70-200 zoom was more then enough for me in most cases. Unless I was only photographing birds, I have no justification to invest in a good 500/600 zoom or prime lens. My purpose of this exercise is to get a lens that does not overlap with my 17-50. Hence I thought 70-200 F2.8 would be near perfect. I only have to carry one spare lens with me when I travel. I have seen few good second hand examples on Ebay, however still wee bit out of my price range. I am happy to put up with the 18-200 when I need to use the 200 zoom, until I have enough coin to buy the 70-200. I have used few of them in the past and was very happy with their performance. (I do have to admit that they were used with D70s) So I do know that with D7000 and extra pixels, the results my be little bit different

Edited May 15, 2020 by William Michael

My purpose of this exercise is to get a lens that does not overlap with my 17-50. Hence I thought 70-200 F2.8 would be near perfect.

 

I think that if you have come to this as your main premise, then, keeping in mind your experience of running out of Shutter Speed with Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lenses, just wait and get what you want: the real world of what you'll miss not having between FL = 51mm to 69mm, is not very much at all for most Photography, especially on a DX body.

 

Having two F/2.8 Zooms is a quite a powerful Lens Cache. And, those two lenses leave the door open for a third UWA Zoom, if you see the need for that, later.

 

WW

Sounds like you are well on the way to identifying a 70-200 2.8 as the lens that will fulfill your need.

: the real world of what you'll miss not having between FL = 51mm to 69mm, is not very much at all for most Photography, especially on a DX body.

 

 

 

WW

 

Exactly my thoughs

Wildlife (especially birds or distant others) is certainly the biggest justification for a very long lens; there are sports shooters who would argue for the need for a 400 f/2.8 to frame someone on the far side of a football field, and I've used a 500mm to frame a tennis player from the far side of the court, but a 70-200 will certainly get you a lot of shots, which is why it's one of the traditional "big three" f/2.8 pro lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) - especially since you'll have a bit more leeway for cropping with the extra pixels of a D7000 over a D70. If you find yourself wanting to split the difference, there is such a thing as a 120-300mm f/2.8 (Sigma make a very expensive one, and Nikon's is way more expensive than even that) - but then you'd have a larger gap back to the 17-50mm.

 

I wouldn't be too scared of increasing the ISO on the D7000 - with moderation. It was one of the first sensors that was fairly "ISO-less", in that increasing ISO had roughly the same effect as shooting raw files at low ISO and then adjusting the exposure on a computer afterwards - so there absolutely is a benefit in keeping the ISO low if you like shadow detail. However, it should also give usable images at much higher ISO than the D70s - the D7000 nearly matches the D70s ISO200 rendition when the D7000 is at ISO 800 or 1600, depending on your metric. f/2.8 is better, but f/5.6 isn't the "bright sunlight only" choice it once was. I mention it just because a decent 70-300mm (the FX 70-300 AF-P VR) will set you back half as much as a good 70-200 f/2.8 like the Tamron G2, and a quarter as much as the Nikkor 70-200 FL. But you won't get the subject isolation or bright viewfinder at 200mm which the 70-200 would get you, obviously; the 70-200 is a staple of wedding and press shooters for a reason. (It's also bigger!)

 

B&H's site offers me 14 kinds of 70-300mm for the Nikon mount. A few of those are open box ones, but even so... wow.

 

Anyway, whether you go the 70-300 or 70-200 route, best of luck with it. If birding isn't a concern, these should suit you well. Fortunately there aren't many terrible lenses any more, although the truly exceptional ones still carry a premium. :-)

identifying a 70-200 2.8

If that's the case I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending the Sigma S 70-200mm 2.8 OS. It is much better than the Nikon VR and VRII, and gives the FL a run for it's money at half the price.

 

However, there are some grey options that are closer to 'only' 50% more...:D

 

I got my Sigma S over the new year for £865, I see it's closer to £1000 now. The best FL I could find here in the UK was £1400

Over the weekend I had a chance to play with friends Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Sport. I was so impressed with this lens, how it handles, sharpness etc, that I went out to my local photo gear shop and purchased one for my self. It was actually on special, and at less then half what they were asking for the Nikon equivalent. I will be probably listing the 18-200 VR ii on my local marketplace site, and now pretty much have the dream kit of two F2.8 zooms that should cover all my needs nicely

There you go. It was meant to be. Fantastic.

There you go. It was meant to be. Fantastic.

 

There is a big BUT however. This thing is built like a brick sht house and heavy as hell. So will need to invest in either a good quality HD tripod or a monopod. Don't think my arms are strong enough to hold this thing up all day long. :)

Don't think my arms are strong enough to hold this thing up all day long

No idea of your physical capabilities, however one observation I have made over 40+ years of Photography and my share of Field Sports, covering Field Hockey into my late fifties and still shooting National Level Swimming now: -

 

(you mentioned car rallies and "to hold this thing up all day long" implies action type shooting) -

 

Many people who are shooting sport, or similar action shooting, perch the camera and lens in the "ready position" for long periods of time, unnecessarily and they carry wrongly when running the sideline, too.

 

Vary your carry, holding with your right hand, bring the rig up onto your right shoulder and let the shoulder take the weight, from that position it gives you a clear view of the field/action with both eyes allowing you to follow the action and anticipate the shot and it is very quick to drop the camera/lens into the palm of the left hand into the ready position: also this method is a drop, using gravity, which is very quick to the ready position, much quicker and easier than lifting the rig.

