Any reason NOT to go with D7000?

[macpro88]

One thing to warn of regarding the 50 1.4 AF-S though is the fact the Bokeh performance is mediocre which in my opinion rules it out for portrait work, I know some will disagree. But if you want people shots, the Sigma 50 1.4 is the superior choice.

Thanks for this, I saw the DigitalRev Video Review of the "Fast 50's" and they did say they preferred the Sigma over the others. I'll have to check that out.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

One thing to warn of regarding the 50 1.4 AF-S though is the fact the Bokeh performance is mediocre which in my opinion rules it out for portrait work, I know some will disagree. But if you want people shots, the Sigma 50 1.4 is the superior choice.

Thanks for this, I saw the DigitalRev Video Review of the "Fast 50's" and they did say they preferred the Sigma over the others. I'll have to check that out.

No worries, check this link out to see what the lens can do! Flickr: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

It has this quite magical character, the bokeh it produces is similar to a painterly look whereas any Nikon 50mm lens produces a choppy nervous effect.

 

[zamanakhan]

One thing to warn of regarding the 50 1.4 AF-S though is the fact the Bokeh performance is mediocre which in my opinion rules it out for portrait work, I know some will disagree. But if you want people shots, the Sigma 50 1.4 is the superior choice.

Thanks for this, I saw the DigitalRev Video Review of the "Fast 50's" and they did say they preferred the Sigma over the others. I'll have to check that out.

just get the 50 1.8G, dont bother with the sigma or the nikon 50 1.4. Save your money put it towards another focal length that you might end up finding useful like a wide angle zoom like the 10-20 sigma or 11-16 tokina.


But what i would honestly suggest now is: You dont even have a camera yet, but your looking at buying lenses that you dont fully understand uses for yet. My honest advice would be to get the d7000 without lens and get a 18-55 from keh for about 120. Shoot with just that for a month and THEN get a 35 or 50, skip the 18-105 that comes with it and if you are serious, skip the 18-200 and find a good used 70-200 or 80-200 afs. if you must absolutely have have a cheaper zoom than go for the 55-200 price wise value cant be beat. 18-55 with 55-200 and a fast prime is a kick ass and VERY competent beginner kit. That is what i first had, i dropped the 18-55 and 55-200 after a year and half and replaced it with 10-20 and 80-200 afs and added a 24 and 105micro vr as well.

By shooting with the 18-55 i found out that i LOVE wide as i shot it pretty much exclusively at 18, which made my decision to get a UWA much easier. I usually switched onto my 55-200 for portraits and general things that required the tele, i found at tele i was upping the iso too much and vr made absolutely no difference with moving subjects, thus i got a 80-200 afs and LOVED IT. 35 1.8 for lower light and general walk around has always served me well, and if i need to keep it light and small with extreme versatility i take just the 35 with me.

So do yourself a favour, get a kit lens to start out with, there is nothing wrong with it, its sharp its amazing value, i might buy another set of 18-55 and 55-200 just because i miss how light they are.

 

[cannpope]

Sweet, thanks for the continued input everyone! Now, next question I guess, where is the best place to buy a DSLR? I have no issues waiting for shipping from ordering online.

I usually shop Adorama and B & H...like both

 

[macpro88]

One thing to warn of regarding the 50 1.4 AF-S though is the fact the Bokeh performance is mediocre which in my opinion rules it out for portrait work, I know some will disagree. But if you want people shots, the Sigma 50 1.4 is the superior choice.

Thanks for this, I saw the DigitalRev Video Review of the "Fast 50's" and they did say they preferred the Sigma over the others. I'll have to check that out.

No worries, check this link out to see what the lens can do! Flickr: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

It has this quite magical character, the bokeh it produces is similar to a painterly look whereas any Nikon 50mm lens produces a choppy nervous effect.

Awesome, thanks again.

If I do get the Sigma 50, which I probably will, any reason to NOT add in the 30 as well? Or just a waste of money? For some reason I've got this thoughts in my head that I should go with the 30 instead because it'll give me 45mm were as the 50 will give me 75mm actual. The reason I think I have this thought in my head is because I like to random "spur of the moment" pics when with my friends and at other social gatherings, and I want the be able to quickly take the pics without having to step back a few feet. Or is there a better lens for this scenario?

