# Just purchased a Nikon d7000 and need help with lens choices for a trip to Ireland



## lucyred62 (Apr 15, 2012)

Hi,
I finally decided on a Nikon d7000 after much difficulty deciding( with a great deal of help from this site).  I purchased the camera with the 18-105 kit lens, but now I am questioning if I made the right choice.  I still have time to return the lens, and buy a used lens or different type of lens.  I will be taking a trip to Ireland this summer which I am really looking forward to, and want to take my camera with me to capture some great pictures( well as great as my limited experience will allow).

I have been overwhelmed with all of the choices.  I will start by saying that I do like the kit lens for the fact that it can be a good all around lens which gives me decent range, without having to change the lens as frequently.  This is especially appealing for a trip to Ireland.  My first question is should I keep this lens, go with the 18-200 lens, or go in a different direction.

Second, I would like a recommendation for a decent zoom lens for taking pictures of birds, wildlife, action shots, and lots of pictures of my dogs.

Third, a recommendation of a decent macro lens.

In addition, for one prime lens, what would you recommend, ie a 35mm or 50mm etc.

If I return the lens, I will have about $1,100 to $1,300 to spend.  I am just beginning, so I do not need really expensive lens until I get better, and really figure out what I need.  I know I will not be able to get it all right now, but I just want to see what I can get to help me get started.

I really just want to have the best lenses for my trip that will help me capture my experience to the best of my ability and this wonderful camera, and I am not sure what lenses will help me to do that.

Outside of my trip, as I said, I want to just learn to take better pictures, and to learn all I can about my camera.  Besides that, as I said I enjoy taking pictures of birds, wildlife, my dog, action shots, an scenery.  

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Apr 15, 2012)

On a recent trip to Vegas I only used one lens for everything: Nikon 24-120mm F4. I just slapped it on auto ISo and went to town. Needless to say I'm stoked with the lens. I don't much like going wider than 24mm. At some point though, I'll add the 16-35mm F4 and the Tokina 11-16mm F4 for the ultra wide and Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 w/1.4x TC. Oh, and as far as macro lenses go you can't go wrong. I suggest the Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di or Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM EX, or Nikon 200mm F4.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 16, 2012)

Keep the 18-105mm and save your money.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Apr 16, 2012)

I'd either do as greybeard suggests, or swap for the 18-200, and still start saving...

The 18-200 will do just fine for your trip.  Neither it nor the 18-105 will make you happy in the long run "for taking pictures of birds, wildlife, action shots." You'll want faster glass, like a 70-200 f/2.8.

The 70-200, a good macro, or a good normal zoom will each cost as much or more than your budget.  None of them individually will do everything you'll likely want on your trip.

Personally, the best compromise is the 18-200, but I also think you'll be just fine sticking with what you have for now.

Good luck and enjoy!


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 16, 2012)

Take the $1,300, spend a couple hundred and pick up a nice compact p&s that fits in your pocket. Or you can take your camera when the occasion permits and use it. Better to have both than have none. When you get back, practice with your 18-105. Practice a lot. Save your money. When you figure out what you don't like about the 18-105 or what exactly you will need, you will have the money already( or at least a good portion.)
That's just my .02. Yours may vary.



Edit::::no coffee yet lol
I totally didn't read the whole title nor the entire post. You want a lot of uses from a lens with a limited budget. For 1,300 and keeping the trip in mind maybe a teleconverter and a used sigma 70-200? I don't know about macro though.


----------



## Infinite_Day (Apr 16, 2012)

This is good advice you're getting from above. The 18-105 is a decent lens for what it is. Alternatively, you could consider getting a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 & a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens and you'd have a pretty good basic combo for the entire gamut and will be right around your price range. The advice for the P&S is very good as well. We bought a good Canon P&S - you're not always going to want to have to carry around a dSLR. 

Where are you headed to in Ireland? The wife and I are going over for two weeks in June and driving a loop around the country. Good luck with your camera decisions and your trip!


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 16, 2012)

You'd be happier with 18-200mm compared to 18-105mm looking at your criteria. If you want quality photos, I recommend the 17-55mm. Looking at your budget, I'd recommend you to buy the Sigma (latest versions, the older ones are bad) version of 18-200mm/17-55mm, they're 30-60% the price with 80-90% image quality.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 16, 2012)

Advise also to keep the 18-105mm. It allows you shoot in lots of situations. Above someone advised a sigma 17-50, also alternatively a tamron 17-50, these may be a suitable alternative to both a 35 and a 50 prime. Obviously not quite as fast but flexible.
One friend has a sigma 120-400 OS lens and another has the Sigma 50-500mm lens. They are both great value, very flexible but maybe a little limited in low light.
Enjoy Ireland, if you get the right weather its hard to beat. That camera model is supposed to be one of the best in class, post some pics when your back


----------



## Forkie (Apr 16, 2012)

I'd keep the 18-105 and save the money for something else outside of that range.  It a pretty good lens.


