is a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G ED + D7000 a waste?

[danny]

Hi All,
Finally looking at upgrading to D7000 after spending the last couple of years getting to know my D3000. Not a huge upgrade compared to so many that are currently going to the D800. I know the obvious chose would be to get a 17-50 2.8... but for a little extra I could go the full hog (so to speak) and get the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G.

I have been going over the pros and cons for days and would love some advice from people on AP.

I know the 24-70 is an FX and the D7000 is a DX but I was thinking that an extra couple of hundred $ investment now would pay off as from all accounts it is a lens that I will always have what ever body comes my way in the distant future.

As a side note instead of the D7000 I was looking at maybe contemplating upgrading to the D700 but it seems that supply has dried up (grey market).

Cheers
Danny

[MissionMan]

Look around at shops for a D700. You may find one still in stock somewhere on special. Second hand market is also pretty open with them.

The 24-70 is never a waste, in fact, good glass is never a waste ever.

[ricktas]

Buying lenses built for FF bodies is a good move. Lenses can last you a lifetime, camera bodies rarely will. If you buy a good lens now, you should never really need to replace it. so I say Yes, get the 24-70

[Glenda]

I have a D7000 and recently bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and love it. I chose the Tamron for the vibration control. Haven't tried it handheld in low light as yet but know I need the VC in those circumstances. Guess it will depend on what other lenses you have. I also have the Nikon 10-24 so wasn't really concerned about 24 not being very wide on a cropped sensor.

[zollo]

You will still get better micro contrast ( sharpness ) from the 24-70 no matter if it's on an fx or dx body, so high quality lens will never be a waste.

BTW imo the d7000 will keep up with a d700 at pretty much everything, so I wouldn't be too concerned.

[Lance B]

Hi All,
Finally looking at upgrading to D7000 after spending the last couple of years getting to know my D3000. Not a huge upgrade compared to so many that are currently going to the D800. I know the obvious chose would be to get a 17-50 2.8... but for a little extra I could go the full hog (so to speak) and get the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G.

I have been going over the pros and cons for days and would love some advice from people on AP.

Only possible issue to you may be that the apparent focal length of the 24-70 on the D7000 will be 36-105, which may not be a big deal to you.


I know the 24-70 is an FX and the D7000 is a DX but I was thinking that an extra couple of hundred $ investment now would pay off as from all accounts it is a lens that I will always have what ever body comes my way in the distant future.

As a side note instead of the D7000 I was looking at maybe contemplating upgrading to the D700 but it seems that supply has dried up (grey market).

Getting a D700 may be a good thing if you like to shoot wider rather than longer. However, if you want to shoot sports, birds or animals, the D7000 is a better bet due to the crop sensor. The D7000 has pretty much just as good high ISO noise ability as the D700, so you won't lose out there.

[danny]

Lance - thanks for the advice. Good to know about the iso range being similar.

[Epoc]

I have both the D700 and D7000. I have got useable images at the extreme of 5000 ISO on the 700. Wouldn't even think about going there with the 7000.

[Lance B]

I have both the D700 and D7000. I have got useable images at the extreme of 5000 ISO on the 700. Wouldn't even think about going there with the 7000.

Hmm, I don't know. I think the D7000 can pretty much match the D700, here are some ISO6400 shots from the D7000:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/131876328/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/131791678/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/131919299/original.jpg

This is at ISO5000

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/142065241/original.jpg

[AVALANCHE]

Lance, those are incredible!

[JM Tran]

Lance you are showing photos that were shot in what seemed like decent lighting, so naturally a DX sensor can still perform decently. However, there is just no way a D7000 sensor can match a D700 in low light situations, say hello to noise in shadows etc. Maybe post up a side by side comparison of a dimly lit room with both cameras.

[Epoc]

Yep, compare in low light. No comparison. Also, the DR of the 700 leaves the 7000 way behind as well. I can recover so much more from a blown out 700 shot compared to the same shot with the 7000. I am away now from my computer for a week on business. If this thread is still alive when I return, I will post examples.