 

A monopod is a very good friend if you need to be mobile. Think very carefully about buying any head for the monopod if the purpose is sport or action shooting, fix the monopod onto the Lens's Tripod ring is the trick for 99% of Sports-style shooting.

 

BIF and Birds from Hides are a different kettle of kippers.

 

If you task is to carry the camera and lens for 'holiday' - then look at what harnesses or slings are available to, as equally as possible, weight the carry on both shoulders.

 

WW

Edited May 20, 2020 by William Michael

Typical Monopod / Lens attachment for Sports Shooting -

 

 

 

WW

This thing is built like a brick sht house and heavy as hell. So will need to invest in either a good quality HD tripod or a monopod. Don't think my arms are strong enough to hold this thing up all day long. :)

 

I know what you mean about heavy. I was finding it a chore to carry my D750 with Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 around all day until I purchased a Cotton Carrier harness. It gets the weight off your arms or neck and distributes it on you shoulders. I have no problem walking for several hours with the D750 70-200 combination. And the camera can be moved into action quickly; a quick twist and you are ready to shoot..

 

LINK CCS G3 Grey Harness-1

 

They are having a 25% off sale right now, and if you miss it, just get on the mailing list and wait for the next one.

Keep your 18-200, those big lens are fantastic for specific jobs, but for casual shooting they are way too heavy.

Unfortunately there isn't one size fit all solution in photography, it is always compromise. Best camera and lens are those one you have with you, if you left them at home, sharpness of you lens doesn't matter:)

This thing is built like a brick sht house and heavy as hell

It's takes 82mm filters too.

 

However, 82 is the new 77 when it comes to filters....:D

Or 86mm for the Sigma 85mm...

 

I have one expensive 82mm filter (Hoya variable density) that gets used on my Tamron 24-70 - a size that admittedly Nikon have gone to as well for the 24-70 line. I have an IDAS D1 LPR filter (more useful for astronomy before my council changed from sodium lighting to LEDs) in 77mm, which fits the 300mm f/4 and my 70-200; I had a plan to use it on my 24-120 and Sigma 50mm as well; unfortunately having traded the 24-120 and swapped the 50mm for a 40mm (with an 82mm thread) I'm a bit more restricted for meteor showers. I also have a stronger LPS V4 nebula filter which I carefully bought a 200/4 AI for, since you can't get it in larger than a 52mm filter - and then remembered that my 200/2 has 52mm rear drop-in filters; I've yet to give that a try... I'm still hopeful that someone will eventually sell an inverse bullseye apodising filter in a sensible size that I can afford, but they don't seem to be common yet.

 

(Aside: Nikon UK's web site has a series of recommended categories for lenses, and I notice the 200/2 isn't in any of them. It's not actually listed as discontinued yet, though.)

 

Filters are annoying. I also have more than one budget polariser for a 62mm filter thread, which I think nothing I've owned uses except the 28-200mm which I no longer have. These days I mostly look out for very large filter sizes on primes in the hope that it's an indication that there'll be less mechanical vignetting - like the Sigma 105mm f/1.4, which is free of cats' eyes by f/2 (and is the main hesitation I have about the Nikkor).

 

You'll probably get used to carrying a 70-200. I felt it when I'd not carried my camera for a while, and it's certainly not like carrying an RX100, but it's not ridiculously heavy (compared with, say, a 120-300), and we should all be getting some exercise in the current climate - just don't try to mount a 70-200 and then hang the camera around your neck. I find I just trip over monopods, and by the time I've carried them around as well it's more effort than just carrying the lens - but it depends whether you tend to walk for a bit and then stick in one place. They do double as walking sticks though!

 

I'm rambling, and not in the way that results in wildlife photos, so I'm going to shut up. But enjoy the toy!

Or 86mm for the Sigma 85mm...

Yup, that's the reason, well one of them at-least, that made me skip the 85mm ART and go to the 135mm ART.

 

I have no 85mm filters and frankly can't justify the cost when the ones I use are hundreds of £s each... I've got all I need in 82mm.

 

just don't try to mount a 70-200 and then hang the camera around your neck

When I'm out photographing jumping horses, I've been known to use a fairly substantial shooting stick to rest the camera+lens on between horses.

 

I have to go from landscape to portrait on the fly and a monopod would prove fatal/lethal. The rotating collar just wouldn't cope quickly enough. Smooth yes, quick... no!

My 70-200 spends a moderate amount of its time hung upside down from its foot as a handle. Or sometimes the right way up - I often point the foot to the direction of the prism, because then my hand is relatively unimpeded for supporting the lens but it still works as a handle. Tiddlywinks involves too much jumping to one side when someone rotates their shooting position and someone walks in the way - I'll sit on the far side of a room, but I need to leap up sometimes, and either I or someone else would trip over a monopod. I'm not normally static enough to justify the weight when I'm out walking/wildlifing, and if I'm near a car I can just use a tripod. But I appreciate monopods have their uses, I just tend not to hit them...

I used the heck out of my 18-200 on the D200, D300, and D7100. Don't ask what I paid for it after being on the waiting list for it. It was a very good one. No zoom creep even.

 

Went to FF and sold it to help fund the new FX 70-300 which is the only lens I ever bought new since the 18-200. If I was a DX shooter I'd never sell my 18-200. They don't bring much money at all these days. It has almost as much bad press as the 24-120 which are also very affordable now used.