Help me decide my lens palette

[Cerpin Taxt]

I just purchased a D7000 kit that includes an 18-105mm lens. Previously I had bought the D5100 kit with the 18-55mm lens from Costco, and the bundle also included a 55-300mm VR lens. While I wanted a few more features from my camera body, I was pretty happy with the wide lens, and the telephoto wasn't too shabby either. Anyway I returned the bundle to Costco and got the simple D7000 kit instead.

Now I'm trying to decide which lenses I'm going to seek out to accommodate all of my interests and deliver acceptable performance without putting me in the poor house.

I really want to try to cover a gamut of focal lengths, as well. I want to be able to shoot landscapes and portraits as well as wildlife and sports. That's why I want some help being choosy about my lenses. I'm sure I can get good performance from the more expensive Nikon lenses, but I'm eager to find the real good value in third party lenses, even if they do not quite keep up with the 1st party glass.

So, I haven't shot with the 18-105mm lens really at all but at least afew of the accounts I've read and the net suggest it's performance is less than stellar. I'd have no problem parting with it. I also picked up an AF-S 50mm f/1.8 along the way which I'm pretty happy with in terms of image quality, but I sometimes wonder if a 35mm wouldn't have been better.

Currently I'm most interested in the Tokina 14-24 f/4 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO HSM (1st gen, non-macro) to serve me at the wide end and telephoto zoom. I'm not really sure what, if anything will fill the gap between them. Is there an upgrade to the kit lens I have that wouldn't break the bank? I do kind of like the way the kit lens covers a large zoom range, so maybe it will do as long as I don't take it to either extreme end.

I'm also very interested in the Nikon 300mm f/4 for my sports (mostly rugby, so daytime outdoor) and wildlife, but I'm still trying to decide if there are alternatives that could save me some coin. I've read that the Sigma I mentioned above does fairly well with a TC but I'm concerned that the AF will suffer and it wouldn't keep up with the subjects I want to shoot at that distance.

Comments? Suggestions?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cliffs:

Cerpin wants to get awesome lenses at bargain prices to shoot anything and everything his little heart desires and get fantastic pictures that will make him rich and famous and popular with women.

 

[HendrixFan]

I'd say take it one lens at a time. Shoot as much as you can with what you have so that you can get a feel for what you still feel like you are missing. Everyone is different. From there it is easier to pick the right lens.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, I don't disagree that your suggestion is probably the RIGHT way, I'm eager to get SOME kind of variety in my lenses so I can get back to at least taking the pictures I used to take with the D5100 bundle I just returned.

 

[Syborg1211]

Well, I don't disagree that your suggestion is probably the RIGHT way, I'm eager to get SOME kind of variety in my lenses so I can get back to at least taking the pictures I used to take with the D5100 bundle I just returned.

What pictures can't you take with the 18-105 that you are trying to get? Seems like you just have the common and well-known bug of just wanting to buy lenses for the sake of buying lenses. What are you unhappy about with the 18-105? If you want more reach then buy a long telephoto. If you want wider, then buy an ultra-wide, but it seems to me you just want to buy lenses because you've heard the kit lens is no good. This is quite the contrary - kit lenses are all quite decent, especially in the center. If you had a specific complaint like maybe saying that you see distortion on the edges, then you might be justified in upgrading. Just go back to shooting and enjoying the part of the hobby that doesn't cost you any money!

For an ultra-wide, look into the Tokina 11-16. Your D7000 has the autofocus motor to use this lens, and it has arguably the best picture quality of all the ultra-wides. For a walk-around lens, check out the Nikon 16-85 for it's very highly regarded picture quality. The Sigma 17-50 is another good option with indoor capabilities because of it's f/2.8 constant aperture. I don't shoot much long-range so I can't recommend one.

You have a 50mm. Why do you want a 35mm? If the answer isn't that you find the 50mm isn't wide enough then don't bother with the 35mm. The differences in image quality are slim to none.

I will say this - more lenses doesn't always equal better. It's quite a hassle carrying around so many lenses everywhere so you'll often be posed with the choice of which lens to bring. The choice is easier with fewer lenses and money in your pocket. Also remember that photography isn't ALL about the lenses. You can spend your money on a good tripod, flash, and bag.

 

[HendrixFan]

I shoot with Canon and have a preference for prime lenses, so I'm not sure how helpful my advice would be. My lineup includes the 10-22 for wide shots and 55-250 for zoom/action. In between that range I have a couple primes (28 and 50) which I can always move my feet to get the shot I want.