 

[zamanakhan]

Thanks for this, I saw the DigitalRev Video Review of the "Fast 50's" and they did say they preferred the Sigma over the others. I'll have to check that out.

No worries, check this link out to see what the lens can do! Flickr: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

It has this quite magical character, the bokeh it produces is similar to a painterly look whereas any Nikon 50mm lens produces a choppy nervous effect.

Awesome, thanks again.

If I do get the Sigma 50, which I probably will, any reason to NOT add in the 30 as well? Or just a waste of money? For some reason I've got this thoughts in my head that I should go with the 30 instead because it'll give me 45mm were as the 50 will give me 75mm actual. The reason I think I have this thought in my head is because I like to random "spur of the moment" pics when with my friends and at other social gatherings, and I want the be able to quickly take the pics without having to step back a few feet. Or is there a better lens for this scenario?

DUDE!!!! YOU ARE OVER THINKING!!!
If you start out with 3 separate lenses you will pretty much have a preconceived notion that this lens is better than this and this lens does this blah blah blah, you'll be changing your lenses more than taking pictures!!! honestly just pull the trigger on a d7000 either with 18-55 or 35 1.8, and don't BUY ANYTHING ELSE FOR A FEW MONTHS.

Btw from what you are describing i'd rather go with the 35 over the 50, the 50 is very tight, for things like that. Remember the long end of a kit lens for consumer is 55mm, that is full zoom, same with point and shoots, take your point and shoot and zoom it all the way, do you want a group shot with that amount of zoom?

2nd, what you are describing also works better with a zoom not a prime, to get good composition you HAVE to compose with your feet, if you just pull it up to your eye and snap away, than your just spraying and praying.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Thanks for this, I saw the DigitalRev Video Review of the "Fast 50's" and they did say they preferred the Sigma over the others. I'll have to check that out.

No worries, check this link out to see what the lens can do! Flickr: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

It has this quite magical character, the bokeh it produces is similar to a painterly look whereas any Nikon 50mm lens produces a choppy nervous effect.

Awesome, thanks again.

If I do get the Sigma 50, which I probably will, any reason to NOT add in the 30 as well? Or just a waste of money? For some reason I've got this thoughts in my head that I should go with the 30 instead because it'll give me 45mm were as the 50 will give me 75mm actual. The reason I think I have this thought in my head is because I like to random "spur of the moment" pics when with my friends and at other social gatherings, and I want the be able to quickly take the pics without having to step back a few feet. Or is there a better lens for this scenario?

I hear the 30mm 1.4 is a pretty good performer aswell which is nice for general photography, I have the Nikon 35 1.8G but I still fail to really fall in love with it and often consider selling it. It's sharp as hell and has great contrast but seems to be lacking in a few other departments that actually matter to me. The Sigma 30 1.4 has much nicer bokeh than the 35 1.8G from what I have seen so it would work well as a general lens, the Nikon is sharper though but then again sharpness is not the be all and end all. But the problem with these lenses is they still behave like wide angle lenses in effect, for subject isolation in people photography they are nowhere near as effective as a 50mm lens is.

But talking from personal experience again, last year I photographed a whole party for a friend using mainly the Sigma 50 1.4 and nothing else. I just found the results it gives are that good, that taking a few steps back is no big issue! If you were looking to take landscapes or street scenes, then I would suggest the 30mm. But as you are looking to do people shots, I think the Sigma 50 is the perfect choice and to be honest 75mm is not that long.

Just one other thing to remember if you didn't know, if you are taking people shots. You do not really want to go below 50mm unless you are doing full body shots, if you take headshots with a 30mm it will give you great distortion meaning the nose will be too big and the ears too small. The 30mm may become effectively a 45mm lens, but it is still a 30mm wide angle lens, it would still be useful for people shots at gatherings but you would always have to be careful not to get too close to the person, otherwise you will get the unflattering distorted face look. Crop factor has no bearing on the focal length of the lens.. hope this makes sense.

 

[macpro88]

Thank you both! I deff have a better understanding now and are more comfortable in making a choice. I will go with Sigma 50 and depending on how things look down the road I may consider the 30 because I do like landscape photography as well.