[WhoDo]

There is no question that in EXTREME conditions, the larger sensor of the D700 will outperform the APS-C sensor of the D7000. That said, Lance's point remains valid - the D7000 will still produce "usable" images at the extremes of its ISO range ... almost to the standard of the older technology D700. It's all very well to argue the point about this processor vs. that processor but the OP's question was NOT about processors but about a lens. Considered advice is, IMHO, always much more useful than fanboism. :confused013

[Epoc]

The OP also mentioned deciding between D700 and D7000. Lance's points may be valid, but so are JM Tran's and mine. The D700 will noticeably outperform the D7000 in low light, high ISO situations. Simple as that really. No "fanboyism" at play here, just facts from someone who owns both bodies.

[zollo]

hmmm, i still think a d7000 will perform on par with a d700. if one wanted to photograph "dimly lit rooms" with lots of shadows, uhm, there is no need to use high iso to do that. however, if you want a correctly exposed photo, the iso performance of the d700 is not worth the extra pricetag over the 7000, at all, imo.

[WhoDo]

Getting a D700 may be a good thing if you like to shoot wider rather than longer. However, if you want to shoot sports, birds or animals, the D7000 is a better bet due to the crop sensor. The D7000 has pretty much just as good high ISO noise ability as the D700, so you won't lose out there.


I have both the D700 and D7000. I have got useable images at the extreme of 5000 ISO on the 700. Wouldn't even think about going there with the 7000.


There is no question that in EXTREME conditions, the larger sensor of the D700 will outperform the APS-C sensor of the D7000. That said, Lance's point remains valid - the D7000 will still produce "usable" images at the extremes of its ISO range ... almost to the standard of the older technology D700. It's all very well to argue the point about this processor vs. that processor but the OP's question was NOT about processors but about a lens. Considered advice is, IMHO, always much more useful than fanboism. :confused013


The OP also mentioned deciding between D700 and D7000. Lance's points may be valid, but so are JM Tran's and mine. The D700 will noticeably outperform the D7000 in low light, high ISO situations. Simple as that really. No "fanboyism" at play here, just facts from someone who owns both bodies.

So you are saying then that it IS "a waste" for the OP to consider pairing a Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED with the D7000? If so, how can you make that call without knowing what the OP primarily wants to shoot with his new gear? Lance offered both perspectives in his initial response. Yours simply implied the D7000 was useless in high ISO low light situations. Lance replied with evidence in the form of images from the D7000 taken at 6400 ISO - higher than your "extreme" limit of 5000 ISO for that body - as you said, "with the D7000 I wouldn't even go there". JM Tran then said the images "looked" as though they were taken in good light. How does he know? Why would anyone, even a bird fancier, shoot at ISO 6400 if the light level didn't require it? JM Trans reply was disingenuous and based on a specious argument IMO.

You may have both bodies but clearly you favour one over the other. I made it clear in my post that there is no question the larger sensor of the D700 would outperform the APS-C sensor of the D7000 in low light. I didn't suggest a degree, and neither did Lance. Only JM Tran hinted at a degree with his unsubstantiated suggestion that "there is just no way a D7000 sensor can match a D700 in low light situations". Well, Lance's post clearly debunks that statement. How "low light" does it have to be for the D7000 to be discernibly worse than the D700? Independent comparisons suggest the difference is 1 f/stop (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/680|0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/441|0/(brand2)/Nikon) at the worst. Those same comparisons also show there is little or no difference between the two bodies in most other areas, although the D7000 actually has a greater dynamic range (13.9 eve vs. 12.2 evs) than the D700 in Landscape, and it also is a much faster body for sports or wildlife. Since we are talking about a lens that covers landscape, portrait and sports ranges on DX body, but only wide angle to very short tele on a FX body, which would you seriously recommend as a combination for someone moving up from a D3000?

You say there was no "fanboyism" in your reply. Maybe not, but there was IMHO a great deal of sensor snobbery in at least one of the replies in this thread and that's just not helpful. Lance has supported his assertions with images. I have supported mine with references to specific independent tests. You and JM Tran have simply made unsupported assertions and expected readers to take you at your word. You said you want proof and we've supplied it. Where's yours?

