D7000 -- What Glass?

[RLM]

Greetings,

I am upgrading my DSLR. I am looking at getting the Nikon D7000. I am also looking at getting some lenses. I thought a post on forums to get a few more opinions would be a good idea before I drop $2-3000. Ill break my questions up rather than a wall of text.

D7000 vs Full Frame
Ive read threads in photo forums that bash non-full-frame (cropped) cameras. One guy was really heated about it saying he would never use anything other than full frame even the D7000 (and he said he owned one).

Question:
Will I really be missing out without a Full Frame Camera? Would it be better to save money for another 4-6 months and then get a Full Frame Camera?

Lenses for D7000
Id like to buy only the body and then use the saved money on seperate lenses rather than the kit lens.

My shooting interests include:
Sports
Architecture
Landscape
Candid shots of people/things in the city
Portrait (I currently dont do portrait but want to begin learning)

I was looking at the following lenses:
Nikon AF-S DX 35mm/1.8G
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 G VR
Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300mm/4.5-5.6G ED VR
Sigma DC 17-70mm/2.8-4 MACRO OS HSM
Sigma DC 18-125mm/3.8-5.6 OS HSM

Questions:
1) Will those Sigma lenses actually work with the D7000?

2) Opinions on which lenses above would be a good investment.. Is there a better option that I havent listed? (note: Each of the above lenses sell for under $1000)

Much thanks for any insights or advice you can give.

RLM

 

[mjhoward]

Well, one problem with your list is that none of those lenses are very fast with the exception of the prime and the Sigma wide open. This isn't going to be good for sports photography (way too wide at your larger apertures) or anything low light such as an indoor arena. Unfortunately, faster glass is generally more expensive.

To appeal to your landscape and architecture photography, I would recommend something that isn't on your list, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It is very sharp and extremely well built. The large aperture is quite useful indoors, which, for something so wide you can really get creative by getting very close to your subjects.

For the reach and large aperture for sports and candids there really isn't going to be anything long enough or cheap enough to fit in the budget. You might be able to make due with the reach and speed of a 70-200 f2.8. This lens can also make for some good portraits with great bokeh too if you have the room to step back a bit. Some of the 3rd party lenses are great, but be sure to get one with some sort of VR/IS for the long end.

For everything in between the 35 1.8 could probably get you by for a while.

BTW, for most of your needs, I would recommend crop body. You need more reach than anything and larger aperture long reach lenses start going up drastically in price. You can, however, get a fast Ultra Wide for relatively cheap.

 

[Light Artisan]

In my experience with the D7000, it's prefers quality glass (FX glass in particular). The 55-300 sucked on it.

 

[tirediron]

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with crop-sensor bodies; saying they're inferior to FF bodies is the same as saying a FF body is inferior to an MF body... rubbish.

My suggested glass list would be as follows:

Tokina 11-16 2.8
Nikon 17-55 2.8
Nikon 80-200 2.8

Look for used glass and save a lot of money.

 

[Destin]

Your definitely going to want a 70/80-200 f2.8 lens for shooting sports and candids. It's by far my favorite lens and the one that stays on my camera in my bag. I have the sigma 70-200 2.8 (non OS version, $799) and I couldn't be happier with it for the price. You could also get the (older) nikon 80-200 2.8, but its screw drive AF so it will be noisy, and slightly slower.

Then check into the tamron 17-50 2.8, I've seen some pretty awesome results from this lens, and it's fast. Also only $450 or so most places.

Then look at the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's $600, but it's also super sharp, and I've been wanting one for a long time now. It's going to be my next lens purchase.

Total cost for D7000 and these 3 lenses is about $3,000 on the nose. It would cover everything from 11-200mm in a constant 2.8 aperture.

 

[Postman]

In my experience with the D7000, it's prefers quality glass (FX glass in particular).

I'm having the same experience. I'm in the process of selling my DX lenses to get FX lenses.

 

[RLM]

Thanks for the posts.

I just spent 3 hours at a few different stores trying some lenses on the d7000.

The most friendly helpful store will sell the following:

D7000
$950 used / $1000 new

Tokina 11-16 f2.8
$490 used / $550 new

Nikon 17-55 f2.8G AF-S DXED
$900 used / $1700 new <-- (edited price 1400 new was something else)

Nikon 80-200 AF ED f2.8D
$650 used / new is too much

Nikon 80-200 AF-S ED f2.8D
$1000 used / new is too much

And The Newer Nikon 70-200 AF-S f2.8D
$1200 used

Any comments on the above.. ?

Are there any other lenses out there that might be better for the same price..?

 

[mjhoward]

Those prices are quite good. BTW, did they have a Tokina 16-50 2.8 to try? I've decided to get it instead of the Nikkor 17-55 and it may also be a good option for you as well. It is MUCH cheaper than the nikkor but build quality is just as good and IQ is on par from what I've read, just a bit of CA to deal with wide open but that should be easily fixed in PP.

 

[fsquare]

I agree with Destin above...the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 is a great lens as is the Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 Macro HSM. I've just recently tried both and picked up the Sigma. It was much cheaper than it's respective Nikon counterpart.

 

[KmH]

If the AF-S 80-200 mm f/2.8D is in good condition, that's a good price and they aren't readily available.

The other AF 80-200 f/2.8D is a push-pull? If it is a 2 ring in good condition for $650, that would be a steal.

 

[RLM]

I think ill get the tokina 11-16 2.8 for sure.

Ill also get Nikon 80-200 2.8
( only quesrion being newer or older version )

So i guess my last question is about the nikon 17-55 2.8.

Ill be missing focal lengths from 56-79 which on dslr is 80-120..

Would the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM be worth the extra focal lengths at the cost of quality by not getting the nikon 17-55?

Anyonyone used the sigma?

 

[mjhoward]

I think ill get the tokina 11-16 2.8 for sure.

Ill also get Nikon 80-200 2.8
( only quesrion being newer or older version )

So i guess my last question is about the nikon 17-55 2.8.

Ill be missing focal lengths from 56-79 which on dslr is 80-120..

Would the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM be worth the extra focal lengths at the cost of quality by not getting the nikon 17-55?

Anyonyone used the sigma?

I think the gap between 16-24 is more important to fill than the gap between 55-80 on crop body. You could opt for the 70-200 and fill that gap a bit more if you're really worried about it.

 

[MrLogic]

So i guess my last question is about the nikon 17-55 2.8.

Ill be missing focal lengths from 56-79 which on dslr is 80-120..

And? :meh:

There are too many people who think they have to have every focal length covered. You don't.

 

[MrLogic]

In my experience with the D7000, it's prefers quality glass (FX glass in particular). The 55-300 sucked on it.

This guys seems to do okay with the consumer grade Sigma 150-500:

D7000 & Sigma 150-500 OS in : Nikon D90 - D40 / D7000 - D3000 Forum: Digital Photography Review


I don't think the Sigma is a better lens than the 55-300 VR.

 

[thatfornoobs]

I would personally suggest the Nikon AF-S DX 35mm/1.8G.
If you can afford it, get the Sigma DC 17-70mm/2.8-4 MACRO OS HSM tho.
Your going to want something with less than f4.0 as a max. I personally am looking at getting both the Nikon AF-S DX 35mm/1.8G and the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 G VR.