D7000 New Lens(es) Recommendations

BFDBFD Posts: 3Member
edited February 2013 in Nikon Lenses
Hello,

I am looking for some new lens recommendations. I have a D7000 with Sigma 10-20, Nikon 18-105, and Nikon 70-300. I also have an SB-800. We have a newborn on the way later this year and I am looking to get one or two faster lenses. I am debating between a 2.8 mid range zoom (Nikon 24-70) and a prime lens setup. What would you guys with children recommend me in my situation? I have no issues buying used if that makes a difference.

Best Regards,

BFD
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited February 2013
    One thing you can do is Search "D7000 Lenses" in the search function. You will find many threads on the old forum with a ton of information.

    We will leave this thread open, at present to see what some new folks amy have to offer.

    As to a lens to use with the newborn... on a crop sensor I would suggest either a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8. The latest 85mm f/1.8 is a stunner of a lens. Some may suggest going to 105mm f/2 or even 135mm f/2. I would avoid flash with youngsters.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • No_OrchestraNo_Orchestra Posts: 13Member
    I literally can't say enough good things about the 50mm 1.4. I picked it up for this very reason and it's basically stayed on my camera for the last year or so.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,025Member
    Hmm, the 135mm f/2 should be interesting, ends up being a 200mm f/2 or so...

    The 35mm 1.8 may be a better option than the 50mm 1.4, I prefer a slightly wider option.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi,

    There are a lot of considerations on the path you're taking, money, convenience and expectations.

    The 50mm 1.4mm is terrific. So is the 35mm f1.8 (a DX lens) and the 85mm f1.8. The f1.8 lenses are a tad slower and much less expensive. DX lenses will be good for your D7000, but won't upgrade well if you go to FX, something to consider, and prime lenses will be a pain to crawl around with hunting a baby - it's all I had with mine, and a zoom would have been a god send.

    Fast zooms such as a 17-55mm f2.8 (also a DX) is heavy as is the 28-70mm, and the latter is a 42mm to 105mm equivalent. That is pretty good, but 28-70mm is really good for FX, but 42-105mm less so (IMHO) - everyone's entitled to their opinion - in a room, in a house, I think the lens won't work so well, generally - it just won't be wide enough. The 17-55mm will, but again, it's a DX. I have that lens and it's great, but know that it's a DX investment. I would recommend the 17-55, but it will be heavy and weighty and plain hard to control - a real work out. It will do the job, nicely, but like your little one, you'll get a work out.

    The 35mm is a lighter, faster and easier to control and has normal view of the human eye, hence the name 'normal' lens. It's really quite inexpensive and highly recommended for any kit. While I'd not recommend it as the only lens, I would recommend it as a handy lens, and I take a boatload of pictures with it and learn a lot with it, still. You might, too. It will be terrific for some shots, especially outside.

    It and/or the the 50mm will be hard to choose from for shooting portraits. I have both; clearly I couldn't decide on one.

    The 85mm f1.4 is expensive and fantastic and the 85 f1.8 is half the price and the one I have. It isn't one I would recommend for your immediate kit. It is something that a lot of folks look at down the line.

    As for other brands, I've had a few, but I bought Nikon bodies for the lenses in the first place, so there wasn't any point in the long run at looking any other brand of lenses.

    I would get the 17-55, the 35mm and the 50 (in order), used or refurbished and have fun.

    My best,

    Mike


  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited February 2013
    I highly recommend getting the 35 1.8. Should you get it, start practicing taking pictures with it. If you have any pets, they would make good test subject in fine tuning you skills. After all they don't stay still for long...much like new borns. Needless to say, the new mommy would also make a good subject. :P

    Once you are comfortable with your shooting technique then get the lens that Mike recommended; hence the 17-55. Once you have master it, then the 85 1.8G is a no brainer.

