Lens Upgrade for D7000

[falcon91]

Hi All,

I've had my D7000 around 18mths and am looking into my next lens.
I currently have the 18-105, 50mm 1.8D and 70-300mm nikkor lenses.

I'm trying to decide between getting the 35mm 1.8 nikkor or looking into an upgrade of the 18-105.
Is it worth upgrading the kit lens first or getting another prime? If I was to upgrade, i'm probably looking at either the 17-50mm 2.8 tamron/sigma or the 24-70 tamron unless there are other lenses that I should be considering.

Could anyone push me in the right direction?

Thanks!

[livio]

Hmm, Lucky for me I have one of the D7000's and I have a 16-85mm lens f/3.5-f/5.5 Which I rarely comes off the camera. It seems to be a perfect match for the camera. Personally I would just keep the 18-105 it is very versitile and don't worry so much about the f/stop rating. Your camera has Auto ISO you can set to a max of say 1600 or 3200 and still get a decent shot.

I have never sold a lens but I'm lead to believe that you will get more for a nikon or canon lens second hand than you will for a sigma or tameron of course there are exceptions and some of the sigma and tameron lenses are in every way as good as the named brands in some cases even better

Kind Regards
Livio

[ameerat42]

Yeah, I was going to ask what you intend to do with the upgraded lens that you can't already?
Am.

[falcon91]

Hi,

Thanks for the responses.
I'm looking at these lenses for a couple of reasons.
Going to an f2.8 lens, if I understand correctly, should allow much faster autofocus which will help when shooting sports, particularly at nighttime under lights (Something that I've been doing for the last 6 months).
Also when taking portraits, it will help blur out the background significantly better than the 18-105.

Presently I've been shooting sports and pets/animals the best, so I thought having more control over depth of field and also improved autofocus speeds would be beneficial.

Thanks

[nimrodisease]

I would've thought that for shooting sports you would want to be upgrading your telephoto lens? Maybe a 70-200 f/2.8?

[falcon91]

That's what I would have really thought as well, but the 70-300mm handles most of what I can throw at it so I'm happy to leave that as is for the time being (not to mention the extra size of the lens)

I somehow thought i had mentioned this before, but it looks like i forgot to, I am planning a trip to Tasmania in November, which is also part of the reason for upgrading the 18-105 first.

Does anyone have any experience with the two Tamron/sigma lenses?
Also would the 35mm be a good walk around lens, or would it be better to get the zoom lens?

Sorry for all the questions!

Thanks

[ameerat42]

OK, but you've got that 50/1.8. That's not exactly a slouch, surely?
?m.

[Goatch]

Just to throw a spanner in the works , the Nikon 18-200 VR makes a great walk around lens , covers a wide range and gives good results , on my D80 when I first started out that was my first lens and I was more than happy with the results , I thought is was way sharper than my 70-300VR at all apertures . I've read that the VR11 is better ..

[falcon91]

I agree that the 50m 1.8D is a very nice lens, though it doesn't seem to be very sharp outside of 15m especially at lower apertures though I try to keep it around 3.2 + at and at least 1/60 sec ... does that mean that I'm doing something wrong, or do the lower apertures make the DOF too small even then?

Also I have the VRII version of the 70-300, should remind myself of that and update my signature...

Are the higher grade lenses not really going to produce a large difference in IQ for the extra cost compared to the 18-105, in which case is it better just getting the 35mm 1.8 as a wider lens when needed?

[Glenda]

I have a D7000 and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and I find it a great walkaround lens. I also have the 17-50 f2.8 but prefer the extra length. Going to Tassie I would expect you'll be taking lots of landscapes and you might find the 24 not wide enough.

[Sdison]

Hi,

Thanks for the responses.
I'm looking at these lenses for a couple of reasons.
Going to an f2.8 lens, if I understand correctly, should allow much faster autofocus which will help when shooting sports, particularly at nighttime under lights (Something that I've been doing for the last 6 months).
Also when taking portraits, it will help blur out the background significantly better than the 18-105.

