Is this a good setup for a beginner?

rjackh · Jan 27, 2014

Any advice appreciated. I have tried to read and research as much as I could and came up with this setup for my first DSLR. I am an avid outdoorsman, so this camera will come with me on adventures. Lots of outdoor photography, hunting, fishing, wildlife, action, people, I guess just about everything really.

Nikon D7000 Body Only
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens
Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens
Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED Lens
Two 16GB SanDisk Extreme Class Memory Cards

I have all of this in my shopping cart at B&H Photo for $1,187.76. I would maybe add a wide angle zoom later like the 10-24. I just can't afford that right now and I really don't know what I am doing yet. I figured this setup would get me going and I can learn the camera, what kind of shooting, and what lenses I use most and go from there. Thanks for any advice.

LakeFX · Jan 27, 2014

The 55-200 isn't a great lens. It's worth finding a used 70-300 VR instead. Otherwise that sounds like a very nice setup.

Derrel · Jan 27, 2014

I think you are missing an "everyday" zoom...35mm is a normal lens, 50mm is a very short telephoto; the 55-200 is a very short to moderately long, slow tele-zoom.

I think you REALLY would find something like a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom to be a much more-useful lens than the 35/1.8 and 50mm 1.8 pair...I really think you ought to consider that need. The 10-24 is fine, but you are still missing a "utility" lens, that everyday lens....

You have a muskie rod, a heavy muskie rod, a lightweight muskie rod, and an ultra-light muskie rod...and you live in.....TEXAS... you need some BASS gear, dude!!!

goodguy · Jan 28, 2014

LakeFX said:
The 55-200 isn't a great lens. It's worth finding a used 70-300 VR instead. Otherwise that sounds like a very nice setup.

+1

55-200mm is not a very sharp lens, get the Nikon 70-300mm VR, with this lens you get more reach and better optics.

robbins.photo · Jan 28, 2014

Derrel said:
I think you are missing an "everyday" zoom...35mm is a normal lens, 50mm is a very short telephoto; the 55-200 is a very short to moderately long, slow tele-zoom.

I think you REALLY would find something like a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom to be a much more-useful lens than the 35/1.8 and 50mm 1.8 pair...I really think you ought to consider that need. The 10-24 is fine, but you are still missing a "utility" lens, that everyday lens....

You have a muskie rod, a heavy muskie rod, a lightweight muskie rod, and an ultra-light muskie rod...and you live in.....TEXAS... you need some BASS gear, dude!!!

Ok, so after running this through Google Translate (Fishing Jargon to English) I would have to agree. I don't know what your experience level is but I would recommend you start out with a zoom lens and look at adding primes later. Don't get me wrong, primes are great, but they can be a little frustrating for beginners because of their wide apertures and the narrow depth of field they provide when shot wide open. Eventually once you get the hang of adjusting your aperture and getting the right DOF on your shots they are great, but when your first starting out I'd stick with a zoom as opposed to a prime.

As others have mentioned for telephoto you just can't beat a 70-300 mm AF-S VR Nikkor, it's light and easy to handle and it produces fantastic images and you just won't find another zoom lens in that price range that will do a better job. So really I'd recommend you start with those two lenses, the smaller zoom and the 70-300 mm and then once you've felt like you've mastered those start looking at adding other lenses to fulfill whatever needs you have that you find those are not providing.

ratssass · Jan 28, 2014

...as the not so proud owner of the 55-200,I would scratch that off the list.

CaptainNapalm · Jan 28, 2014

Good choice on the camera, the D7000 is excellent. As for lenses, I would start with the 18-55 kit lens and 70-300 VR. Compliment this setup with some prime lenses later.

TheLost · Jan 28, 2014

Seems like a lot of money to spend without knowing what you want/need... or even if you'll like it.

As an avid outdoorsman you probably know how important packing/hauling your gear can be. Everything on your list will pack down to a nice mid-sized backpack. Thats a huge burden while your hiking through the woods. Are you sure that's what you want to haul around with you everywhere?

Do you want to take pictures of wildlife? (You'd need a big zoom lens) or Landscapes? (Ultra Wide Angle). Group shots while outdoors? ('normal' lens.. 50mm-ish)

IMHO, your better off buying the body and a kit lens (18-105mm or even the 18-140mm) then decide after you've learned to use your camera what other stuff to buy. Or maybe you'll find out you don't like it and will have saved yourself some $$$.

Start out small... then buy what you need when you know you need it.

rjackh · Jan 28, 2014

I am doing most of my research from Ken Rockwell's site, and got the idea of the 35, 50, and 55-200 from his review on the D7100. I agree that this is a lot of moving parts to get right off the bat when I am new to this. He really brags about the 35/1.8 and says that is his go to lens for most shooting. He also has a really good review on the Nikon 18-200 VRII and I can get that in a kit from B&H for ~$1300. Maybe thats a better do-it-all lens to start out with, but I thought I had read somewhere a jack of all trades was a master of none. Nikon also has an 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 lens that Ken brags about. Would a smaller zoom like the 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 or 17-50 f/2.8 be a better lens to start with than the 18-200 VRII?

