# Nikon D7000



## srcamacho (Sep 19, 2010)

Hello folks just preordered the Nikon D7000 and would like to know what would be a good lens for it.  I ordered just the body only.  Im just getting into photography so im not really sure what type of lens to get.  please help.....


----------



## mwcfarms (Sep 19, 2010)

It really depends on what you like to shoot or think you would like to shoot. Gratz on the new camera.


----------



## srcamacho (Sep 20, 2010)

Thanks 
Im thinking of an all around lens but its over my budget at this time but I guess something for portraits since Ill probally be using it alot with my family.  Thanks for the reply.....


----------



## molsen (Sep 20, 2010)

for portraits, the new 35mm f/1.4 should be pretty amazing

what's your budget?


----------



## Sharfy (Sep 20, 2010)

molsen said:


> for portraits, the new 35mm f/1.4 should be pretty amazing
> 
> what's your budget?




how about the 50mm? is this lense any good for a portraiture?


----------



## bigboi3 (Sep 20, 2010)

50 is much better for portraiture on an APS-C sized sensor than the 35.


----------



## KmH (Sep 20, 2010)

If you have enough room to zoom with your feet.

On a D7000 the apparent focal length of a 50 mm is 75 mm. The 35 mm has an apparent focal length of 52.5 mm.

I would take a close look at the AF 35mm f/2D:  AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D from Nikon


----------



## molsen (Sep 20, 2010)

bigboi3 said:


> 50 is much better for portraiture on an APS-C sized sensor than the 35.


In what way? In my experience, the 50mm is much too long and you have to stand too far back to get reasonable field of view for anything but headshots.  Sure, the tighter zoom CAN create a shallower DOF, but IMO that's not worth it if you have trouble just framing the shot how you want.

I'll second the 35mm f/2 suggestion for something more budget-minded, although you'll want to stop down to f/2.8 to get a sharp image

All of that being said, yes, the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 is great for portrait shots provided you have the room to use it.


----------



## bigboi3 (Sep 20, 2010)

molsen said:


> bigboi3 said:
> 
> 
> > 50 is much better for portraiture on an APS-C sized sensor than the 35.
> ...



Woops. Yes if you do have the room to move then I would go with the 50.  Better would be an 85 1.4 if you had the room IMO.


----------



## srcamacho (Sep 28, 2010)

Thank you all for your comments.....


----------



## Nikonthoughtless150 (Sep 28, 2010)

gosh i want this camera... i have the d5000 and once i saw this come out my heart sank. i dont have much of a budget... so its either sell my d5000 and save up for the 7000 or just save up over awhile and then get it lol.... your probably gonna be really happy with the camera. congrats !


----------



## rainking (Sep 28, 2010)

Why didn't you get it with the kit lens?


----------



## molsen (Sep 28, 2010)

rainking said:


> Why didn't you get it with the kit lens?


no point in spending $1200 on a state-of-the-art camera if you're just going to use the kit lens


----------



## rainking (Sep 28, 2010)

molsen said:


> rainking said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't you get it with the kit lens?
> ...



So this lens is junk?

Amazon.com: Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo


----------



## zoogirlbc (Sep 28, 2010)

rainking said:


> molsen said:
> 
> 
> > rainking said:
> ...



It isn't JUNK but it's nothing special. I got the 18-105 with my D90 kit and the 50mm f/1.8 does a MUCH better job for less money. If I had known the difference before, I would have just bought the D90 body and the 50mm lens separately. From what I've read the 18-55mm is sharper than that one (Ken Rockwell) but I haven't had a chance to compare side by side and if you add a 55-200mm you are covering a good range.


----------



## molsen (Sep 29, 2010)

18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass.  The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.

The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww.  Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm?  You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.


----------



## ghache (Sep 29, 2010)

molsen said:


> 18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.
> 
> The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww. Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm? You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.


 

indoor, if you dont shoot a fast glass with a high iso body. you shoot with a flash :thumbup: 

i use my 18-105 indoor all the time, at party's for fun and stuff like that using one sb-600 and pictures are coming out great


----------



## molsen (Sep 29, 2010)

ghache said:


> molsen said:
> 
> 
> > 18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.
> ...


Some of us don't just shoot for fun.  I get paid for a lot of what I do and in many instances, I can't or shouldn't use a flash.  Sometimes the natural light (even if it's dim), provides a perfect ambiance for a shot.  A flash would ruin that. and in my opinion, a shallower DOF is nice for when you're shooting people to isolate them from the background.  Faster, better glass is more versatile and better quality.  Just my 2 cents :thumbup:

I know the OP is just getting into photography, so probably not doing paid work, but the versatility and quality of fast glass is very nice to have, no matter your skill level.


----------



## Ady (Sep 29, 2010)

Have you looked at the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM? Ticks a lot of boxes, focuses down to around 9 inches and is <£300...................


----------



## suzette (Sep 29, 2010)

Hi, I am having the same questions plus one more.

I am debating between the D7000 and Cannons EOS 7D.  I mainly take action shots.


----------



## molsen (Sep 29, 2010)

Ady said:


> Have you looked at the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM? Ticks a lot of boxes, focuses down to around 9 inches and is <£300...................


Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 might be an even better choice.  Faster and sharper.  The Sigma loses a good deal of image quality toward 70mm, and you have to stop down


----------



## KmH (Sep 29, 2010)

molsen said:


> 18-55 and the 55-200 are budget lenses, with mediocre quality compared to better glass. The 50 1.8 is budget, but at least it's fast and competes with lenses that cost 5x as much.
> 
> The 18-105 isn't junk, and is actually a pretty sharp lens, but it's slooowwwww. Ever shoot at f/5.6 indoors at 105mm? You'll be wishing you had a faster lens pretty quick.


The current 18-55 and 55-200 are every bit as good as the 18-105 when it comes to sharpness. All 3 are consumer grade, kit lenses.

The OP should stick with the kit lenses until they know what is going on with photography in general, and have some time to sort out what kind of photography they wind up doing.

Many new to dSLR photography discover its more difficult to do than they thought, and windup selling their gear.


----------



## molsen (Sep 30, 2010)

One could argue that if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $1200 on it, and that a new D90 for $900 will already be more than adequate...


----------



## KmH (Sep 30, 2010)

molsen said:


> One could argue that if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $1200 on it, and that a new D90 for $900 will already be more than adequate...


By the same logic, one could argue if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $900 on a D90 either, and a new $500, D3000 will already be more than adequate....


----------



## molsen (Sep 30, 2010)

KmH said:


> molsen said:
> 
> 
> > One could argue that if it's his/her first DSLR, he/she shouldn't blow $1200 on it, and that a new D90 for $900 will already be more than adequate...
> ...


this is true.


----------

