Lenses for Nikon D7000

Steves1982 · 27 Dec 2012 at 15:44

I have only had Canon cameras and had a 550d up to a few months ago. I had the Canon 15-85, 17-55 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 lenses with it and felt covered for everything I needed it for.

I've just been given a Nikon D7000 body and am looking for some lenses for it. Not knowing anything beyond what I have learnt reading reviews I could do with some advice finding comparable lenses for the Nikon.

I don't really have a budget (though best bang for buck is appealing but not vital) and am looking for lenses comparable to the Canon lenses I have owned before. I would prefer a 30-35mm 1.8 instead of a 50mm prime as well as a decent fixed 2.8 zoom lens similar to the Canon 17-55 and a decent zoom lens similar in quality to the 15-85.

Thanks

vanandjuanunited · 27 Dec 2012 at 15:47

Why the need for two similar zooms

Surely 35mm and one zoom is sufficient? Or maybe a slightly longer zoom ie 55-200 along withbthe 35 and short zoom

Steves1982 · 27 Dec 2012 at 15:59

I had the 15-85 first but wanted something for lower light work so I ended up with both. I liked the 15-85 so much I couldn't let it go!

However, this time I may just get the one depending on how good it is.

D.P. · 27 Dec 2012 at 17:40

maximusmi2 said:
I have only had Canon cameras and had a 550d up to a few months ago. I had the Canon 15-85, 17-55 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 lenses with it and felt covered for everything I needed it for.

I've just been given a Nikon D7000 body and am looking for some lenses for it. Not knowing anything beyond what I have learnt reading reviews I could do with some advice finding comparable lenses for the Nikon.

I don't really have a budget (though best bang for buck is appealing but not vital) and am looking for lenses comparable to the Canon lenses I have owned before. I would prefer a 30-35mm 1.8 instead of a 50mm prime as well as a decent fixed 2.8 zoom lens similar to the Canon 17-55 and a decent zoom lens similar in quality to the 15-85.

Thanks

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX
Nikon 17-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S, or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 non-VC. Alternatively a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

D.P. · 27 Dec 2012 at 17:46

maximusmi2 said:
I had the 15-85 first but wanted something for lower light work so I ended up with both. I liked the 15-85 so much I couldn't let it go!

However, this time I may just get the one depending on how good it is.

I have a Nikon 16-85mm and it is by far my most used lens, despite owning the wonderful Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, 35mm and 50mm primes, 70-200mm f/2.8, 70-300mm, 300mm f/4.0, Sigma 10-20mm etc.

16mm is a wonderful focal length on a crop body, 85mm is just enough telephoto for most photos, the Nikon 16-85mm is about as sharp as any prime lens, the VR is effective to at least 3 stops so it is much like shooting with a f/2.0 lens - i is definitely easier in low light to get sharp photos than my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 despite being 2 stops slower at the long end. Solid metal barrels, weather sealed, fast AF. It is small and light.

Really you couldn't ask for more in a lens but such lenses aren't popular on this forum because people mistakenly think that a pro-zoom or prime lens is infinitely better, will improve their photography and make their e-penis 12" long.

Steves1982 · 27 Dec 2012 at 18:13

D.P. said:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX
Nikon 17-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S, or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 non-VC. Alternatively a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

D.P. said:
I have a Nikon 16-85mm and it is by far my most used lens, despite owning the wonderful Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, 35mm and 50mm primes, 70-200mm f/2.8, 70-300mm, 300mm f/4.0, Sigma 10-20mm etc.

16mm is a wonderful focal length on a crop body, 85mm is just enough telephoto for most photos, the Nikon 16-85mm is about as sharp as any prime lens, the VR is effective to at least 3 stops so it is much like shooting with a f/2.0 lens - i is definitely easier in low light to get sharp photos than my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 despite being 2 stops slower at the long end. Solid metal barrels, weather sealed, fast AF. It is small and light.

Really you couldn't ask for more in a lens but such lenses aren't popular on this forum because people mistakenly think that a pro-zoom or prime lens is infinitely better, will improve their photography and make their e-penis 12" long.

Thanks, through my own reading and your comments it seems a 16-85mm and 35mm combo would be pretty good. I mostly need a walk around outdoor/holiday lens which the 16-85 seems perfect for and then I can could use the prime for indoor use at restaurants and house parties etc.

D.P. · 27 Dec 2012 at 20:36

That is a perfect combo, the 16-85 is a wonderful walk-about, everyday, traveling, hiking, holiday lens. The 35mm 1.8 DX is a very sharp prime that has nice rendition, smooth bokeh. Adding a f/2.8 zoom doesn't really help anything, you have a less convenient zoom lens that still doesn't have the light gather and shallow DoF capabilities of the fast prime. This is especially true on a crop sensor, f/2.8 is just not that shallow and over a large part of the shared focal lengths you are around 1 stop faster than the slower zoom. The primes get you another stop and 1/3rd making a significant difference. On Full Frame f/2.8 is typically shallow enough for most people so the fast zoom has a little more value in my eyes (shooting 70mm at f/2.8 is lie shooting a 50mm f/1.8 prime on a crop).

DBT85 · 27 Dec 2012 at 21:01

I'll be adding the 35mm DX 1.8 to my collection for my D7000 by the new year.

I currently have the Nikon 50mm 1.8, a Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG, and a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX DG.

I'm weighing up what I want to do with the 24-70mm. I may sell that around easter and use the proceeds + tesco vouchers + birthday funds to buy something new. Possibly the 16-85mm D.P. is talking about. A silent wave focus, VRII lens with more range at both ends could be quite useful for me at a cost of maximum aperture.

