Which lenses should I buy?

<p>Hello I am new here. I have a Nikon D7000 and wanted to ask some questions regarding which lenses to buy.</p>

<p>First of all should I buy the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR lens or can I buy something better for this price?</p>

<p>Second is I right now cannot buy the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 so should I buy the Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO ? Or just stick to Nikon and buy the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF ED VR as I cannot buy the Nikon 70-200mm now.</p>

<p>Third which prime lens to buy? The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G or Nikon 50mm f/1.8G or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF ?</p>

<p>Please help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Aman,</p>

<p>I have the 70-300 you listed, and it's a fine lens. It has it's pros and cons. Not being to familiar with the Tamron 70-200, I'll hazard a guess that the Nikon is a bit lighter. It is also stabilized. But, I am guessing that the 70-200 may be better optically.</p>

<p>As for primes, I highly recommend the 35mm f1.8 DX from Nikon. It has been nothing but the best on my D7000 and D200.</p>

<p>Might I ask what you will be shooting?</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd buy only the camera and the 16-85 zoom. Shoot with that for a while, and then buy the next lens based on what you feel like you're really missing.</p>

<p>The 70-300 VR would probably be great for general photography on there, I MIGHT get both the 16-85 and the 70-300 VR, but I generally would get one lens at a time.</p>

<p>guess I'm pretty frugal if I'm not sure what I want...</p>

<p>I would use the kit lens 18-55 VR and, say, get the 35mm f1.8 for low light/indoor until I know exactly what I want/need.</p>

<p>Perhaps you can share what you intend to photograph with each lens...</p>

<p>Buy only the lenses you need for shots which can't be fulfilled with your present lenses. At least until you have explored and understand the capabilities of your present gear.</p>

What do you want to shoot? How much do you want to spend? Do you care how much it weighs? And do you

currently have any lenses?

<p>i agree with "one lens at a time". unless you really need the long range NOW. The 35mm f/1.8 doesn't cost much. you can get that with your mid-zoom. doesn't occupy much space also.</p>

Amanda.

 

The 16-85 is an outstanding lens for it's price. It is a bet slow but that is it's only real problem. It also gives great

results with it's VR 2 system. I also have the Nikon 50mm. 1.4 D and I love it to death. It is the sharpest lens I own.

Those two can cover a lot of range for you and cover it well. The D version of the 50 is also cheaper than the G.

 

I use both these lenses on a d7000 and d300.

 

-Owen

<p>It's really going to depend totally on what you photo. As for 50mm, I strongly suggest either the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or the Sigma 50mm f1.4. Are you going to be photo'ing in low light a lot? I would skip the older Nikon D lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>for the money, out of the lenses you mention, i would get the tamron 70-200 with the caveat you're not gonna get too many action shots with that. add a 35/1.8, and a 10-24, 12-24, or 18-35 down the line and you've got a versatile amateur kit.</p>

<p>Looks like you have some clear ideas. If you`re asking me,</p>

<ol>

<li>The 16-85 looks the right lens for me; also the 17-55/2.8. If you don`t want f2.8, your choice is fine.</li>

<li>About the telezoom, I`d buy the smallest one, between the Tamron f2.8 and the 70-300 Nikkor. The 70-200 Nikkor is a huge lens, most of the times I leave it on the closet for that size&weight reason.</li>

<li>The prime? I`d wait. Start using the lenses above and evaluate which focal lenght you use most. If you find the standard zoom too big, go for a 35/1.8AFS. If you want anything for shallow DoF portraits or details, there are fast 50s and 60 micros that will do the work. If you`re for tighter studio portraits, the 85s could be the choice. Wait.</li>

</ol>

<p>Do you already own any lens?<br>

If you have the 18-105VR kitlens, for example, I would skip getting a 16-85VR for now (it's better, but not enough better to warrant its price). If you only have the body, yes, then that lens is a very good start.</p>

<p>For the other lenses you mention, it totally depends on what you want them to do. Plenty good advice already given for that.</p>

<p>why have you limited yourself to only one prime lens. i always recommend primes over zooms, they are superior in almost every way.</p>

<p>I used to have a Nikon P90 and then I bought a Nikon D3000 with the 18-55mm lens & 55-200mm VR used it for a while and now have got the Nikon D7000.<br>

I don't like to take picture of only certain things but vast variety of things from pictures of birds to macro shots of flowers etc to portraits to landscape & even some low light shooting. So it's a bit complicated as to which type of lenses to buy!:)</p>

<p>I was also thinking whether to get the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM or Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) instead of Nikon 16-85mm lens. </p>

 

<h1 ></h1>

<h1 ></h1>

<p>Do you still have the 18-55 and 55-200? They're not that bad lenses at all.<br>

Check your own photos of the D3000, and based on the those:</p>

<ul>

<li>With the 18-55, were you limited by its aperture? In other words: would having f/2.8 benefit you frequently?</li>

<li>Or, using the 18-55, did you feel its zoom range was limiting you, and had to switch lenses too often? In which case, the 16-85 may make more sense. Maybe with the addition of a 35 f/1.8 for low light.</li>

<li>Same questions apply for the 55-200VR; do you feel you need f/2.8 there (at the cost of range, weight and lots of money) or maybe need the extra reach more (in which case a 70-300VR makes more sense).</li>

</ul>

<p>Basically, your own photos, and the limits you may have encountered, already contain the answers to which lenses make the most sense. The main thing to keep in mind is that a wide zoom range and f/2.8 together does not exist, so that's the main trade-off to make.</p>

Okay, that's something to work with. You've got general purpose everyday shooting covered, so is the fast lens for low

light? Have you considered a prime like the 35/1.8 DX or the new 50/1.8 AFS (both are really excellent)? If you have

serious macro needs, get a macro lens. But the last thing you want to do is buy a lens just for the purpose of having

another lens - consider carefully the shots you can't get with what you have now, and what sort of lens you'd want to

shoot them with.

<p>Realize that slow "kit" lenses will limit your shooting to mostly brightly lit scenes only (e.g., daylight). Plus, it's difficult to obtain subject isolation with slow lenses, since you can't employ a wide aperture to effect a shallow depth-of-field. Also, for shooting things like "birds," the ultra-pricey AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI/II is likely too short. Perhaps, think about the 80-400mm VR instead. Yes, also kinda slow, but excellent reach on a DX body. Also, keep shooting with your 18-55mm--that thing is darn-sharp for a $100 lens. For the prime, I would go for the 50mm f/1.4 (everyone should have at least <em>one</em> f/1.4 lens in their bag!). It's super-fast, and works like a short-tele on a DX body. Also, consider the 85mm f/1.8--it's a slightly longer short-tele that's great for head-and-shoulders shots.</p>