For others who may be reading this thread, I apologise if my response seems harsh. I have discovered that I have little patience with unfounded assertions when people are asking for advice rather than opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and some more facts for those who trust them over opinions: here is the EXIF data from the first of Lance's images above:

Lens: 70-200 mm f/2.8 Shot at 400 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, 1/250 sec, f/7.1, ISO 6400
Flash: Off, Did not fire
You will note there was no flash used, the shutter speed was quite slow and the aperture was fairly wide. It looks like there may have been a 2XTC involved too. There clearly wasn't enough "good light" to leave Lance with so little wiggle room in order to get the shot. So much for the argument about it "looking like the images were shot in good light"(sic).

[JM Tran]

Ahhhh yes, the good old classic DxO website which has been the butt of jokes a bit too many times for anyone shooting long enough to take seriously:efelant:

Well, just wanted to say thank you for that rant/assumption of my 'unsupported assertions' and whatnot. Relax from writing, nobody is having a dig at your beloved D7000, I was curious at Lance's comment about it -
I think the D7000 can pretty much match the D700, here are some ISO6400 shots from the D7000:.

I thought it was well established on the net and forums already that whilst a D7000 can punch pretty well with high ISO up to a certain level, it is still sometimes 1 stop behind. One stop, is still 1, it is not on par like some are trying to claim.

Not to mention, I'd prefer the D3/700 high iso file any day over a D7000, for work or fun/personal - as I prefer retaining more details retained rather than overly smoothed out/aggressive NR - guess everyone has different standards of what is acceptable or not.

Anyway, instead of posting a Dx0 link, here are some more useful threads - which are based on user experiences rather than reading numbers and graphs, which I think is much more helpful if you want to keep harping on about D7000 on par with D700/3 etc.

*grabs popcorn*

http://www.flickr.com/groups/d7000-club/discuss/72157626246949571/

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2010-11-08-d7000-d300-5dmarkii-d3-iso/index.htm (OMG a Ken Rockwell link!)

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/nikon-d7000-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso.html

[ricktas]

WOW, isn't this getting down to something well off-topic from the OP's question.

Is a Nikon 24-70 worth getting to use on a D7000?

If this thread continues as an 'I can piss further', I will close it. Lance has shown with examples that the D7000 can produce great results, and the 24-70 is a brilliant lens. So lets keep it about what the OP asked, eh?

[Tommo1965]

not a waste that's for sure ...it would make a very good portrait lens on a D7000...at the wide end it may not be as wide as you'd want

Ive just bought this lens and its being used on my D700...its not as quick to focus as my 70-200 or as confidant ..but its a quality piece of kit none the less ..and used where its strengths lie will be with you over multiple bodies

[Lance B]

Just to clarify my stand point on the matter and I still think this is relevent to the OP's question as it may sway his thinking to or from the D7000 for his future needs. I am not trying to turn this into a pi55ing contest.

The reason I was giving comparisons between the D700 and D7000 was because I wanted to point out to the OP that if he wanted to shoot sports or birds or whatever then the fact that the D7000 is a crop sensored camera, it will probably be a better choise as it will give him the 1.5x focal length advantage, so a 300mm lens acts like a 450mm lens etc, which is great for "reach". Added to this, it is a crop sensor packed with 16Mp over the D700's 12Mp, so he can even crop the D7000 if required, whereas I find that cropping the D700 does take the edge of the image, IMO.

Now, when we use long lenses specifically for birds and sports etc, then have to consider that higher shutter speeds are generally required for the purpose of stopping subject movement as VR only helps with camera movement. So, keeping this in mind, we need to consider that shutter speeds that may be required can be 1/1000sec or much more, depending on the focal length being used, and even in reasonably lit areas, you may require ISO's of 6400, as per the examples above. Of course you can use lower shutter speeds, but only if the subject is reasonably stationary or at least stationary at the time of shutter release.

Take these two birds below. As they were "snuggling" away, they were moving/jittering the whole time and I required the setting of a reasonably high shutter speed of 1/1000sec for my 500 f4 VR lens on the D800. Now this was a FX (FF) shot, yes, but this is a heavy 45% crop, so, more than from FX (full frame) to DX (APS C) which would be about a 33% crop so it has the effect of focal length multiplier as well and we could be talking and effective focal length of about 940mm.

