Lens for D7000

[sourav_roy1]

<p>I have just upgraded to D7000. Sold the D5000 w/ 18-55 & 55-200. Have a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and was hoping to use my old Nikon 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 and Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 that I used with N60 bought 10 yrs back. But was disappointed to see both the lens are very soft, Tamron could not even focus properly and absence of VR was always felt. So in the market to buy couple of lenses, thinking of 18-55 & 55-200, wish I had not sold the kit lenses. My question is will I be compromising on quality using these kit lenses with D7000. Will 16-85 & 70-300 VR be a huge diff. I know the price diff, almost $900 diff I go with refurbished for the earlier combination. Is it better to upgrade later or make a combination now e.g. 18-55 & 70-300. Need some advice and perspective to make the decision. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What do you tend to photograph, and how do you use the images?</p>

[derekvigil]

<p>I have both the 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR on my D7000k. Though i never use the 18-55mm lens because i have much better alternatives, i use the 55-200mm a lot mainly because its/was my only long reach lens. But i find the IQ good using mainly longer end. Though those days may be coming to an end because i picked up a new lens. From what i hear the new version 70-300mm VR has great IQ for the price. I had the old version and thought it was good.<br>

My thought is if your going to buy a new 55-200mm lens springing a few hundred more bucks for the much better 70-300mm VR might be worth it because you may out grow the 55-200mm soon and will spend moneys later on an upgrade. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>also depends on the budget. if you lay out $$ now for better glass you save a step later. personally i think the best walkaround lens for DX/APS-C is the sigma 17-50/2.8 HSM OS. only lens you need 80% of the time. for the other 20%, i'd want something wide, something fast, and something long, not necessarily in that order.</p>

[craig_supplee]

<p>Matt as always is right in asking what you shoot. This will determine what lenses you need/want. I have the D7K and seem to get my fingers into shooting a little of everything. My current kit consists of a Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS, the Tamron SP 70-300 4-5.6 Di VC USD, and just picked up a Nikkor 24 2.8 AF-D to try on some street work. All of these lenses offer excellent IQ on the D7K. Shun Cheung did a review of the Tamron on this camera but I can't find the link. I did have the 16-85 for awhile, and although it was decent, I opted for the Sigma due to the full time max aperture.</p>

<p>I must have gotten a great copy of the Nikkor 24mm, as my initial tests show it having great sharpness in the corners even at f2.8, and I tend to be a pixel peeper!</p>

<p>The camera is wonderful, and as long as you match good glass to it, you will not be disappointed.</p>

[Two23]

<p>My brother-n-law just bought a D7000, and I suggested the Nikons 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR. He travels a LOT and I was thinking it would best to limit it to just two wide ranging lenses. If he shot in low light a lot, I would have suggested a 17-50mm f2.8 zoom instead of 16-85. He also bought a Nikon SB-700 and a Benro C-269 travel tripod. It's a great package.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

[vince-p]

<p>I can't imagine the 70-300 G VR on a D7000 because the lens would be twice the size of the camera. Perhaps some can work with that but it would drive me nuts. I think you'd be fine with the 55-200 or 55-300 (actually I don't know the reputation of that latter but the former, as you know, having owned one, is excellent for its size/price). </p>

<p>Also: if you had a 12-24 DX and the 35mm F/1.8G (which is really superb) adn the 55-XXX, boy would you be covered. The last two are cheap. The first not so much but you could find one used. </p>

[sourav_roy1]

<p>Matt - This is my hobby, enjoy it very much and want to get better at it. Shoot a bit of everything. My images are mostly for online posts and some in community magazines.<br>

Thanks to all of you for the suggestions. Leaning towards Nikon 70-300 as the price diff is not much w/ Tamron. have used 55-200 and liked it, but will give the bigger one a try. And will stick with Nikon 18-55 for now and upgrade later. Couple of questions:<br>

1. Is it safe to get a refurbished Nikon from amazon<br>

2. Read in many posts that third party lens are not as good as Nikon. My exp w/ Tamron on N60 was very good. Very interested on the Sigma 17-50.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't imagine the 70-300 G VR on a D7000 because the lens would be twice the size of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the problem with that? I have used 70-300 G VR with the D7000 and with even smaller cameras, such as a D50. I've also used an Olympus OM-1, one of the smallest of film SLRs, with a 400mm lens. BTW, I like the 70-300mm VR very much. Please see attached photo, as well as my shots <strong><a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00VVrS">in this thread</a></strong>. On the second hummingbird photo in the link, note that there is a tiny bug in the hummer's beak. Should the hummingbird have been carrying a larger bug, to maintain correct proportions?</p><div></div>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Sorry, I didn't edit the above post before the 10 minute time limit expired. All three photos, the two in the link and the one posted here, were with the D50 and the 70-300mm VR.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I used the Nikon 70-300 VR with a D70s and found it to be an excellent combination, balanced and comfortable. I was surprised at the comment that it's too big.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sourav, going with the 18-55 and 70-300VR combination is a good step. The 16-85VR is a very nice lens, but a little expensive (though I love mine and do not regret paying a bit more). A very good alternative might be the 18-105VR, though. Great value for money.<br>

_____</p>

<blockquote>

<p>can't imagine the 70-300 G VR on a D7000 because the lens would be twice the size of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then, which camera could ever take a 600 f/4? In my view, the 70-300VR is a pretty perfect sized; the old 70-300G without VR and the older Tamron (the one OP has), are in my view way worse, as they are far too light and balance really bad.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>2. Read in many posts that third party lens are not as good as Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Sigma and Tamron f2.8 standard zooms get a lot of love around here. Don't discount them off-hand. They are likely to be far more useful than the 18-55.</p>

<p>I might also suggest if costs is an issue a used Nikon 18-70.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I suggested the 70-300mm AF-S VR to a friend; in fact, she bought that lens and the D7000 together as a package when Nikon had a rebate for that package last fall before the Thai flood. That combo should work fine; I have used it that way.</p>

<p>I also use my D7000 with my 200-400mm AF-S VR a lot. In that case the lens is on a tripod.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The Nikon 18-55mm VR is a very cheap lens, but I've found it works well. I carry it as my back up lens on long trips. At f8 it's as sharp as my most expensive lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[sourav_roy1]

<p>Decided on Nikon 18-55, 70-300 and later upgrade to Sigma 17-50. Thanks all for now.</p>

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>Think about the 18-200 VR or the 28-300VR</p>

[photomarche]

<p>mmm... I considering as well the nikon 70-300VR on d7000, excellent compromise between quality, weight and price.. very portable. But, is it good enought for the d7000 sensor? <br>

Personally I would use it for general travel photography and landscapes, I do not do sport. I just want good sharpness and low CA. <br>

The more expensive 70-200 f2.8 is out of my reach, is there anything in between the two?<br>

I am also looking at the Nikon 80-200Mm F2.8Ed, the price is in between the two.<br>

Amyone experienced with Sigma/tamron lenses?</p>

<p> </p>

[sourav_roy1]

<p>I got both the lenses. 18-55 refurbished, excellent love it. 70-300 VR new - first reaction very heavy but getting used to it. IQ is awesome - will try out in diff. conditions next few weeks.</p>