D7000 lens kit

[nick_jackson2]

<p>hello all, a bit of advice needed please.<br>

I'd like to buy a decent but not top-end landscape and telephoto lens.<br>

After much time spent on forums I'm thinking of the following:<br>

Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR<br>

Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR</p>

<p>I was wondering if you would recommend this combination or something else?<br>

I've also read that that Tamon 70-300 is also excellent and would leave me with change to buy a prime -<br>

Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G DX? plus filters.<br>

<br /><br>

Help a newbie please :)<br /></p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Good choice.<br>

To me, the 16-85VR is an absolutely fine landscape lens, incredibly useful range and good performance.<br>

For the long lenses, if you can get a 35 f/1.8 plus the Tamron 70-300VC (note: you want the VC version! Other Tamron 70-300 lenses aren't that great), then I'd got for it. The 35 f/1.8 is very good value for money.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'd get those two Nikons then wait just a bit and save for the 35 if you decide you need it.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 16-85 is on the pricy side for a slow zoom, but as far as I know optical quality is fine. As long as you don't need that for indoor, low-light images, it is fine.</p>

<p>The 70-300 AF-S VR is a fine lens. I have checked that on a D7000; it is certainly not the best 300mm lens I have used, but it is quite decent. There are some concerns about its durability. I don't think it is a good idea to handle it roughly, but that is true for just about any lens.</p>

[nick_jackson2]

<p>Thank you all, am off to get the 70-300 Nikon now as they gave me a good offer to part x a VERY old Tamron 70-300 I had. Was very torn between that and the new Tamron though Wouter!<br>

Peter, taken your advice too and will be waiting a little while to get the 35 (if i need it)<br>

Lastly, Shun the 16-85 would be for street/landscape photography so hopefully the light will be ok. Seems like it's a tricky one to get hold of though. My local camera shop has a 4 week wait! Amazon it is :)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Consider Sigma's 17-70/2.8-4 Macro OS as an alternative to the Nikkor 16-85 - it has a lot of things going for it.</p>

[CvhKaar]

I also think this is a good choice, its almost my 3 lens holiday kit.. :-)

 

Fot this i have added a SIgma 8-16mm ( I know, not everybody's cup of thee, but it gives me a range from 8mm - 300mm in total, very versatile in small old villages. :- ) ) .

[Two23]

<p>For landscapes, I'd also highly recommend you immediately buy a polarizer filter, and eventually a decent tripod & head.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[chris_brandt1]

<p>I'm a prime lens fan but I still love the Nikon 70-300 VRII. I've heard good things about the 16-85 but I use primes and move my feet within that range. Sharper images in my book.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>That 35mm prime is a good one. Save the money for it by getting the Sigma 17-70 or just the D7000's kit lens instead of the Nikon 16-85. The 16-85 is far too expensive for a kit lens in a tougher package.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I use both the 16-85 and 70-300VR and have been very pleased with the combo. No, the 70-300 is not as sharp at 300mm as my 300/4 AF-S, but it's small size, wide zoom range and VR keep it in my day-to-day kit (along with the 10-24). I have the 35/1.8 and love it's small size, but I believe the 85/1.8 will be a better complement to my kit. The primary weakness for me with the two lens combo is no speed at the short telephoto focal length. I also like the fact that the 16-85, 70-300VR and 85/1.8 all take 67mm filters.</p>

[craig_andrew_yuill]

To the OP:

My wife bought me the set up

you listed, as an Xmas gift.

Both lenses are very good

consumer-grade lenses. The 16-

85 is very very good in the 16-

50mm range, and is good at the

long end. The 70-300 VR is

superb at the short end, and

sharper than I expected at the

long end, even wide open. If

you are careful with your

technique you should be able to

get very good photos when using

this pair of lenses. I haven't

used the specific Tamron or

Sigma lenses mentioned by

others so I have nothing to say

about them. I do, however,

sometimes use MF 24 f/2.5 and

300 f/2.8 Tamron lenses and get

very good shots with them on my

D7000.

[kitsuneya]

<p>Hi,<br>

Tamron 70-300 is quite nice and cheaper than Nikkor. I use Tamron 70-300. The picture quality is not different in both lenses. </p>

 

[peter_gaunt]

<p>I'd advise checking out the Tamron too (the more expensive VC version of the two 70-300mm which the company does). I did a lot of looking at reviews of that and the Nikon a few months ago and came to the conclusion that the Tamron might be a better lens as well as being a little cheaper than the Nikon. I bought the Tamron and haven't regretted it - it's a lovely lens.</p>

[Dana C Doherty]

<p>I am buying my first Nikon, a D7000, after many years of basic Canons, and find myself with the same questions. The answers have been a big help but one comment caught my attention....if the Nikon16-85mm is not so great in lower light situations, is there another lens which is letter while still providing a somewhat similar range? I am looking for a lens to use primarily for travel but I also get into architecture and want to be able to avoid flash. I'm not serious enough (yet) to haul multiple lens around the planet and am guessing that a prime for macro will be necessary. <br>

What suggestions do you far more experienced souls have to share?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon's 16-85mm DX AF-S VR is f5.6 on its long end; any lens which is so slow in the mid zoom range is not going to be very good indoors under dim light.</p>

<p>If you need to shoot under dim light a lot, consider one of those 17-50mm/f2.8 type zooms, perhaps from third-party brands. You can also add a 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S and/or 50mm/f1.8 AF-S. The latter two are around $200, $220 each.</p>