----------



## lucyred62 (Apr 16, 2012)

Wow, thanks for all of the advice.  It seems that at least to start with, I should keep the 18-105.  Many people suggested also the 18-200.  Out of those two, which would you recommend.  Is one better quality etc. over the other.  Also, is the 18-200 a lot heavier.  The 18-105 is very comfortable to me with the weight of the camera included.  I am just not sure it the 18-200 would add too much bulk.  If not, I guess it would be nice to have a little more range.  Someone mentioned a sigma 18-200 instead of the Nikon.  Are they comparable, or at least close?  Does anyone feel that a Macro lens would be worth having for the trip.

I like the idea of a good point and shoot, and I am looking into getting one to bring as well.  I was leaning toward either the Panasonic LX5 or the Canon S100.  Any suggestions there?  The canon really nice and small, but I really like the Panasonic, and it is cheaper.  

For my trip,  I am going in the middle of August.  I booked the trip, and am landing in Dublin, and from there, I don't have an itinerary yet.  We have 1 night at a hotel near the airport, and then there are 5-night vouchers for B&B's, as well as a rental car.  I have to do more research on what places to go etc.  We will be leaving from Dublin as well, so I have to look into some loops throughout the country.  Any suggestions would be welcome.  I am so excited for the trip.  It is my first trip anywhere outside of the USA.  I am a little worried about driving on the opposite side of the street.  People I have spoken to have all said that they broke the side view mirror off the car because they were trying to keep the car so far over to the left.  I have insurance on the car, so I guess that is a start.

Thanks again for all of the advice.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 16, 2012)

The 18-200 is a jack of all master at none. I wouldn't get it. If you need a one lens wide that flexible focal range then sure but if you dont care about carrying two lenses, get the 55-200 then.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> The 18-200 is a jack of all *master at none*. I wouldn't get it. If you need a one lens wide that flexible focal range then sure but if you dont care about carrying two lenses, get the 55-200 then.



^^^^what he said.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 16, 2012)

I would imagine that the picture quality between the 18-105 and 18-200 to be about the same.  Of course the 18-200 is a lot better at 106-200 lol.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

greybeard said:


> I would imagine that the picture quality between the 18-105 and 18-200 to be about the same.  Of course the 18-200 is a lot better at 106-200 lol.



18-105 will kill it at 18-105.  That lens is one of the better kit lenses, the 18-200 is bottom of the barrel.  You can google pixel peeper or such as see the differences.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Apr 16, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > I would imagine that the picture quality between the 18-105 and 18-200 to be about the same.  Of course the 18-200 is a lot better at 106-200 lol.
> ...


 
I don't disagree for a second that there are better lenses than the 18-200, but I was never unhappy with the quality for travel/family/snapshot settings.  Can you do better?  Sure.  Is it worth it to buy and carry multiple lenses?  That's a value judgement.  

If most of your usage will be online photo sharing, or 4x6 prints, you probably don't need high end glass.  If you like large wall prints, or know you're going to end up with high end glass for other reasons at some point, you'd be better off saving up and starting off down that road...

I knew I wanted to get pretty serious about portraiture and kids' sports, so I've upgraded to f/2.8 glass from 24 to 200.  Now that I own it, I can't imagine taking my 18-200 someplace to save the bag space of one lens...


----------



## lucyred62 (Apr 16, 2012)

I think many good points are being made.  I think for my trip I just wanted something that would capture the most pictures without having to change lenses constantly.  I will be sight seeing with 3 other people who I am sure would not be happy if I had to stop all of the time to swap lenses.  I realize that there are really professional great lenses out there that are expensive, but I am not in a position financially, or skill level to be honest, to justify paying that much for a lens.  I guess I just wanted to find out which was better, the 18-105 or the 18-200, or if there is an aftermarket lens that is better for a general good walk around lens.  As I have said, I can return the kit, and just buy the body, and get the 18-200 or another all around lens used on amazon or ebay.( in looking at prices, I guess I didn't realize there is about a bigger difference in price then I thought between the two lens, even if you go with the older model of the 18-200 that doesn't have the lock on it).  That being said, i guess is it worth the extra money to get a little more zoom.  