What kind of budget are you looking at? Having two lenses ranging from 18-300 certainly makes things easy. How much does switching out lenses bother you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What pictures can't you take with the 18-105 that you are trying to get? Seems like you just have the common and well-known bug of just wanting to buy lenses for the sake of buying lenses. What are you unhappy about with the 18-105? If you want more reach then buy a long telephoto. If you want wider, then buy an ultra-wide, but it seems to me you just want to buy lenses because you've heard the kit lens is no good. This is quite the contrary - kit lenses are all quite decent, especially in the center. If you had a specific complaint like maybe saying that you see distortion on the edges, then you might be justified in upgrading. Just go back to shooting and enjoying the part of the hobby that doesn't cost you any money!

No, I think I gave you the wrong idea. I don't really have any self-formed opinion of the kit lens. I have read that it is a poor lens among kit lenses, but I did enjoy the 18-55 kit lens I got with my D5100, so I'm not biased against kit lenses per se, although the poor reviews of it may make me more critical of it than I should be, I'll admit.

I do want to go wider and longer than the kit lens will allow me, however.

For an ultra-wide, look into the Tokina 11-16. Your D7000 has the autofocus motor to use this lens, and it has arguably the best picture quality of all the ultra-wides. For a walk-around lens, check out the Nikon 16-85 for it's very highly regarded picture quality. The Sigma 17-50 is another good option with indoor capabilities because of it's f/2.8 constant aperture. I don't shoot much long-range so I can't recommend one.

These are all precisely the recommendations I'm looking for. I have looked at the Tokina ultrawide, and my only reservation is that its limited zoom range might not be quite as versatile as the 12-24 f4. The reality is that it probably wouldn't matter.

I'll have a look at the others you suggested for the mid-range, but I probably should let my kit lens have a fair shot before I go swapping it out.

You have a 50mm. Why do you want a 35mm? If the answer isn't that you find the 50mm isn't wide enough then don't bother with the 35mm. The differences in image quality are slim to none.

That's good to know. I really do like the 50mm, but you're right in that sometimes it seems like it isn't wide enough. I'll probably end up keeping it.

I will say this - more lenses doesn't always equal better. It's quite a hassle carrying around so many lenses everywhere so you'll often be posed with the choice of which lens to bring. The choice is easier with fewer lenses and money in your pocket. Also remember that photography isn't ALL about the lenses. You can spend your money on a good tripod, flash, and bag.

Yeah, I figured that I could pare down the lenses I'm going to carry on any given outing simply by deciding what I'm going out to shoot, but your point is a good one. That's why I'm trying to flesh it all out here.

 

[CptObvious]

The 18-105mm VR actually has very decent image quality - I think only Ken Rockwell rated it negatively, and I take his reviews with a grain of salt. All other lens review sites rated it positively. It's a useful walk-around lens for travel.

12-14mm works for UWA. I like a lens going wider to 10mm but just my preference.

Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 would be a versatile mid-range zoom.

The Sigma 70-200 would work for your uses, but it's considered the least sharp of the 70-200 zooms, and a TC would degrade IQ further. For a bit more than a 2x TC I would personally just pick up another lens like the Tamron 70-300 VC.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I shoot with Canon and have a preference for prime lenses, so I'm not sure how helpful my advice would be. My lineup includes the 10-22 for wide shots and 55-250 for zoom/action. In between that range I have a couple primes (28 and 50) which I can always move my feet to get the shot I want.

I think I could be quite happy with an outfit similar to that. I've had an opportunity to shoot a wedding with the D5100 bundle I had briefly, though, and I found the 55-300 very useful for hanging back and grabbing some candids.

What kind of budget are you looking at? Having two lenses ranging from 18-300 certainly makes things easy. How much does switching out lenses bother you?

Switching out lenses isn't too big of a deal to me, but the simpler the better, naturally. The 18-55 and 55-300 set the D5100 had were a great pair in terms of covering all the focal lengths. The 50mm 1.8 really got me excited about wider apertures and nice bokeh, though.

I haven't set a firm budget since I'm not really looking to pick up all these lenses at once, but rather I'm looking to decide which lenses I'll ultimately want, and the order in which I want to acquire them over time. I won't mind spending $2K-$3k after it's all said and done if I end up with lenses that will give me beautiful pics for each of my applications.

Right now I think the lens that would benefit me the most would be the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, then down the line I could pick up an ultrawide like the Tokina that Syborg1211 mentioned. Finally, if I was still itching to upgrade my sports and wildlife stuff, I could pick up the 300mm f4 I'm interested in. It'd probably even be better just to rent that lens because I'd really only use it on certain specific occasions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The 18-105mm VR actually has very decent image quality - I think only Ken Rockwell rated it negatively, and I take his reviews with a grain of salt. All other lens review sites rated it positively. It's a useful walk-around lens for travel.

FWIW, it has some pretty spotty reviews on Fred Miranda, too, relative to other kit lenses, but those aren't necessarily professional reviews, either.

