Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 on D7000

[adichiru]

Hello,

I am preparing for a 3-4 months trip that will involve a lot of nature and travel photography. The nature stuff will probably be geared towards fine art landscapes etc. and the travel photography towards some publications so I need something as close to professional quality as possible (in terms of equipment).

My only camera is the D7000 and I will not buy now an FX camera (although the D800E would be great for nature photos).
My lenses are the Nikons 35mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.8 macro, 12-24mm f/4, 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 and Sigma 150-500 f/5.6-6.3.

Now, I am considering buying the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm f/2.8 in order to have a better image quality and higher shutter speed. I can add one 1.7x or 2x converter but the entire setup will be much harder to use than the 18-200 for example.
I am trying to decide which lens would help me more and with which converter should I pair it with (I can't afford both lenses).

If any of you have experience with 24-70mm or 70-200mm on D7000 (or a DX camera) please let me know what you would do if you were in my place now.

Thank you,

 

[Solarflare]

Any lens is harder to use than a Superzoom. Thats why they make Superzooms.

Sell the Superzoom for the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC, get the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, and stay away from any converter since you already have a freaking 150-500mm zoom.

Also, employ a sherpa so you dont break your spine with that many lenses.

 

[jaomul]

Another option would be a fast standard 17/18-50 or 55 from sigma tamron or tokina with a 50-135 f2.8 from tokina, i think sigma do a similar focal length. You then are pretty much covered from 12-500 with 2.8 aperture possible from 18-135. Don't let the prices fool you. These fast standard lenses and the 50-135 f2.8 are capable of pro results on a d7000

 

[prakhardeep]

I think Solar said the right thing. Tamron 24-70 VC is a great lens and will give you added advantage of VC.

Stay away from Tamron 17-50, it is very slow to focus in low light even though it is F/2.8. My 18-105 focuses faster than it.

However, it has good IQ.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm still not sure why people recommend buying a 24-70 lens for DX?? A 24-70 is not a great focal range for DX in my opinion. The 17-50 range is perfect for DX, the 70-200 on the other hand makes a great telephoto addition on a DX camera.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I think Solar said the right thing. Tamron 24-70 VC is a great lens and will give you added advantage of VC.

Stay away from Tamron 17-50, it is very slow to focus in low light even though it is F/2.8. My 18-105 focuses faster than it.

However, it has good IQ.

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 has perfectly good focus and I have never found it slow at all!

 

[Solarflare]

I'm still not sure why people recommend buying a 24-70 lens for DX?? A 24-70 is not a great focal range for DX in my opinion. The 17-50 range is perfect for DX, the 70-200 on the other hand makes a great telephoto addition on a DX camera.

Its pretty obvious he'll want to switch to FX next, though - isnt it ?

 

[DorkSterr]

Agreed with NikonJosh. 24-70 + DX camera =/= good idea.

I am preparing for a 3-4 months trip that will involve a lot of nature and travel photography. The nature stuff will probably be geared towards fine art landscapes etc. and the travel photography towards some publications so I need something as close to professional quality as possible (in terms of equipment).

My only camera is the D7000 and I will not buy now an FX camera (although the D800E would be great for nature photos).
My lenses are the Nikons 35mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.8 macro, 12-24mm f/4, 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 and Sigma 150-500 f/5.6-6.3.

Now, I am considering buying the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm f/2.8 in order to have a better image quality and higher shutter speed. I can add one 1.7x or 2x converter but the entire setup will be much harder to use than the 18-200 for example.
I am trying to decide which lens would help me more and with which converter should I pair it with (I can't afford both lenses).

If any of you have experience with 24-70mm or 70-200mm on D7000 (or a DX camera) please let me know what you would do if you were in my place now.

Thank you,

 

[cgipson1]

If any of you have experience with 24-70mm or 70-200mm on D7000 (or a DX camera) please let me know what you would do if you were in my place now.

Thank you,

Get both! (I have used them on a D7000)! Image quality will far exceed anything you currently have, except for the 105 macro (assuming it is a Nikon)! I would ditch anything else in that range.. and would get rid of the 35mm 1.8 also, that lens has really bad CA issues. Skip the TC, and use the sigma for long stuff where you don't need top quality. Or sell the Sigma, get a TC-20E III and and that will give you 400 on the 70-200.

 

[prakhardeep]

I think Solar said the right thing. Tamron 24-70 VC is a great lens and will give you added advantage of VC.

Stay away from Tamron 17-50, it is very slow to focus in low light even though it is F/2.8. My 18-105 focuses faster than it.

However, it has good IQ.

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 has perfectly good focus and I have never found it slow at all!

NJ, i never said it's focus is bad, it however is not as fast as a F/2.8 lens should be.

In comparison a 3.5-5.6 18-105 is equally fast even faster in low light.

 

[Patrice]

I'll jump in here, I shot DX for quite a while with d100, d70 and d200. The two lens combination of 17-55 AFS f/2.8 and 70-200 AFS f/2.8 VR1 I found to be the perfect street and event setup on DX. Speed, solid nikkor build and unmatched image quality for the type. Both can be had for reasonable prices second hand. Keep each mounted on their own body for the ultimate in convenience. You will not miss the 55 to 70 gap, I promise.

(You seldom hear of people saying "I should have bought a 'TamSigTok', or whatever." when they get the nikkors.)

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I think Solar said the right thing. Tamron 24-70 VC is a great lens and will give you added advantage of VC.

Stay away from Tamron 17-50, it is very slow to focus in low light even though it is F/2.8. My 18-105 focuses faster than it.

However, it has good IQ.

My Tamron 17-50 2.8 has perfectly good focus and I have never found it slow at all!

NJ, i never said it's focus is bad, it however is not as fast as a F/2.8 lens should be.

In comparison a 3.5-5.6 18-105 is equally fast even faster in low light.

I see your point and yes the tammy isn't perfect in the focus department, my only beef is with how much the focus of the 17-50 gets mentioned on these forums. I got my tammy thinking the autofocus wouldn't be very good due to the amount of complaints, I have it now and it focusses extremely well. I think it is an incredible lens in terms of value for money TBH, it's the same price as a kit lens but performs like a pro lens in terms of IQ.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm still not sure why people recommend buying a 24-70 lens for DX?? A 24-70 is not a great focal range for DX in my opinion. The 17-50 range is perfect for DX, the 70-200 on the other hand makes a great telephoto addition on a DX camera.

Its pretty obvious he'll want to switch to FX next, though - isnt it ?

It states in his post mate, that he is sticking too DX.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

You will never ever regret the purchase of a 70-200 VRII on any body. Mine has been used on both a D7000 and D700

 

[adichiru]

I'm still not sure why people recommend buying a 24-70 lens for DX?? A 24-70 is not a great focal range for DX in my opinion. The 17-50 range is perfect for DX, the 70-200 on the other hand makes a great telephoto addition on a DX camera.

Its pretty obvious he'll want to switch to FX next, though - isnt it ?

That is correct! In probably 6-12 months. I have to see first if there will be any other alternative to D800E that will suit my needs for less money. I mentioned that I will not buy NOW an FX camera as I prefer to invest in FX lenses for the moment as they should work on a DX camera.