Model NIKON D800
Focal Length 500 mm
Exposure Time 1/1000 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 3200

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/143804523/original.jpg

So, my point was with showing the examples of the D7000 at high ISO is that it is a highly accomplished DX camera for high ISO purposes and very much worth considering if this is what the OP wants to explore with his D7000.

[J.davis]

I use the Sigma 2.8 24-70 as my walkaround lens on the D7000 and am quiet happy.
When travelling OS it stays on the camera and works very well.

[danny]

Wow! What a difference a day makes. I just got to a computer to discover this thread going..... Well just going!

I suppose I could have asked... is the D7000 good enough for the lens mentioned? The initial question was asked to make sure that I wasn't going overboard buying a lens of that calibre with an "enthusiasts" camera. judging by all your wonderful responses the answer is that it is a great combination. But a D700 would be better ;).

So once again thank you for all answering and taking the time to respond. All going well I will order D7000 and lens mentioned ASAP.

[zollo]

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/nikon-d7000-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso.html[/url]

Nice links jm. If you Took the time to read them yourself you would be suprised at the conclusion to them. I'll quote it so you can keep enjoying your popcorn

"That said, if I didn't already own a D700, I'd have a tough time deciding whether to buy two Nikon D7000 bodies, or to go with a D700 / D7000 combination. I suspect I might just end up with two D7000's."

[jamesridley]

would a 120mm - 400mm sigma lens be sufficient on a d7000 , i have a d5000 thought of up grading 2 either the d7000 or wait for the d400 if it ever comes out to improve on light gathering whats your opinion on this

[JM Tran]

Nice links jm. If you Took the time to read them yourself you would be suprised at the conclusion to them. I'll quote it so you can keep enjoying your popcorn

"That said, if I didn't already own a D700, I'd have a tough time deciding whether to buy two Nikon D7000 bodies, or to go with a D700 / D7000 combination. I suspect I might just end up with two D7000's."


Obviously I had read that article ages ago, I was highlighting the fact about the difference in detail retention and less aggressive NR of the D700 - in which the poster has, and in which I once had. Thank you for bringing this up again? Or not. How is your D7000 going? I couldnt care less if that poster bought 20 D7000s later on to decorate his house - its not the point I was highlighting, which was - The Nikon D7000 also appears to be applying more aggresive noise reduction at the higher ISO settings compared to the D700. Specifically look at the detail in the tiger's nose fur at the higher ISO settings. You can see the D700 is doing better than the D7000. Again, I imagine this is Nikon's approach to maximizing image quality and minimizing noise.

Over-all, the Nikon D7000 fairs very well against the Nikon D700, especially up to ISO 6,400. At ISO 12,800 and 25,600, the D700 does noticably better than the D7000 at resolving detail with less noise.

Now please, this thread has already been hijacked enough and the facts has already been mentioned. Lets all move on.

[swifty]

Well that escalated quickly :)

Not wishing to dwell on the subject but hopefully I can provide some perspective.
There's a lot of info/evidence presented and they aren't necessarily contradictory.
Where reach is an issue, pixel density matters and Lance has shown some excellent examples. And in this scenario a D7k should be compared to the DX crop of a D700. D7000 will definitely be the winner here at pretty much all ISO's cos we're comparing equal sensor areas and the D7000 has a newer, more efficient Sony Exmor sensor. And by extension if you still need to crop heavily on DX, you may be better with a Nikon V1 or D3200.
Where you can utilize the entire frame, which is a scenario common to Jackie's line of shooting, FX will have a little more than double the sensor area than DX equating to roughly 1 stop which is what we see in the real world. The newer Sony design is slightly more efficient so the difference is a little less than 1 stop but what happens when you use the same technology and expand to FX, you get a D800 and the 1 stop difference is restored.

Coming back to the original question. The 24-70 is absolutely not a waste on DX provided you're comfortable with the effective FL.
One scenario you haven't contemplated and will give you very similar results as a D7000 and 24-70 is any FX camera with a 24-120/f4. Except you don't get the wide end limitations.