    Good luck and congratulation on your soon to be fatherhood....cheers.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    If the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM ever becomes available, this may be the one to get...but wait a few months so I can get mine first...LOL ;))
    Msmoto, mod
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited February 2013
    For children, I would use a zoom. I think the 18 -105 should be fine but then, with children, I tend to use bounce flash and stop down to f 8
    I would buy a second flash eg SB 910 a brolly and may be 2 pocket wizards
    the 24 -70 is an FX lens and would be a wast on a Dx camera . I would only get this lens if you looking to "more up" to a D800 in the future

    For me the perfect set up, for kids , would be, the 24 -120 f4 on a D800 with 3 SB910 two brollies and PWs

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • BFDBFD Posts: 3Member
    My D7000 has plenty of shots left in it, but the point has been brought up of migrating toward FX at some point which is something I intend to do. Right now I am leaning toward starting with one prime and a zoom. With all that in mind would any of you change your recommendations? For the prime I was thinking the 50 1.8g since the reviews generally favor this over the 1.4g. Though that Sigma 35 1.4 does look interesting. For the zoom I'm still undecided between: 17-55 (just sell it off when I go FX), or to get either the 24-70, 24-120 for the longer haul.

    Thank you everyone for your responses.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited February 2013
    @BFD If you plan on going to FX then that changes a few things from my perspective. Get the Sigma 35 1.4 you will be very happy as well as the 24-120. So long as they are within your budget.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi BFD,

    "My D7000 has plenty of shots left in it, but the point has been brought up of migrating toward FX at some point which is something I intend to do."

    Again, how long? And how many shots and do you shoot for yourself or for others (and I don't know how much that really matters - you might be more demanding than anyone else).

    I would sort of get Zen-ish about it. If you have Adobe Bridge, riffle through your pictures and see which ones you like the most, moreover, which ones you liked taking the most, and want to revisit in the future and see what focal length the lenses are. That will really clue you into what lenses you need in your kit.

    It seems that camera makers are leaning to FX in the future, but the DX cameras that exist now will still shoot what they shoot now as well for a long, long time. ;-)

    My best,

    Mike
  • BFDBFD Posts: 3Member
    Yep I agree. I have no problem buying DX lenses if they will best suit me. Up until now, I have been almost strictly a landscape shooter. I mostly used my Sigma 10-20 as well as nikon 18-105 with my Lee Filter set. As this is my first child, this will all be new to me. As far as how long until I move to FX? I don't know. I would imagine within a couple years as this hobby has really grown on me. I do know that I'd rather have great lenses before moving to an FX body rather than having an FX body with a crappy kit lens if that makes any sense. At any rate, I've got a lot to look at. Thanks for your suggestions!
  • Dredden85Dredden85 Posts: 358Member
    I agree with sevencrossing and Golf007sd. A good fast zoom will be more adaptive to the ever changing situation you will have with a new born. You have better gear than what I started out with with my son. I had a D50 and a Quantaray 18-55mm Asph. in 2006. I later upgraded to a Tamron 18-250mm and that helped me keep up. Good luck upgrading to FX with a newborn/kids. I won't see FX till I retire!
    D7000, 18-200VRII | 50 1.8G | SB-900
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi BFD,

    One that that 7C mentioned, and I totally agree, the 18-105mm is a great lens and I use it a lot. It's got some terrible wear marks on it since it's made of plastic, but I think it will still last a long time; it just look like crap.

    Kit lenses get a lot of trash talk, but their optical quality is quite good. They are tack sharp and as 7Crossing pointed out, at f8 with a bouced flash, your results would be very pleasing. The lens doesn't offer itself for hand-holding at candlelight venues, but then, few do. Nor does it at low wattage, fast baby moves either. But it is a nice lens for outdoors and with a flash. I have a modifier by 'Gary Fong' that slips over the flash that works 'fairly' well. The nice that is that is cheap enough and easy.

    In the press corps - long, long ago - we use a piece of cardboard taped to the flash to bounce to the subject, but that's a history subject. ;-)

    My best.

    Mike

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited February 2013
    ...For the prime I was thinking the 50 1.8g since the reviews generally favor this over the 1.4g. Though that Sigma 35 1.4 does look interesting. For the zoom I'm still undecided between: 17-55 (just sell it off when I go FX), or to get either the 24-70, 24-120 for the longer haul.