Derrel · Jan 28, 2014

Ken does a lot of family snaps and travel/scenic stuff. He has a lot of knowledge about gear. The 35/1.8 G series DX lens is one of the lowest-cost Nikon primes, as is the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens, so those are easy, logical lenses to suggest because they are affordable, and popular, and useful prime lenses. I would look through THIS article for some guidance on rational lens kits for DX.Nikkor Lens Assessment by Thom Hogan

The 18-200 Nikon is one of the better all-in-one or "superzoom" lenses. Thom really likes the 16-85. It has the range that's very useful. And at the same time, is not too big. The 17-50mm f/2.8 has a combination of fast aperture, f/2.8, and good, useful range for daily shooting. It's f/2.8 at every length.

The 70-300 VR-G lens **is** a good zoom lens, better than the 55-200 is. I would buy it used, or at least refurbished, for a MUCH better price than it is sold new.

The thing is, a kit that has a 35 and a 50 and then a 55-200 is just totally,totally lacking in the wide- to semi-wide angle range. You WANT to have a 16-85, or an 18-55, or an 18-70, or an 18-105 or 18-140, or "something" to get you the wide-angle and semi-wide 18-28mm ranges.

jaomul · Jan 28, 2014

Its hard to say exactly what is best, above this post are many good suggestions. The camera is good, the lenses are good and ok, but as someone mentioned it may be an idea to build up. I would likely scratch all lenses and add a Sigma 17-70mm OS (new version) and a Tamron 70-300mm vc. I had the Tammy and it is a fine lens. I chose the 17-50mm Tamron over the 17-70mm OS sigma and like the tamron but think I would prefer the slightly more flexible Sigma if given the choice again. When you have a 17-300 range covered you can add later as you see the need

TheLost · Jan 28, 2014

rjackh said:
I am doing most of my research from Ken Rockwell's site, and got the idea of the 35, 50, and 55-200 from his review on the D7100. I agree that this is a lot of moving parts to get right off the bat when I am new to this. He really brags about the 35/1.8 and says that is his go to lens for most shooting. He also has a really good review on the Nikon 18-200 VRII and I can get that in a kit from B&H for ~$1300. Maybe thats a better do-it-all lens to start out with, but I thought I had read somewhere a jack of all trades was a master of none. Nikon also has an 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 lens that Ken brags about. Would a smaller zoom like the 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 or 17-50 f/2.8 be a better lens to start with than the 18-200 VRII?

Ken Rockwell is... lets just say.. not highly regarded. His site and reviews are built to make him money. He wants you to click the links on his site. He REALLY wants you to buy the items he recommends using the links from his site. Every click is money in his pocket.... and that's why everything is the best (Nikon is the best.. Canon is the best.. 35mm is the best.. Buy it now! Send it back if you don't want it... etc).

"I shoot the smallest size JPG on my D800 because nobody needs anything higher!"

His site is a joke... and he even admits it every now and then.. Sometimes its good to research the reviewers.

I'll leave you with this:
Where do Babies Come From?

randyphotoforum · Jan 28, 2014

too many lens to start with

check fredmiranda.com for used

d7k is a good 1st camera and start w/ the 18-55 then see how that goes

randyphotoforum · Jan 28, 2014

rjackh said:
I am doing most of my research from Ken Rockwell's site, and got the idea of the 35, 50, and 55-200 from his review on the D7100. I agree that this is a lot of moving parts to get right off the bat when I am new to this. He really brags about the 35/1.8 and says that is his go to lens for most shooting. He also has a really good review on the Nikon 18-200 VRII and I can get that in a kit from B&H for ~$1300. Maybe thats a better do-it-all lens to start out with, but I thought I had read somewhere a jack of all trades was a master of none. Nikon also has an 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 lens that Ken brags about. Would a smaller zoom like the 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 or 17-50 f/2.8 be a better lens to start with than the 18-200 VRII?

don't, he doesn't even use most of the gear he reviews.....

LakeFX · Jan 28, 2014

I don't have the 35/1.8, but one of the best things I have ever done for my photography was to shoot with a prime normal lens (50/1.8 on 35mm). This made me move around to fit everything in the frame and made me think more about my positioning.

I do almost all of my shooting while hiking and I usually carry a Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 70-300 VR. I also have the Nikon 18-70, which is a great lens and light weight, but I always miss the ultra-wide range and I rarely miss the normal range so I don't use the 18-70 very often. That said, the 12-24 and 70-300 are relatively heavy lenses and I almost never shoot the 12-24 at anything other than the wide end. If there was a low cost prime in the 12-14 range, I would sell my 12-24 in an instant to get it and the 35/1.8. Primes are lightweight and easy to carry. You also usually have plenty of time to switch lenses for anything you want to shoot at a wide angle, so not having a zoom isn't too bad.