Presently I've been shooting sports and pets/animals the best, so I thought having more control over depth of field and also improved autofocus speeds would be beneficial.

Thanks

Going to the Tamron 17-50 for sports loses you 55mm of focal length to make up for a stop of light or so. If you're fine shooting sports at 50mm (I'd suggest that it's too wide for sport, unless you're the referee on the field) then grab your 50mm 1.8 and shoot with that - it's already at the longest focal length of the Tamron and is 1 1/3 stops faster. When you need more focal length jump to your 70-300 and crank the ISO. The upgrades you can make for your sports shooting are a 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/4, however they seem a bit far off for the time being based on what you've said about your ability to shoot sport.

Moreover, not all f/2.8 lenses automatically focus faster - it's largely dependent on the lens. When people refer to a 'fast' lens, they're talking about the aperture and how much light is let in. Eg. f/2.8 is fast and your 50mm f/1.8 is faster.

If you're going to Tassie think about what you'll shoot - when I went last year I found myself shooting a lot of landscapes. Unfortunately at that stage it was on my iPhone (long story) but a wide-angle on my camera would have been great for what i was shooting. The Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 or Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 are good options and the Nikon 10-24 is of course excellent if you want to stay on brand. That range seems to be the only real gap in your collection.

You could maybe add the 85mm 1.8 later if you're into shooting portraits with nice bokeh (blurred background).

The 16-85 Nikon isn't really a huge upgrade from your current lens - it's very similar but only slightly better than the 18-105. The Tamron 17-50 will be a good walk-around lens for a long time to come, but it doesn't add any new capability to your kit.

As Ameerat said, think about what you can't do now that you'd like to do and go from there. Hopefully this is a bit of food for thought for you - I know how agonising lens choices can be!

[falcon91]

That's certainly a lot to think about...
So it sounds like i'll need to spend heavily into 70-200mm 2.8 glass for sports which is something I can't do at the moment, so the 70-300 will be used for now as I can get reasonable photos even at ISO 2500.

I think I need to change my ideas about what a new lens in the 18-70mm range should aim to accomplish as it certainly won't allow for a lot of long range sports photos.
Part of the reason for upgrading to 2.8 glass(or so I thought) was to have much faster autofocus, which is something I miss when I'm not using the 70-300mm, and also have a better IQ.
The 18-105 feels very slow compared to the 70-300, especially for moving subjects
It would also allow better subject isolation without being restricted to a fixed focal length??

You raise some interesting ideas about getting an even wider lens that I have now, though so far I've never really felt the need for a wider lens.

It sounds like I should be looking at the lens upgrade in more of a "Do I need a wider or longer lens than I currently have" and if no, then "What would I benefit from by having a faster lens that already covers my existing range" Does this sound about right?

Also I've been able to organise to borrow a 24-70 Nikkor lens over the long weekend, so maybe that will be an eye opener of what I would gain by going to a faster lens, and if I would gain any benefit out of it.

Thanks!

[nndharma]

Hi All,

I've had my D7000 around 18mths and am looking into my next lens.
I currently have the 18-105, 50mm 1.8D and 70-300mm nikkor lenses.

I'm trying to decide between getting the 35mm 1.8 nikkor or looking into an upgrade of the 18-105.
Is it worth upgrading the kit lens first or getting another prime? If I was to upgrade, i'm probably looking at either the 17-50mm 2.8 tamron/sigma or the 24-70 tamron unless there are other lenses that I should be considering.

Could anyone push me in the right direction?

Thanks!

I prefer the 24-70
you can consider it as investment to FX body later and I would choose sigma than tamron, for the colour
I think when you are on sport and animal photography, you won't use much wide lens

[manohartvs]

I recently purchased the Tamron 24-70mm VC lens for my D7000 and am loving it so far. I used it briefly on an official trip where I spent some evenings taking some photographs. I will post a few in the CC section later this week. Managed to get a great bargain on the lens.

I am loving the lens so far..but, as others have suggested, it may not be wide enough for landscape photos. Personally, as a general walkabout lens, I am happy.