The other questions were if I brought another lens to swap occasionally, would it be a macro lens, a 35 mm or 50mm lens, or a larger zoom.  That being said, are there any of these(can be aftermarket) that are good( I know they wont be great in my price range), that I can afford.

I think it is a good idea to save and not buy a ton of lens, I just want to have a good walk around lens to learn, but wasn't sure if there was an additional lens I could add to start out with that would help me learn how to take pictures of my favorite things which are landscapes, birds, dogs, and nice close ups of people.  When I looked on amazon, I could get a used Nikon 12-24 f/4G ED IF DX lens for about $725.00 used, and a Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 ED IF VR lens for about $550.00 used, so it would be in my budget.

Do people feel then that these lens are not worth getting to learn on, and I should just stick with the 18-105 or 18-200 lens to learn on?
Thanks


----------



## gsgary (Apr 16, 2012)

Make sure you go to Northern Ireland much nicer than Southern Ireland and the people are friendlier


----------



## jaomul (Apr 16, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Make sure you go to Northern Ireland much nicer than Southern Ireland and the people are friendlier



Sony is better than canon. English people are taller than Irish.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 16, 2012)

Unless you are specifically going on a photography trip where everyone in your group will be transporting equipment and setting up shots, save your money. Take a 50mm 1.8 which is nice and light and enjoy yourself on your trip. If you want to waste money get the 18-200 or the 18-270. Both are horrible lenses and not worth the plastic they are made out of.


----------



## Infinite_Day (Apr 16, 2012)

I would get the 70-300 and stick with the 18-105 for now but that's just my two cents. You're going to wish you had more time but you will have a good time. We went to Scotland last year for 11 days and that wasn't enough so we added more time on for Ireland. As far as the driving - learn the proper etiquette and take your time. It's not that hard if you are confident and don't get too nervous. Make sure you have a GPS. Intersections don't often have stop lights but roundabouts instead and it's easy to take the wrong exit out of them. Good luck and have fun!


----------



## lucyred62 (Apr 16, 2012)

Yes, I wish I had more time.  I would have loved to see Scotland as well, but I guess I will have to go back again.  The roundabouts are what I am afraid of.  I have a friend who came to the USA from Ireland as an adult, and he told me he doesn't even like to drive in the roundabouts.  Silly question about the GPS, but can you just purchase maps from Garmin(that is the gps I have, and download it onto our existing gps?

I am leaning toward just keeping the 18-105 for now.  The difference in price between it and the 18-200 is almost double, and that is for a used lens.  All the reviews of the lens say it is just alright and no better then the 18-105, so I don't think it will be worth changing.  Since this is my first Nikon, I have no lenses, so I think keeping the 18-105 to learn on is not a bad thing. 

Thanks


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 16, 2012)

For macro i would save $$ and buy an old manual focus 105mm f2.8 micro.  Better built with smoother manual focusing for about 1/3rd the cost of the auto focus version. One of the great things about the d7000 is the compatibility with these fine older lenses.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 17, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> The 18-200 is a jack of all master at none. I wouldn't get it. If you need a one lens wide that flexible focal range then sure but if you dont care about carrying two lenses, get the 55-200 then.



No, there's a reason why 18-200mm is more expensive that both 18-55mm and 55-200mm together. 18-200mm is as sharp as both lenses at almost all focal lengths. 18-105mm and 18-135mm is better than 18-200mm at their focal length though.

All compared at f/5.6
18mm
- 18-105 > 18-135 > 18-55 > 18-200
24mm
- 18-105 > 18-135 > 18-200 > 18-55
35mm
- 18-105 > 18-135 > 18-200 > 18-55
55mm
- 18-105, 18-135 > 55-200 > 18-55 > 18-200
70mm
- 18-135 > 18-105 > 55-200, 18-200
105mm
- 18-105 > 18-135 > 55-200
135mm
- 18-200 > 18-135 > 55-200
200mm
- 18-200 > 55-200

As you can see, the 18-200mm is a very good lens. It's not much worse than the 18-105mm or 18-135mm in terms of sharpness. And the difference is very subtle when comparing them, mostly 5lp differences, and take note that I'm comparing using the older 18-200mm. The newer one should be better.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Apr 17, 2012)

Buy the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 and you'll be spending only $1070. They are almost as sharp as Nikon's equivalent.