Steves1982 · 28 Dec 2012 at 09:05

D.P. said:
That is a perfect combo, the 16-85 is a wonderful walk-about, everyday, traveling, hiking, holiday lens. The 35mm 1.8 DX is a very sharp prime that has nice rendition, smooth bokeh. Adding a f/2.8 zoom doesn't really help anything, you have a less convenient zoom lens that still doesn't have the light gather and shallow DoF capabilities of the fast prime. This is especially true on a crop sensor, f/2.8 is just not that shallow and over a large part of the shared focal lengths you are around 1 stop faster than the slower zoom. The primes get you another stop and 1/3rd making a significant difference. On Full Frame f/2.8 is typically shallow enough for most people so the fast zoom has a little more value in my eyes (shooting 70mm at f/2.8 is lie shooting a 50mm f/1.8 prime on a crop).

DBT85 said:
I'll be adding the 35mm DX 1.8 to my collection for my D7000 by the new year.

I currently have the Nikon 50mm 1.8, a Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG, and a Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX DG.

I'm weighing up what I want to do with the 24-70mm. I may sell that around easter and use the proceeds + tesco vouchers + birthday funds to buy something new. Possibly the 16-85mm D.P. is talking about. A silent wave focus, VRII lens with more range at both ends could be quite useful for me at a cost of maximum aperture.

Thanks for the info guys, I think that has settled it for me. I'll get hunting for them this afternoon

Steves1982 · 6 Jan 2013 at 12:53

Having a bit of a rethink and was considering the Tamron 17-50 which would leave me money spare for a flash and GPS unit.

Posted this at TP but thought you guys usually answer quicker!

I've got a chance to get an original Tamron 17-50 non vc model for fairly cheap. Its the earliest one I believe with model number A16N with no auto focus motor. From reading around I believe this is the best version to go with faster focusing but being an earlier model it is probably around 3-4 years old.

Will the age be an issue or for £200 should I get it? Or do you think the 16-85 and 35mm. 1.8 combo (I have already bought the 35mm) will be better?

I'm just a bit concerned that if I just take the 16-85 out for the day any indoor shots may not be that good compared to the Tammy?

Amp34 · 6 Jan 2013 at 16:07

TBH I've bought 15 year old lenses, they generally either work or they don't. I don't normally think about the specific age of a lens. On the other hand the 17-50 is a bit of a cheap feeling lens and mine broke (bought second hand) within a week of me having is - luckily the guy I bought it from got it from MPB a few months before and sorted out a refund for me.

Steves1982 · 6 Jan 2013 at 19:20

I might take a punt on a new vc model. A lot of people seem happy with them although the non sharpness issue worries me a bit.

PhotoPixels · 7 Jan 2013 at 21:21

I also recommend the Nikor 16-85mm as a good walk about lens. It's just about ready for an update, so the existing model should drop in price a tad.
I can also recommend the Tokina 11-16mm pro, if you need anything wider. Both great on the D7000.

Steves1982 · 8 Jan 2013 at 15:40

PhotoPixels said:
I also recommend the Nikor 16-85mm as a good walk about lens. It's just about ready for an update, so the existing model should drop in price a tad.
I can also recommend the Tokina 11-16mm pro, if you need anything wider. Both great on the D7000.

Thanks, still making up my mind at the moment.

I've been put off Tamron by the loud AF motor noise. I will be attending quite a few friend's weddings next year and it sounds quite obtrusive

Also now considering the Sigma 17-50 2.8.

D.P. · 8 Jan 2013 at 15:43

maximusmi2 said:
Having a bit of a rethink and was considering the Tamron 17-50 which would leave me money spare for a flash and GPS unit.

Posted this at TP but thought you guys usually answer quicker!

I've got a chance to get an original Tamron 17-50 non vc model for fairly cheap. Its the earliest one I believe with model number A16N with no auto focus motor. From reading around I believe this is the best version to go with faster focusing but being an earlier model it is probably around 3-4 years old.

Will the age be an issue or for £200 should I get it? Or do you think the 16-85 and 35mm. 1.8 combo (I have already bought the 35mm) will be better?

I'm just a bit concerned that if I just take the 16-85 out for the day any indoor shots may not be that good compared to the Tammy?

My issue with this lens inside through 3 copies to find a sharp one, all of them useless. I still prefer the 16-85 + 35mm combo, more versatile and the 35 is better for portraits and lowlight.

A 17-50mm f2.8 is a useful lens though, do you have a chance of testing before you buy?

Steves1982 · 8 Jan 2013 at 15:55

D.P. said:
My issue with this lens inside through 3 copies to find a sharp one, all of them useless. I still prefer the 16-85 + 35mm combo, more versatile and the 35 is better for portraits and lowlight.

A 17-50mm f2.8 is a useful lens though, do you have a chance of testing before you buy?

I will do in a few weeks. Didn't want to wait that long though!

The 16-85 seems to hold its value 2nd hand though so If I didn't get on with it I could always move it on and try something else.

Steves1982 · 10 Jan 2013 at 21:42

I ended up going for the 16-85 in the end. Haven't had a chance to have a proper go on it yet due to the weather. The VR is surprisingly good in low light though, looking forward to getting out and about now.

D.P. · 10 Jan 2013 at 21:54

I am always surprised bu the 16-85, the images are sharp and contrasty, the VR effective, the lens is small, but solid, 16mm is so nice to use. I got it as part of a kt and expected to sell it on but I just couldn't bring myself to get rid of it.

Steves1982 · 10 Jan 2013 at 22:22

I was surprised by how small it was really. I had the Canon 15-85 on my last camera and it seemed much heavier and larger than this. The Nikon doesn't feel any less well built or sturdy but the VR seems slightly better so far and it doesn't creep like the Canon. I doubt I will be disappointed with this lens.