[Lance B]

Well that escalated quickly :)

Not wishing to dwell on the subject but hopefully I can provide some perspective.
There's a lot of info/evidence presented and they aren't necessarily contradictory.
Where reach is an issue, pixel density matters and Lance has shown some excellent examples. And in this scenario a D7k should be compared to the DX crop of a D700. D7000 will definitely be the winner here at pretty much all ISO's cos we're comparing equal sensor areas and the D7000 has a newer, more efficient Sony Exmor sensor. And by extension if you still need to crop heavily on DX, you may be better with a Nikon V1 or D3200.
Where you can utilize the entire frame, which is a scenario common to Jackie's line of shooting, FX will have a little more than double the sensor area than DX equating to roughly 1 stop which is what we see in the real world. The newer Sony design is slightly more efficient so the difference is a little less than 1 stop but what happens when you use the same technology and expand to FX, you get a D800 and the 1 stop difference is restored.

Coming back to the original question. The 24-70 is absolutely not a waste on DX provided you're comfortable with the effective FL.
One scenario you haven't contemplated and will give you very similar results as a D7000 and 24-70 is any FX camera with a 24-120/f4. Except you don't get the wide end limitations.

I think you have summed it up very well, Swifty.

[Goatch]

You won't go wrong with the 24-70 , as everyone says good glass means everything , here's 1 more from the same combination , I too have the D700 and the more I use the D7000 I'm realising that it's not too far off the pace .

[livio]

Wow what a thread, I have a D7000 and I have been buying AFS lenses 50mm-f/1.4, 14-24-f/2.8, 70-200-f/2.8 I also have a 16-85 DX f/3.5-5.6 I have been going this way because I have always had the belief that buying good glass is the way to go. The D7000 has been mixed bag for me I get really good results using the 70-200 lens, mediocre results on the 14-24 lens and crap results using the 50mm. I have tested this and it has to do with a back focus issue. I can get close to correcting it by cranking it to -20 using the AFT adjustment. The DX 16-85 lens handles great I get really good clean pictures. So where is this heading, bottom line is that you can't go wrong buying up good glass and be prepared that lens / body combinations do make a difference to sharpness. I have a new camera which is FX sensor but I'm not going to get rid of the D7000 any time real soon. It is a great camera and it is small and it is packed with features. As for High ISO photos it will depend on a number of factors I set mine to a maximum ISO of 3200 this is my preference only the camera will do better than that and depending on light will give you good results. In my opinion the 24-70 is a very worthwhile lens to have in your kit it is versatile and gives you choice. If I were you I would take the chance and go for it.

Kind Regards
Livio

[J.davis]

jamesridley


would a 120mm - 400mm sigma lens be sufficient on a d7000 , i have a d5000 thought of up grading 2 either the d7000 or wait for the d400 if it ever comes out to improve on light gathering whats your opinion on this



I use the Sigma 120-400 on my D7000 and am happy with the results - for a long lens. You don't get much in the frame at 120 and need to do a lot of walking to get anything wide out of it.
Used in conjunction with a 24-70 or 24-120, you have a good allround setup, in my opinion.

[enigmatic]

Wow, what are the chances! I currently have a d3000, and have been toying with the idea of a 24-70 for an upcoming overseas trip... as well as body upgrade (if the cash is there!)

Some great info, so thanks from another :)

[danny]

Just when I thought I had the answers.... Now the D600 has been released in all it's glory. A D600 with a cheaper lens is about the same price.

Now I think a D600 + tamron 28-75 2.8 is the way to go....

[WhoDo]

Just when I thought I had the answers.... Now the D600 has been released in all it's glory. A D600 with a cheaper lens is about the same price.

Now I think a D600 + tamron 28-75 2.8 is the way to go....

Just remember, camera bodies will come and go but the lens will last a lifetime ... even if you don't go for quality glass. IOW, if you buy cheap glass you'll be stuck with it forever. No-one ever buys cheap glass secondhand! Just a thought.

[I @ M]

Now I think a D600 + tamron 28-75 2.8 is the way to go....

Don't skimp on lenses. The Tamron 28-75 is a well regarded lens but it is probably a little dated and probably not up to the job on a high(er) resolution present day body.
Perhaps have a look at their new 24-70 lens.

[danny]

Andrew - was also looking at the AF-S 24-85mm kit lens that is being offered with the D600.