----------



## Infinite_Day (Apr 17, 2012)

lucyred62 said:


> Yes, I wish I had more time. I would have loved to see Scotland as well, but I guess I will have to go back again. The roundabouts are what I am afraid of. I have a friend who came to the USA from Ireland as an adult, and he told me he doesn't even like to drive in the roundabouts. Silly question about the GPS, but can you just purchase maps from Garmin(that is the gps I have, and download it onto our existing gps?
> 
> I am leaning toward just keeping the 18-105 for now. The difference in price between it and the 18-200 is almost double, and that is for a used lens. All the reviews of the lens say it is just alright and no better then the 18-105, so I don't think it will be worth changing. Since this is my first Nikon, I have no lenses, so I think keeping the 18-105 to learn on is not a bad thing.
> 
> Thanks



Yes, you should be able to just purchase the maps and download them onto your current unit. That is exactly what I did with my TomTom and it worked pretty darn well in Scotland. I actually found the roundabouts to be MUCH more efficient and highly enjoyed the driving because people were actually driving instead of eating, texting, talking on the phone, etc. We only hit heavy traffic congestion coming into Glasgow and that's because it was rush hour and they're doing a massive reconstruction project on the motorway there. Just remember - you can go around the roundabouts in a complete circle if you miss your exit. I would seriously suggest reading up on the driving some. The speed limit signs are smaller and there are other subtleties that are good to know. Also, watch your speed because there are speed cameras everywhere and if you get nabbed by one the rental car company will very graciously forward the fine on to you! Just remember to keep calm and you'll be fine. The transition is not as hard as it sounds. One other tip - if you can't drive a standard transmission make sure that your reservation is for an automatic. Standards far outnumber automatics and there are fewer automatics to be had for rental so they go fast from what I hear. Wow - that wasn't about photography at all! 

I have the 18-105 and want to replace it but it's really not a bad lens for the price and will work pretty well for you as you learn. I would suggest looking into something longer if you're looking to wildlife but that's entirely up to you! Good luck with your decision!


----------



## FTWingRiders (Apr 18, 2012)

The Nikon 12-24 f/4G ED IF DX is a great lens for sweeping landscapes. Love mine.


----------



## ecolnago (Apr 20, 2012)

If you've not been to Europe, keep in mind things are different than in the States. Streets are narrow, city/town spaces are more confined, buildings tighter together, etc. You can usually walk up and get pretty close to anything, but often there's no way of backing up to take more into the frame. A wide angle (wider than your 18 if your DX) is strongly encouraged. I p/u'd a Tokina 11-16 which siute me well, but there are plenty out there in this range. 

I've always taken tele-photos w/ me to Europe, but never actually found a need/opportunity to mount it, and won't bother taking one again. Never owned the 18-105. Had the 18-70 kit lens that came w/ the D70 (and wish I'd kept it!) and the 18-200 for a short period of time, all sort of in the same range. While the 18-200 was quite capable of taken good pics in good light, found I just rarely ever shot anything at over 70/80 mm and I HATED the lens creep. Mine had the lock, but still, having to unlock your lens before each series of shots was a bit much for me. That said, I'd think your 18-105 should suite you fine in good light. The 16-85 is also something to consider if you just want something different. Have the 17-55 as well, but can't seem to let my 16-85 go. The lens's size is easy to lug around for hours and it's range suites my shooting style very well. But for Europe you'll still want something wider than even the 16.

For a fast prime, take the 35 over the 50. Again, things are tight, even the interiors where you'll likely use the fast glass. You can usually take a few steps closer if needed, but you often can't back up as there'll be a wall stopping you.  

Todd


----------



## zamanakhan (Apr 21, 2012)

I would be happy with just a 18-55, there is NOTHING wrong with going with just the 18-105 although I think it's expensive for what it is. Personally I like to shoot ultra wide so I took a 10-24 on vacation with me along with a 35 1.8 and 80-200 afs 2.8 pretty much covered everything. If I were you i would return the 18-105 and get a 18-55 with 55-200 add a 50 1.8, perfect travel no compromise kit. Those 3 lenses cost used similar to just the one 18-105. That is what I had with my older d5000, I eventually sold em to move to faster glass, but for travel it was a hard kit to beat. As for 35 vs 50... It's a tough call, if u keep the 18-105 or even get anything that is a bit wide, I would get the 50, if u are looking for something to replace the general wal around get the 35. If you do want to spend ur full budget forget all of them and get a used Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens. It's a beauty, it's got a great range on dx and it's fast.


----------