To start out, I think the kit lens and the Sigma 50 will be a great starter package for me for a while. Which by the way, the kit lens, 18-105 I think, is there a better choice to with for the same zoom and price? Or will that lens do just fine?

Thanks again everyone!

 

[zamanakhan]

No worries, check this link out to see what the lens can do! Flickr: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

It has this quite magical character, the bokeh it produces is similar to a painterly look whereas any Nikon 50mm lens produces a choppy nervous effect.

Awesome, thanks again.

If I do get the Sigma 50, which I probably will, any reason to NOT add in the 30 as well? Or just a waste of money? For some reason I've got this thoughts in my head that I should go with the 30 instead because it'll give me 45mm were as the 50 will give me 75mm actual. The reason I think I have this thought in my head is because I like to random "spur of the moment" pics when with my friends and at other social gatherings, and I want the be able to quickly take the pics without having to step back a few feet. Or is there a better lens for this scenario?

I hear the 30mm 1.4 is a pretty good performer aswell which is nice for general photography, I have the Nikon 35 1.8G but I still fail to really fall in love with it and often consider selling it. It's sharp as hell and has great contrast but seems to be lacking in a few other departments that actually matter to me. The Sigma 30 1.4 has much nicer bokeh than the 35 1.8G from what I have seen so it would work well as a general lens, the Nikon is sharper though but then again sharpness is not the be all and end all. But the problem with these lenses is they still behave like wide angle lenses in effect, for subject isolation in people photography they are nowhere near as effective as a 50mm lens is.

But talking from personal experience again, last year I photographed a whole party for a friend using mainly the Sigma 50 1.4 and nothing else. I just found the results it gives are that good, that taking a few steps back is no big issue! If you were looking to take landscapes or street scenes, then I would suggest the 30mm. But as you are looking to do people shots, I think the Sigma 50 is the perfect choice and to be honest 75mm is not that long.

Just one other thing to remember if you didn't know, if you are taking people shots. You do not really want to go below 50mm unless you are doing full body shots, if you take headshots with a 30mm it will give you great distortion meaning the nose will be too big and the ears too small. The 30mm may become effectively a 45mm lens, but it is still a 30mm wide angle lens, it would still be useful for people shots at gatherings but you would always have to be careful not to get too close to the person, otherwise you will get the unflattering distorted face look. Crop factor has no bearing on the focal length of the lens.. hope this makes sense.

What you are describing is perspective, and it has alot more to do with distance from the subject than simply the focal length. if you want to fill the frame with someone at 35, than sure you will have slightly elongated features, but if you move a little further back the features will appear the same, for example a head shot from the 50 1.4 will look better than the exact same shot with the 35, but move a little back perhaps go waist up and it looks the same. Also yes subject isolation is cool and we all love shallow dof but you only need that when the background is distracting, having all the portraits shot at 1.4 gets boring fast and you cannot incorporate the general scenery as much. If you truly want isolation the 85 1.8 does a better job than the 50 1.4.

If your telling me that you cannot use wide angle to shoot portraits than something is wrong, watch joe macnally and chase jarvis work, they shoot portraits often with the unmistakably obvious bulbous front end of the 14-24 2.8. They incorporate the area surrounding their subjects and it makes for a much better picture than a "bokehlicious" general photo studio head shot.

This is why i recommend getting just the 18-55 and learn to see what you like, dont just read a review and go, "hmm everyone says this is what the 35 is good for and this is what the 50 is good for, so i am gonna go with the 35!" 35 and 50 aren't that far apart, most people and photographers would not notice the difference between the two in a picture, what they do notice is the barrel distortion. Just run the distortion correction in light room and you are all good!

so if you got money to burn and are dead set on having everything before you even get used to it, get the 35 and 85. 50 is too close to 35 to make a HUGE diffrence. If you got more money get a 17-55 2.8 and 11-16 tokina and 70-200 2.8. You've got a kit that will let you do pretty much everything with ease.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

No worries, check this link out to see what the lens can do! Flickr: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

It has this quite magical character, the bokeh it produces is similar to a painterly look whereas any Nikon 50mm lens produces a choppy nervous effect.

Awesome, thanks again.