Danny

[I @ M]

Andrew - was also looking at the AF-S 24-85mm kit lens that is being offered with the D600.

Danny

Reviews of either the Nikon 24-85 or the Tamron 24-70 are a bit scarce at the moment but the pros and cons of them to me are out there on paper at least.

The Nikon has a street price of $665 and "kits" combined with the D600 seem to be typically $3,000.00 which seems to be about body + lens price.
The Tamron is listed at about $1200.00 so it is nearly 2x as expensive and nearly 2x times as heavy.
Both have VR which is a handy addition to a mid range zoom such as these.
The Tamron has a maximum aperture of F/2.8 throughout the focal length range whereas the Nikon is listed at F/3.5 to F/4.5, personally I would prefer the constant maximum aperture of the Tamron for the extra shallow depth of field available at all focal lengths.
The Nikon is in shops now, I think the Tamron is still in short supply at the moment.
Going from the limited number of images from either on the 'net at the moment, both appear to offer very good quality.

How deep are your pockets?

[WhoDo]

How deep are your pockets?

Must be pretty deep, Andrew, because the D7000 body is out there for around $800+[eGlobal site sponsor] at the moment and he's contemplating the D600 at $2300+ instead. :confused013 Buy the D600 and the Nikon 24-85 locally and he would be up for over $3k - that's D800 territory as rich guys like you know only too well.:D

[danny]

Not crazy deep I assure you!! Hence the long discussion and thought process instead of just going out and buying. I am just trying to get the best value for money.

I started looking at the D7000 as it seemed the best upgrade to my D3000. This body combined with the 24-70 nikon seemed like a great combination. Now all of a sudden the D600 has arrived and I am trying to way up spending the extra $1K.

Grey market...
D7000 + 24-70 nikon = $2400
D600 + 24-70 tamron = $3100
D600 + "kit lens" = $2600


I actually think I am over thinking the hole thing... maybe I should just order something quickly before I change my mind again.

Danny

[Tommo1965]

out of those combos Id go for the D7000 and 24-70 Nikon

great glass that youll still have when you want to upgrade in two years from the D7000

or just buy the lens only and use it on the D3000

what are your other lenses you currently have ? and whats holding back your photography in the D3000 ?

[danny]

Steve -
The major reasons I am looking to upgrade are: lower noise at higher ISO, focus points and LV.

Danny

- - - Updated - - -

On of course the good old fashion reason of just wanting something better:th3:

[Tommo1965]

Crikey Danny that's a tough call at the moment....the D7000 will be better at high ISo for sure..the D600 even better to much better...if one of the upgrade reasons is LV..then a Used D700 is out as the LV is a tad cumbersome in it..when using Contrast AF.

so what to do..Hmm


your in a bit of a dilemma mate thats for sure ..I went to a D700 for better hi ISO..so I know where your coming from


in all honestly at this stage mate ..I still think a D7000 with a Nikon 24-70 for $2400 is the go ..its a good body excellent lens ...good high ISO and good LV with 39 Focus points it will serve you well for at least 2-3 years before the must have bug hits you again....and for a body that's only about $850 grey at the moment you cant go wrong I reckon.

or if you have another spare $1000 get the D600 and the Nikon lens....I dunno about all the others in this thread..but I bought Nikon Bodies as I wanted Nikon glass...not the other way round

[danny]

..I dunno about all the others in this thread..but I bought Nikon Bodies as I wanted Nikon glass...not the other way round

Great advice.

Sacrificing lens quality for body seems the wrong way around.

- - - Updated - - -

Steve - I agree at $800 the D7000 just seems like such a great deal!!

[Tommo1965]

Ive never owned a D7000..but I did have a Pentax K5 for a while..it has the same sensor as the D7000..it was very good at pulling and pushing in post processing..great detail recovery in blown highlight and in particular underexposed areas..very good dynamic range....high ISO were good too..but not as good as the D700..but still good and lots better than my older pentax K7 that has a slightly higher score than a D3000 for ISO at the DXO site ..so I think your in for a treat with the higher ISo of the D7000 over a D3000


in my camera bag I have three lenses that I wont sell...AFS17-35...AFS24-70..AFS70-200 II....these Ill keep forever ...the rest of it...nah..

