Nikon D7000

[molsen]

18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.

The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww. Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm? You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.

 

[ghache]

18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.

The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww. Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm? You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.

indoor, if you dont shoot a fast glass with a high iso body. you shoot with a flash :thumbup:

i use my 18-105 indoor all the time, at party's for fun and stuff like that using one sb-600 and pictures are coming out great

 

[molsen]

18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.

The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww. Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm? You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.

indoor, if you dont shoot a fast glass with a high iso body. you shoot with a flash :thumbup:

i use my 18-105 indoor all the time, at party's for fun and stuff like that using one sb-600 and pictures are coming out great

Some of us don't just shoot for fun. I get paid for a lot of what I do and in many instances, I can't or shouldn't use a flash. Sometimes the natural light (even if it's dim), provides a perfect ambiance for a shot. A flash would ruin that. and in my opinion, a shallower DOF is nice for when you're shooting people to isolate them from the background. Faster, better glass is more versatile and better quality. Just my 2 cents :thumbup:

I know the OP is just getting into photography, so probably not doing paid work, but the versatility and quality of fast glass is very nice to have, no matter your skill level.

 

[Ady]

Have you looked at the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM? Ticks a lot of boxes, focuses down to around 9 inches and is <£300...................

 

[suzette]

Hi, I am having the same questions plus one more.

I am debating between the D7000 and Cannons EOS 7D. I mainly take action shots.

 

[molsen]

Have you looked at the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM? Ticks a lot of boxes, focuses down to around 9 inches and is <£300...................

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 might be an even better choice. Faster and sharper. The Sigma loses a good deal of image quality toward 70mm, and you have to stop down

 

[KmH]

18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.

The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww. Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm? You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.

The current 18-55 and 55-200 are every bit as good as the 18-105 when it comes to sharpness. All 3 are consumer grade, kit lenses.

The OP should stick with the kit lenses until they know what is going on with photography in general, and have some time to sort out what kind of photography they wind up doing.

Many new to dSLR photography discover its more difficult to do than they thought, and windup selling their gear.

 

[molsen]

One could argue that if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $1200 on it, and that a new D90 for $900 will already be more than adequate...

 

[KmH]

One could argue that if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $1200 on it, and that a new D90 for $900 will already be more than adequate...

By the same logic, one could argue if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $900 on a D90 either, and a new $500, D3000 will already be more than adequate....

 

[molsen]

One could argue that if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $1200 on it, and that a new D90 for $900 will already be more than adequate...

By the same logic, one could argue if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $900 on a D90 either, and a new $500, D3000 will already be more than adequate....

this is true.