If I do get the Sigma 50, which I probably will, any reason to NOT add in the 30 as well? Or just a waste of money? For some reason I've got this thoughts in my head that I should go with the 30 instead because it'll give me 45mm were as the 50 will give me 75mm actual. The reason I think I have this thought in my head is because I like to random "spur of the moment" pics when with my friends and at other social gatherings, and I want the be able to quickly take the pics without having to step back a few feet. Or is there a better lens for this scenario?

DUDE!!!! YOU ARE OVER THINKING!!!
If you start out with 3 separate lenses you will pretty much have a preconceived notion that this lens is better than this and this lens does this blah blah blah, you'll be changing your lenses more than taking pictures!!! honestly just pull the trigger on a d7000 either with 18-55 or 35 1.8, and don't BUY ANYTHING ELSE FOR A FEW MONTHS.

Btw from what you are describing i'd rather go with the 35 over the 50, the 50 is very tight, for things like that. Remember the long end of a kit lens for consumer is 55mm, that is full zoom, same with point and shoots, take your point and shoot and zoom it all the way, do you want a group shot with that amount of zoom?

2nd, what you are describing also works better with a zoom not a prime, to get good composition you HAVE to compose with your feet, if you just pull it up to your eye and snap away, than your just spraying and praying.

I agree with the point your making, but if you gave me the choice of a 18-55 VR and a Sigma 50 1.4 or a 18-55 VR and a 35 1.8G I know I which one I would choose. In my opinion, the Sigma 50 1.4 is just a much better lens and will be great for portrait work whereas the 35 1.8G has poor distortion control, dreadful CA and ghastly nervous bokeh. As I say I like the 35 1.8G as it is so so sharp and is a good walkround lens, but the OP will certainly notice a huge difference doing people shots with the Sigma for the stated reasons above.

Anyway.. just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Awesome, thanks again.

If I do get the Sigma 50, which I probably will, any reason to NOT add in the 30 as well? Or just a waste of money? For some reason I've got this thoughts in my head that I should go with the 30 instead because it'll give me 45mm were as the 50 will give me 75mm actual. The reason I think I have this thought in my head is because I like to random "spur of the moment" pics when with my friends and at other social gatherings, and I want the be able to quickly take the pics without having to step back a few feet. Or is there a better lens for this scenario?

I hear the 30mm 1.4 is a pretty good performer aswell which is nice for general photography, I have the Nikon 35 1.8G but I still fail to really fall in love with it and often consider selling it. It's sharp as hell and has great contrast but seems to be lacking in a few other departments that actually matter to me. The Sigma 30 1.4 has much nicer bokeh than the 35 1.8G from what I have seen so it would work well as a general lens, the Nikon is sharper though but then again sharpness is not the be all and end all. But the problem with these lenses is they still behave like wide angle lenses in effect, for subject isolation in people photography they are nowhere near as effective as a 50mm lens is.

But talking from personal experience again, last year I photographed a whole party for a friend using mainly the Sigma 50 1.4 and nothing else. I just found the results it gives are that good, that taking a few steps back is no big issue! If you were looking to take landscapes or street scenes, then I would suggest the 30mm. But as you are looking to do people shots, I think the Sigma 50 is the perfect choice and to be honest 75mm is not that long.

Just one other thing to remember if you didn't know, if you are taking people shots. You do not really want to go below 50mm unless you are doing full body shots, if you take headshots with a 30mm it will give you great distortion meaning the nose will be too big and the ears too small. The 30mm may become effectively a 45mm lens, but it is still a 30mm wide angle lens, it would still be useful for people shots at gatherings but you would always have to be careful not to get too close to the person, otherwise you will get the unflattering distorted face look. Crop factor has no bearing on the focal length of the lens.. hope this makes sense.

What you are describing is perspective, and it has alot more to do with distance from the subject than simply the focal length. if you want to fill the frame with someone at 35, than sure you will have slightly elongated features, but if you move a little further back the features will appear the same, for example a head shot from the 50 1.4 will look better than the exact same shot with the 35, but move a little back perhaps go waist up and it looks the same. Also yes subject isolation is cool and we all love shallow dof but you only need that when the background is distracting, having all the portraits shot at 1.4 gets boring fast and you cannot incorporate the general scenery as much. If you truly want isolation the 85 1.8 does a better job than the 50 1.4.