12-14mm works for UWA. I like a lens going wider to 10mm but just my preference.

Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 would be a versatile mid-range zoom.

If I ever did decide to swap out the kit lens, these would probably be my preference. It's shaping up to be kinda low on the priority list, however.

The Sigma 70-200 would work for your uses, but it's considered the least sharp of the 70-200 zooms, and a TC would degrade IQ further. For a bit more than a 2x TC I would personally just pick up another lens like the Tamron 70-300 VC.

See now, from what I've read, the 1st gen Sigma 70-200 was actually very sharp, but in the later iterations of the lens (the "Macro" versions) things got worse. It's also been suggested with that the latEST version -- the one that includes image stabilization -- things are back on par with its peers. Being that I'm trying to be budget conscious, however, I'm trying to stick to shopping for that earlier model like this one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/14078867545...AX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_500wt_1416

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Just an quick update cuz I'm bored...

I picked up a Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR for my telephoto lens. I really like it a lot, in fact, although the aperture is a bit slower than I'd like. The build quality is solid, and it's quite sharp. I think the high ISO performance of the D7000 will compensate for the slow aperture well enough. Here's a few pics from the zoo:


Zoo_Trip_0126 by garthoverman, on Flickr


Zoo_Trip_0260 by garthoverman, on Flickr

I've also used my 18-105 kit lens quite a bit now, and I am definitely disappointed in the amount of distortion it gives me, but Camera RAW has built-in lens distortion correction so it's basically trivial to correct it. Sharpness is pretty good, still, as long as I apply a liberal dose of sharpening in PP. Samples:


GOA_1205 by garthoverman, on Flickr


GOA_1198 by garthoverman, on Flickr

That light pole really bothers me in that second pic, and someday I may try to 'shop it out...

 

[jhansman]

Dunno if this will help, but I'll chime in. I use both the kit lenses that Nikon bundles with their consumer bodies, the 18-55 & 55-200, and like them both. They serve 90% of my needs. Were I to buy another lens, it would be either the micro Nikkor 105mm and/or the 10-24mm. Having a high quality macro lens and a super wide would round out my bag nicely. I haven't the $$ for either, but I know I'd be out shooting more if I had them.

 

[kbp]

I personally like the 18-200 and use it the most.

 

[Silenus]

Software distortion correction and chromatic aberration correction is quite common now and makes lens choice a little easier since it's so easy to fix. You know the D7000 also has an automatic distortion correction built in right? It can correct every shot on the fly. Just be aware it will slow it down slightly in writing to the card, and slightly crop the image as matter of course in correcting distortion. But at least it is an option you can use.

 

[Anubis]

Dunno if this will help, but I'll chime in. I use both the kit lenses that Nikon bundles with their consumer bodies, the 18-55 & 55-200, and like them both. They serve 90% of my needs. Were I to buy another lens, it would be either the micro Nikkor 105mm and/or the 10-24mm. Having a high quality macro lens and a super wide would round out my bag nicely. I haven't the $$ for either, but I know I'd be out shooting more if I had them.

im actually thinking about selling my 105 macro, i dont use it much. it is a fantastic lens, but personally id like something with a larger working distance

the 10-24 is also nice. i went with the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which is an amazing UWA lens for what it costs. its also a tank, im puretty sure i coudl kill wild animals with it and it would still work

 

[jhansman]

im actually thinking about selling my 105 macro, i dont use it much. it is a fantastic lens, but personally id like something with a larger working distance

the 10-24 is also nice. i went with the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which is an amazing UWA lens for what it costs. its also a tank, im puretty sure i coudl kill wild animals with it and it would still work

Both would be useful additions. Remember that the Nikkor 105 can do more than just macro; going back through my shots made with my 55-200, I found most were taken between about 80 and 120mm. That Tokina is a nice piece of glass.

Oh, and remember, you can rent these lenses for about $50/week, which should give you ample time to evaluate either. Come spring, I plan on doing this with both the Nikkor 105mm and the Tokina.

 

[Anubis]

yea i have the range covered with a number of other lenses, the 85 is close the 18-105 can do it the 100-300 can do it. but i agree it is great for more than macro
http://rootminus1.com/admin/dave/Rand/DSC_4606.jpg

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Software distortion correction and chromatic aberration correction is quite common now and makes lens choice a little easier since it's so easy to fix. You know the D7000 also has an automatic distortion correction built in right? It can correct every shot on the fly. Just be aware it will slow it down slightly in writing to the card, and slightly crop the image as matter of course in correcting distortion. But at least it is an option you can use.

No I didn't know that the D7k had in-camera distortion correction. I just always did it in post, so I don't bother looking any further than that. I'm quite happy to do it on the PC anyway, since I can do it as a batch process. Thanks for the info, though.