# Lens Purchase Question for nikon d7000



## DrCrook (Jun 22, 2011)

Hi All,

So I've decided on the Nikon d7000.  I'm kinda stuck in a spot as far as the lenses are concerned.  I really like the looks wide angle lenses give me so thats a given, anybody know of a decent wide angle lens for not too much? (primarily scenery, landscape, mountains, and a few portrait type shots)

as for the other Lens(es), I do not know what to go for.  I want to shoot nature and car races a lot but I want a general purpose lens as well (for what I would call casual pictures/portraits/close ups of cars that I can stand next to).

I saw that the 70-300mm lens is a really good distance lens, but what about for just regular shots?  Is the lens that comes with it as a kit a good choice, or is there a lense I can get that would give me the best of both worlds?

Trying to stay under $2000 for camera + lenses. Of course a little over for something that will be significantly better is fine.

Thanks,
~David


----------



## ghache (Jun 22, 2011)

Tamron 17-50 F2.8 
Its a sharp lens, fast, alot better than any kit lens, low distortion, wide enought for landscape and long enought for general portraiture. I got one not long time ago and i really like it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 22, 2011)

Yep depends on occasional wide needs and normal shooting needs vs. have a dedicated wide that will be used enough to warrant it.
Either way you are looking at minimum $300-$450 range no mater what the decision zoom or prime.

My Tamron 17-50 f2.8 been a main workhorse but only occasional landscape. 
But when I had a financial need my Sigma 10-20 was the first lens to go as had need for cash. 
But the Sigma is popular being the cheapest of the bunch and giving you 1mm-2mm wider at 10mm over most of the other UWA lenses.

Just comes down to price vs. trade-offs and what is the widest you need. As others doing landscape even with a 50mm and doing multiple pan shots and stitching images together. And there are also dedicated wide primes but only down to 20mm or so going wider price goes way up.

As to the 70-300 longer zoom if is a package deal than probably cheapy non-VR version and personally would pass on it and look at better choices. The 70-300vr is a outstanding choice but costs a tad more than say the 55-300vr or the 55-200vr. And starting out I find the 55-200vr a great walk about choice and been my main walkabout around town the last year. Cheap,Compact & Light but great Image IQ tho the build is less then the others. With only the occasional desire for longer. If doing sports,wildlife tho the 70-300vr would be my first choice over the 55-300vr as it's AF is faster than the 55-300vr which is critical for those kinds of shooting. 
.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 22, 2011)

For your budget you mentioned, FYI the kit lens offered at a discount with the D7000 isn't bad. I didn't order one with mine but have seen a lot of pics taken with it.

If you want to see performance with various len's, this site is nice:  Full-size sample photos from Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6


----------



## DrCrook (Jun 22, 2011)

I like the zoom that 70-300mm looks like its getting, the 55-200 doesnt seem like its quite enough zoom for what I want (the opsrey is just not quite zoomed in as much as I would like to get).  My concern is I am a big auto enthusiast and am somewhat concerned about the 70-300mm being fast enough for me.  The vehicles will most likely be going around 45 mph - 70 mph where I like to take shots at.  I dont mind some blur on the rims and tires, but the vehicle I would like to look extremely crisp and clear.  Is that 70-300mm going to pull that off for me?  Much of the nature I will be photographing as well will be relatively quick critters, birds dive bombing a pond for fish for example, or catfish or bass jumping out of the lake/river.

All the lenses seem pretty good for non-moving targets.  The casual lense doesn't need to be geared towards anything moving fast, though it would be nice to do a shot like that bicycler just a bit more crisp.

BTW, I can get the d7000 for $1100 around here, so thats $900 for lenses/bag.


----------



## EPPhoto (Jun 22, 2011)

DrCrook said:
			
		

> I dont mind some blur on the rims and tires, but the vehicle I would like to look extremely crisp and clear.



It's not so much the lens, as it's the faster shutter speed that will freeze motion.  It sounds like you need to learn how to use a camera before anything else. 

If you have a kit lens, that'll work just fine for you!

Sent from Erics iPhone!   (2) Nikon D300 50mm 1.4, 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8VRII, 24-70 2.8, 85mm 1.4, (2) SB900


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 22, 2011)

> "My concern is I am a big auto enthusiast and am somewhat concerned about  the 70-300mm being fast enough for me.  The vehicles will most likely  be going around 45 mph - 70 mph where I like to take shots at.  I dont  mind some blur on the rims and tires, but the vehicle I would like to  look extremely crisp and clear.  Is that 70-300mm going to pull that off  for me?  Much of the nature I will be photographing as well will be  relatively quick critters, birds dive bombing a pond for fish for  example, or catfish or bass jumping out of the lake/river."



Well that will come down to 3 things. Camera Body more pro type bodies have faster AF and more metering sensors for faster acquisition and lock. Second will be the light levels at events. Sunny vs. Overcast, Indoors vs. Outdoors and the more expensive options like the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D or 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR will cover more of those varying situations then a slower variable f-stop zoom like the 70-300vr which is quite usable in cloudy and good light sunny days on my D90 and just up the iso when the need arises. But lower light indoor sports or wildlife in canopy of trees or action of any kind in lower light then not so much with a lot less keepers and one of the faster fixed aperture f2.8 zooms will be required.
.


----------



## spacefuzz (Jun 22, 2011)

One thing to keep in mind is the D7k does great in low light. I was shooting a concert this weekend with the kit lens at f/3.5 ISO 2500 and getting usable results. 

If your shooting moving cars you might also want to work on panning to blur the background (like getting prop blur at an air show).  Dont need the ultra fast shutter speed for that, although the technique does take practice.


----------



## KmH (Jun 22, 2011)

For nature and car races you'll soon find that even 300 mm is to short.

Most shooting those effectively use from 400 mm to 600 mm lenses.

I used a 150 - 500 mm to shoot soccer from the long part of the field from the mid-field to the opposite end line and a 80-200 from around the mid-field towards me at the the near end line, where I would switch to a 24-85 mm zoom when the ball got to the top of the penalty box.


----------



## DrCrook (Jun 23, 2011)

Update on the decision.  So here it is:

I am now the owner of a Nikon d7000, 18-105mm vr lense, and a 70-300mm vr lense.  Ritz camera was doing a kit special with the body and those two lenses for $1899, free shipping and no tax!

It should arrive on Monday.

Now I just need to find a good back pack to put it all in for while Im trecking around.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 23, 2011)

DrCrook said:


> Update on the decision.  So here it is:
> 
> I am now the owner of a Nikon d7000, 18-105mm vr lense, and a 70-300mm vr lense.  Ritz camera was doing a kit special with the body and those two lenses for $1899, free shipping and no tax!
> 
> ...



Congrats!


----------

