D7000 Lenses?

[kundalini]

For macro work, I usually manual focus by leaning in or out on my subject. It can be a slow and laborious task. Otherwise I sorta depend on AF. My eyes are old and inconsistent. VR (again Nikon speak) is really only worth its salt beyond 100mm and 200mm is probably a better yardstick.

The maximum aperture of a lens is often indicative of its quality if the price point also correspondes. It's not always the case, but more times than not, it runs true. There are several more variables to consider, such as the lens coating.

But all this is simply an excercise in semiotics. Something for you to chew on, but not necessarily having the need to digest at the moment. I usually submit to these types of questions that you should always live within your means. Two people are holding a one hundred dollar bill. It takes on great significance for one person, while it is rudimentary to the other. This is not a judgement call, just a fact of life.

 

[Doe]

As someone who has just recently bought a d7000 and is new to dslr photography I can only add what I have found so far.It depends ultimately on what you want to do with it. More importantly speed and light. Do you want to zoom in on birds, or sports, or longer range portraits? The ultimate difference in price is usually the aperture. Cheaper lenses might be 3.5-5.6 sp the aperture changes as you zoom. This means less light into the lens, and harder to get blown out (blurred) backgrounds for the bokeh people like.I cannot justify the £1600 pounds for a single lens but I do like quality. So I personally focussed on what i see as the best bang per buck.So I have a 35mm 1.8 which was cheap but good quality and let's me work in low light etc. On the 7000 it has an equivalent view to a traditional 50mm this makes me frame my shots by moving and I really love it.Then I have the 85mm 1.8d which you can use with the 7000 because of the internal motor in the camera. This is a telephoto on the 7000 acting as 127mm so great for portraits.Then I have just gone with my first none Nikon the 70-200 2.8 Tamron. Optically all reviews say it is close to the Nikon and better than the sigma and I got it new for £500. Its well made and solid. Many complaints about the focus speed, but I don't do sports photography so not an issue. Also I have personally not had any issue filming moving stuff (cars etc) it's seems as fast as my 35 tbh and Tamron did say they have improved the motor in the last year. Given the sigma has now gone unto nearly £1000 and the nikon (which is the dogs fair enough) is now £1650 that's a relative steal.Hth in some small way.

 

[Infinite_Day]

As far as telephotos go - you need to decide how much range you want. I have shot with my dad's 55-200 lens and it produces pretty decent images for an inexpensive Nikon lens. If 200mm is enough for you and you are more interested in a macro lens then I'd say it would be a decent buy. If you want extra reach, look at the 70-300 Nikon VR lens. It gets very good reviews for consumer grade glass. As far as macros go - I have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and I'm very pleased with the image quality it produces for non-Nikon glass. Here is a link to the lens new. AF272NII700 Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 AF Macro Auto Focus Lens for Nikon AF - with 6 Year USA Warranty You can find used ones in excellent condition in the $350 range at places like KEH, Adorama and B&H. I would suggest you look up some sample images from this lens as it really does a great job producing stellar image quality. The build is not tank-like like the 200mm micro Nikkor but it's $1100 cheaper. Beyond that I would strongly urge you to READ and PRACTICE as much as you can.