If your telling me that you cannot use wide angle to shoot portraits than something is wrong, watch joe macnally and chase jarvis work, they shoot portraits often with the unmistakably obvious bulbous front end of the 14-24 2.8. They incorporate the area surrounding their subjects and it makes for a much better picture than a "bokehlicious" general photo studio head shot.

This is why i recommend getting just the 18-55 and learn to see what you like, dont just read a review and go, "hmm everyone says this is what the 35 is good for and this is what the 50 is good for, so i am gonna go with the 35!" 35 and 50 aren't that far apart, most people and photographers would not notice the difference between the two in a picture, what they do notice is the barrel distortion. Just run the distortion correction in light room and you are all good!

I understand the point your making about perspective and I know it is to do with how far you stand back. But I would not advise doing 'headshots' with the 35 1.8G for obvious reasons.

Yes, I know very well you can use wide angle lenses for portraits but if you do you will not be getting very close to the person and I don't think a newbie just getting into photography will be doing tons of wide angle portraits. I may be wrong though!

 

[jaggedlens]

Any reason to go with the 7D or even the 60D over the D7000 right now?

Unless you have some high dollar glass and/or flash units that are Canon specific, then No. I've got a D7K and use the 7D on a near daily basis and have used the 50D (very similar to 60D) for a couple years prior to getting the 7D and I would take the D7K for everything other than perhaps video and anything that absolutely required 8FPS full res. I don't need that kind of frame rate (6fps is more than I'll ever use) and I'm also not that into shooting video. I have used the D7K video feature for a couple of walkthrough's and macro work and for most people, the video on the D7K will be more than adequate. The Canon video does have the option for 60fps and even on 24 and 30 fps, the video playback is smoother so if your primary use is for video, get a ̶7̶D̶ video camera. I suppose one other reason for possibly choosing the 7D over the D7000 would be if you plan to invest heavily into macro work and lust after the unique MP-E 65mm lens that only Canon has. For everything else, I much prefer the D7000. The ergonomics, to me, are much better on the D7K, the sensor is much better, the focusing system is very comparable to the 7D (no clear winner in my experience), the flash and metering system is better on the D7K, only one lens mount (F-Mount) since 1959 vs 2 different current lens mounts on the Canon (EF, EF-s), and dual SD-card slots to name a few things.

Awesome, thank you for your input, was hoping someone would jump in who has had experience with both. I've seen the D7000 vs 7D video on DigitalRev.com and both seem very comparable, but the D7000 is a few hundred dollars cheaper. I don't have a dire need for video, but having it will be nice, and if I get serious about video (not likely) I'll just get a video camera lol.

I own the D7000 and I love it. I mainly use it for shooting real estate photography and virtual tours but if you are going to buy a Nikon body make sure to go with the 50mm 1.4g. I can't say enough about this lens. For portrait photography it is the best lens around IMO. But if you want to save a couple of hundred bucks go for the 1.4d. Older but still an amazing lens. Also, if you can afford it, go for the 70-200mm...i've only shot with it on two occasions...all i can say is wow.

Awesome pics you got there. And speaking of the 50mm, with the crop sensor, its really close to about 85mm right? This isn't a pain when indoors or just taking pics of friends at gatherings? Any reason I should go with a 35mm instead to push it closer to an actual 50mm? I've heard a lot of good things about 50mm and ppl love them, just worried it won't actually get the same results with a crop sensor...

Well ya unless you have a FX body right. But for me it was worth it. As for the 35mm I can't really speak on that as I have never used it but according to reviews it's another amazing nikon lens. So if you want the 50mm feel on the DX body then i definitely suggest checking it out.

 

[Vtec44]

I love it when you post this portrait photo!

Thanks I think....

 

[Mach0]

Well ya unless you have a FX body right. But for me it was worth it. As for the 35mm I can't really speak on that as I have never used it but according to reviews it's another amazing nikon lens. So if you want the 50mm feel on the DX body then i definitely suggest checking it out.

I have the 35. Its good. Nothing to write home about and it's my least used lens. The reason I dont use it much is that I have a lens with over lapping range. Before that, it never left my camera.On the plus side, it's light, pretty sharp, and it's CA issues can be fixed in post production.

 

[Dominantly]

It's a shame that everything has such a hefty price tag. I say this because I think something like the 12-24mm or 24-70mm would be ideal for what you're looking for.