    Thank you everyone for your responses.
    I would start with a FX zoom
    24 -70 or 24 -120 ?
    Those of us who have the 24 -120 love it
    and every one with the 24 -70 seems happy as well
    there are no hidden advantages or disadvantages
    The 24 -120 has VR and and a longer "reach" but is "only" f4
    The 24 -70 give you an extra stop but has no VR

    Having "only" f4 on the 24 -120 is not much of an issue; at 120mm @f4 the dof is quite shallow for those "arty" shots
    Any distortion in the 24 -120 is easily corrected in post
    the 24 -120 is great for Kids, You can do a family group and the next second shoot a close up

    I have the 50mm f1.4 but have not used it for the past year. I cannot see the point of have a mid range zoom and a standard prime

    the only primes I use is the 105 2.8 macro but I only use it for wild life
    also have a fish eye
    I would love the 24mm f 1.4 but cannot justify the cost

    Remember with FX you can normally shoot at ISO 1600 with out losing too much IQ for






    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • jeribcnjeribcn Posts: 1Member
    35mm or 50mm prime for indoor shot and flash, for newborn.
    Zoom useless the baby dont move....sorry for my bad english
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,021Moderator
    50mm (don't forget that is 75mm on FX) would seem to be the best working distance/perspective compromise for a baby. No longer than 85 tho and no shorter than 50 for close shots. Best use natural light to keep baby smiling but if you have to flash use TTL BAL flash to minimise the blast.
    Always learning.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    For portraits of my little girl I personally prefer my 105 to my 35 F1.8 or 17-55 F2.8. The 85 F1.8 is also another good choice. It is hard to muster much bokeh out of the 17-55, but it takes great pictures. I use it as my all around lens. When I actually setup to take portraits I use my 105. I probably use my 35 the least.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • tyrontyron Posts: 1Member
    I use also D7k and still keeping up understanding in this hobby, right now I'm shooting my little boy and my nephew 2months old using 85 and 35mm 1.8+flash my kid 85 and 70-300mm vr w/ good light available if not I end up 85mm most of the time. :)
  • tmantman Posts: 27Member
    Out of curiosity, how good is bokeh on the 50mm 1.8G? Anyone have that lens for portraits on DX? I bought 85/1.8G and like it for portraits outdoors but is too long for head+torso or full body shots indoors on D7k.
    50/1.8D not very good for bokeh. Nasim Mansurov's review is positive for 50 1.8G but curious if user's experience are similar.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited April 2013
    Here is the Bokeh on the 50mm f/1.8 G...not so great iMO

    http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2199/AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-f%2F1.8G.html#lightbox/carousel/media=2199_ER3.jpg

    Fumble around on Nikon's website and look at the MTF charts for these lenses as well.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi all,

    I tend to post process most images and also think the 50mm f1.8 (non G) is pretty good.

    image

    The bokeh is what it is and how you get it and use it is how you stage it.

    I like the 50mm lens a lot,

    My best,

    Mike
  • tmantman Posts: 27Member
    Ms Moto, Thx. Agree.

    Mike,

    Very nice pic! If I could ask, Depth of Focus is from Aperture or that is from some post-process?
  • turnthedarncranksturnthedarncranks Posts: 116Member
    edited April 2013
    Mike -- do you prefer the D to the G for any reason, such as better bokeh? Or have you just had it since before the G was around?

    Thanks.
    Post edited by turnthedarncranks on
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi all,

    @tman - thanks! The DOF is both from the lens and partially from an Windows application (also available in Mac) from Red Giant called Magic Bullet Photo Looks which was bundled with Corel Paint Shop Pro. I'm an Adobe trainer provider, but keep up with all the other software for photo and video, too, and PSP is very good and cheap, and I used do some work for Ulead (PhotoImpact) before they were bought by Corel.

    Some of the features in their software for the price is unbeatable. I upgrade for every revision, and it's dirt cheap. The B&W capabilities is terrific and other features are too. There are gems abundance in the software at a very reasonable price. I got Magic Bullet Photo Loooks free with PSP, which was like $45 or so for an upgrade.

    @turnthedarncranks - The bokeh is a reason and having the the lens before the G is another ;-), but I also do video, and the aperture ring makes a difference for positive fix when necessary.

    My best,

    Mike
Sign In or Register to comment.