[danny]

Steve- Thanks for the advice. I'm sure I have heard those three lenses described as the "nikon holy trinity" :lol:

[Tommo1965]

no worries mate..Im sure you'll be ok whatever your choice...let us know what way you go...and post some pictures with the new gear

EDIT

I know that the D7000 was plagued with back/front focus and oil on the sensor issues on release..bit like the D800 and is left bank AF issues...be a good idea to check with recent purchasers of the D7000 that that was cleared up with later product runs

Lance had one..perhaps he can chime in on that score

[Epoc]

I bought a D7000 about 3 months ago. No issues whatsoever. Checked all my lenses for focussing issues, all good. Agree, it's a hell of a lot of camera for the price. Great bang for your buck.

[danny]

Just when you thought you had it all figured out...

I ordered the D7000 and as for the 24-70 nikon :confused013. My wonderful other half decided that a family holiday to HK was in order early next year. So to cut a long story (or should that be long "discussion") short. The money that I had for the lens is going towards the air tickets which the wife is currently ordering. There is an "understanding" however that seeing as we will be going to the home of cheap camera gear that the first purchase will be the 24-70mm when we arrive.

I did also manage to stretch the budget to include a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical IF. Which I know is not the best but it is a step in the right direction.

Thank you all for the comments, advice and opinions. This is why AP is so great it gives people like me (limited experience) an opportunity to get some much needed help from other more experienced folk.

Can't wait to get my hands on my new toy. I'll post the first images here. :th3:

[JM Tran]

Just when you thought you had it all figured out...

I ordered the D7000 and as for the 24-70 nikon :confused013. My wonderful other half decided that a family holiday to HK was in order early next year. So to cut a long story (or should that be long "discussion") short. The money that I had for the lens is going towards the air tickets which the wife is currently ordering. There is an "understanding" however that seeing as we will be going to the home of cheap camera gear that the first purchase will be the 24-70mm when we arrive.

I did also manage to stretch the budget to include a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical IF. Which I know is not the best but it is a step in the right direction.

Thank you all for the comments, advice and opinions. This is why AP is so great it gives people like me (limited experience) an opportunity to get some much needed help from other more experienced folk.

Can't wait to get my hands on my new toy. I'll post the first images here. :th3:



Must warn you that pricing in HK is not THAT cheap anymore. It is cheaper to buy a lens or body from DWI or eGlobal online and have it delivered to you in Australia, rather than buying one in HK. The possibility or need to return the product for warranty purposes is easier too if you by with the aforementioned companies who can do repairs or exchange in Australia, whereas if you has bought something from Man Shing or Wing Shing for example in HK - it is much harder.

[Epoc]

Hey Danny,

The D7000 Tammy 17-50VC combo is nothing to be sneezed at. It can produce good results. Here is a post I just put up with a few photos from this combo.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?111110-Gaslight-Rally&p=1072508#post1072508

[bconolly]

Agreed - I have the D7000 with the non VC Tamron 17-50 and it's been a top performer for me to date.

BC

- - - Updated - - -


Must warn you that pricing in HK is not THAT cheap anymore. It is cheaper to buy a lens or body from DWI or eGlobal online and have it delivered to you in Australia, rather than buying one in HK. The possibility or need to return the product for warranty purposes is easier too if you by with the aforementioned companies who can do repairs or exchange in Australia, whereas if you has bought something from Man Shing or Wing Shing for example in HK - it is much harder.

My wife and I were there in December 2011 and found that the pricing there was generally (for genuine gear) more expensive than you could get locally. Would an option be to grab the 24-70 and then claim the GST back as you're travelling?

[danny]

Thanks BC and EPOC - I have read many (too many :o) great reviews of the tammy lens, it is great to here from some people on here that it genuinely is a good lens.

BC - Cheers for the idea will definitely look into it.

PS. This has been the slowest few days of my life... waiting for my new toy to arrive.

[danny]

It has arrived. Excited is an understatement. I will post first shots ASAP. :efelant:

[Lance B]

Congrats! Look forward to your samples.

[Jorge Arguello]

I found the thread quite interesting and informative. :wd:

To all participants of this thread:
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with your very useful comments. :party7: