new to nikon need help....

enerlevel

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
192
Reaction score
7
hello all,
i just shifted from canon 600d to nikon d7000... i need some help with nikon lens...
i was using the 17-55mm f2.8 IS as my general walk around lens as i dont like to keep swapping lens.. i was more then happy as i love sharp images and need is

now that i have the nikon, which lens should i get to replace this?
i dont want the 17-55mm because it doesnt have VR and i mostly find myself down to 1/10 of a sec.... infact i tried the lens on store and out of 10 shots, i could only get 2 of them sharp...

the next option is tamron 17-50 vc....... i had tried the canon version and it looses infront of the canon 17-55 f2.8 in sharpness... how does the nikon version do against the nikon 17-55 f2.8?

also i have seen almost all reviews being judged against the 18-200 vr..... which looks like a winner for most nikon users.... but isnt this lens the same IQ as the 18-105 kit lens or the 24-300mm lens? does it make sense to upgrade from 18-105 to 18-200 vr just interms of IQ and sharpness..... i hardly find myself inneed of that much zoom...

and if everything fails, i might just shift bak to canon as the 17-55mm f2.8 IS was a perfect lens for me....

thanks....
 
I can't comment on the third-party lens questions as I don't use them myself, but I have to ask, if you're shooting down at 1/10 of a second on a regular basis, why aren't you using a tripod???????
 
I can't comment on the third-party lens questions as I don't use them myself, but I have to ask, if you're shooting down at 1/10 of a second on a regular basis, why aren't you using a tripod???????

Or a flash?
 
..Or a Canon?

:p
 
:)

enerlevel...Take the basic advice onboard and you may find 'the non-VR' isn't a big deal.
 
i dont want the 17-55mm because it doesnt have VR and i mostly find myself down to 1/10 of a sec.... infact i tried the lens on store and out of 10 shots, i could only get 2 of them sharp...

May I ask why?

the next option is tamron 17-50 vc....... i had tried the canon version and it looses infront of the canon 17-55 f2.8 in sharpness... how does the nikon version do against the nikon 17-55 f2.8?

I have the XR Tamron 17-50 non-vc and I like it but I can't compare it to the other lenses as I don't have any experience with them.
 
tirediron said:
I can't comment on the third-party lens questions as I don't use them myself, but I have to ask, if you're shooting down at 1/10 of a second on a regular basis, why aren't you using a tripod???????

the shooting i do is random everyday low light.. on the streets , dark places family dinners, friends get togethers etc.. travelling with tripod becomes very in convenient
 
Kerbouchard said:
Or a flash?

some places where i go flash is not allowed .... and increasing the iso gives me plenty of noise which is why i sold the canon 600d ... however i do see plenty of noise on the d7000 as well which is why i was thinking of a wider aperture plus vr to compensate
 
Go to the Nikon website and take a look at the lens choices. Nikon offers 16-35 f/4 with vr and 24-120 f/4 with vr. Of Nikon's lenses considered 'pro' none of the normal and wide zooms have vr. (14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8). This does not make nikon neither a lessor nor a better choice, just different.


Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Lenses
 
You should be able to crank the ISO on the D7000 to a usable level and get enough light with minimum noise on any of the lens you have now. VR isn't the answer to this I don't think although if you wanted to try a new lens you could always try either the 50mm prime or the 35mm lower aperture, lower focal length might do you just fine.
 
Patrice said:
Go to the Nikon website and take a look at the lens choices. Nikon offers 16-35 f/4 with vr and 24-120 f/4 with vr. Of Nikon's lenses considered 'pro' none of the normal and wide zooms have vr. (14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8). This does not make nikon neither a lessor nor a better choice, just different.

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Lenses

yes i do understand what you are saying but my style and purpose might be different however i do need vr for sure... i was considering 24-120 or the 16-85 but many review online still say get the 18-200 vr :s since their image quality is the same.... this is what confuses me all the time...
 
I'm not sure where you get information about the image quality of the 18-200 being equal to the other lenses in the Nikon lineup. Most 'super-zooms' are not particularly good at anything, the Nikon offering is not an exception.

I had that lens for about a week. It drove me nuts: distortion that is nearly impossible to correct, slow to focus at f/5.6 and beyond, front element creep, flimsy (in my opinion) construction, not particularly sharp at any setting. I brought it back to where I bought it from and got a 17-55 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 instead. Much better.
 
I would agree that the 18-200 is not the best choice as I have it and I'm constantly fighting the same issues mentioned.

Sent from my iPhone using PhotoForum
 
Crank the ISO and no worries.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top