Getting D7000 and need lens suggestions...

[JohnnyRebel]

I'm trading in the ol' D2h, D40 and D200 for store credit with Adorama, along with a few "kit" quality lenses.

I'm getting the D7000. I kept the 35mm f/1.8 and the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5. I want to be able to shoot events in natural light (for the venue). What lenses should I look at and are there any "best buy" lenses that I should seek out?

JR

 

[jpeyton]

Anything fast aperture is worth owning.

The 50/1.8 (AF-D or AF-S) is always a best buy. The 50/1.4 (AF-D or AF-S) is great, too, but roughly double the price. I enjoyed the 24/2.8 and the 35/2, but on a crop-sensor the 35/1.8 is sharper than both.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Anything fast aperture is worth owning.

The 50/1.8 (AF-D or AF-S) is always a best buy. The 50/1.4 (AF-D or AF-S) is great, too, but roughly double the price. I enjoyed the 24/2.8 and the 35/2, but on a crop-sensor the 35/1.8 is sharper than both.

On the 50/1.4, what are the real differences between the AF-S and the AF-D? (Besides the internal motor of the AF-S and the $100 price difference).

JR

 

[Sid59]

Link doesn't have a comparison of teh 50/1.4 AFS vs AFD but a general comparo of varios 50mm.

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/11/03/s...r-nikon-f-mount-compared-by-cary-jordan.aspx/

 

[RampantAndroid]

Get a good prime lens. I have the 35mm f/1.8. A prime lense means switching lenses more often, but makes for some amazing shots.

I also bought a used 18-200 VR lense (the one WITHOUT the 18mm switch on it) which is my new does-everything lens. Those two would be a great start.

Otherwise I have a 20 or something - 70mm lens (came with the D70) that is "meh."

For real telephoto, I have a 70-300 as well. It's a little slow, but for example when I went whale watching on the San Juan islands, it did great.

 

[jpeyton]

On the 50/1.4, what are the real differences between the AF-S and the AF-D? (Besides the internal motor of the AF-S and the $100 price difference).

JR

The AF-S is much sharper off-center with larger apertures. It also has a 9-bladed diaphragm, so the bokeh is noticeably smoother (background highlights remain rounded, instead of turning hexagonal with the AF-D).

 

[twistedlogic]

I want to be able to shoot events in natural light (for the venue).

For venue work I suggest a fast zoom and two bodies. The Nikon 17-50 2.8 is the top dog, but the Tamron 17-50 2.8 can come close for a lot less. Then you may also need a fast telephoto like a 70-200mm VR v1 or Sigma 50-150mm.

All primes are doable and may be needed for some venues. And of course you could always use a few SB speedlights for off camera use.

Budget?

 

[actuarial]

Have you considered the 80-200 AF-D?

It's not VR but is f/2.8, and combine that with what I've heard is the ridiculous usability at high ISOs of the D7000 it could be a good fit.

 

[bigi]

For events, f/2.8 may often be too dark. I'd look at something like Nikon 135mm f/2 DC.

If you can live with 2.8, the 80-200 will be very good. If you have money to burn, I'd get the VR. VR1 will do as it will not show its weaknesses on cropped body.

 

[jpeyton]

f/2.8 is too dark for most indoor events unless you're on a D700, or you have great lighting.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

f/2.8 is too dark for most indoor events unless you're on a D700, or you have great lighting.

At work I use the D700 w/ 70-200 2.8 VR; company events, many outside and with the indoor stuff being fairly well lit, along with brochures and PR productions. I do plan to get a D700 in a few months. The D7000 will be my second body and I want to start doing freelance gigs immediately. I already do some shooting for the Symphony Orchestra and local theater groups.

I like what folks say about the 80-200 f/2.8, but don't know how much I'd miss VR. I had a 135mm f/2 DC a while back, but did not like it on a DX and sent it back to Adorama. I am thinking about the 105 f/2 DC. I do have a cap on how much I can spend, which all depends on my annual bonus. I should have 7K-10K to spend, total. The D7000 is a basically a freebie with my trade-ins to Adorama.

I had considered the 70-200 VR a must-have, but if the 80-200 would do I could get the 105 f/2 DC for the same money. I have never used a mid-range zoom much and have almost no experience with wide-angle zooms and primes. I looked at the 17-55, but want to keep all my lenses usable on FX as well as DX. The 17-35 seems like a poor range for DX. Don't really know what to do here.

I am liking the idea of fast primes, and getting the pro zooms later.

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Have you considered the 80-200 AF-D?

It's not VR but is f/2.8, and combine that with what I've heard is the ridiculous usability at high ISOs of the D7000 it could be a good fit.

The 80-200 is GO! I have some reservations about VR and focusing noise, but am convinced that I can sell it for what I will have invested. Plus, I've got a Symphony Orchestra Christmas concert coming up, and can put it through a real test within the 30-day "no questions asked" refund period from Adorama.

JR