# which lenses to buy for a nikon d7000



## roaddogg (Mar 25, 2011)

which lenses to buy for a Nikon d7000 for better sharpness and image quality 18-105 mm or 18-55 and 70-300 mmG for the same price


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 25, 2011)

Well, for the same price, none of them will AF if you're looking for better sharpness and quality. You'd probably be able to find a good vintage lens with great optics for around the same price, but what you're asking is kind of a silly question. You're not going to find great sharpness and quality in the 100 dollar range unless you want to get a cheap 50mm prime that will preform better when stopped down. 

"I really want a car with the performance and luxury and finesse of a Porsche Carerra GT, but I only want to pay 10% of the price. Suggestions?"


----------



## roaddogg (Mar 25, 2011)

i am comparing the sharpness and image quality of both and I don't  say i want the best lens


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 25, 2011)

I know, and what I am saying is, if your price range is around what you'd pay for a kit lens; you'll get what you pay for. It would be more worthwhile to save for a better lens and use your kit lens for the interim.


----------



## Vinny (Mar 25, 2011)

I have the 18-105 and find it is soft focusing and not so good for some types of shots. I am planning on getting a 35mm prime for sharp shots although I do plan on keeping this lens.

Here's a shot from it, it lacks sharpness and it's at f 11.







I can't say anything about the 18-55 but I would imagine that it's probably on par with the 18-105.

As far as the 70-300, I have the VR version and its a great lens, maybe not up to the 70-200 2.8 standards but it is nice and 1/5 of the price.

Here's a photo from it:


----------



## flatflip (Mar 25, 2011)

roaddogg said:


> which lenses to buy for a Nikon d7000 for better sharpness and image quality 18-105 mm or 18-55 and 70-300 mmG for the same price



To answer your question directly (the way I'd like to be answered), the later. I own the 18-105 and have owned the other two. The 18-55 is the sharpest. The 70-300 G needs a tripod IMHO. The 18-105 needs to be sold on Craigslist. I just need to find me a good zoom first.


----------



## flatflip (Mar 25, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> It would be more worthwhile to save for a better lens and use your kit lens for the interim.



Any suggestions? Anyone?

Not trying to highjack this thread but I have a similar problem. I'm using the kit lens until I find the right  / better replacement. I want a zoom with a good range like the 18-55 but faster and sharper. I'm guessing I'll have to spend $500?


----------



## DirtyDFeckers (Mar 26, 2011)

flatflip said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > It would be more worthwhile to save for a better lens and use your kit lens for the interim.
> ...



Try $1500.  The nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is amazing, but expensive.  People think that they can buy a 300 dollar lens that will perform the same as a 2000 dollar lens.  YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.


----------



## Ginu (Mar 26, 2011)

roaddogg said:


> which lenses to buy for a Nikon d7000 for better sharpness and image quality 18-105 mm or 18-55 and 70-300 mmG for the same price



18-105 - cheap kit lens good for sale 
15-55 - nice but slow at times and demands light
70-300 - telephoto lens without VR 

All those lens are pretty basic entry level cheapies and none will give you the best sharpness and image quality. For best image quality you need to drop way more $. Another way to get good lens is to buy used older lens which sell for much cheaper than new, but again they will still be around the 400-500+ price range.
Use your kit lens and invest in a prime 35 or 50mm along with a flash and save money for good glass. By the time you get enough to buy a new lens I bet you will know exactly what kind of lens you're missing or needing.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Mar 26, 2011)

Nikons 35-70 2.8 af lens was a staple for nikon from 1984 until 2006.  They can be found for under 500.  You don't always have to buy the latest, greatest glass to get good optics.  It won't have all the bells and whistles such as VR.  But from what I understand, its a good, solid, sharp lens.  I'm getting one this week.


----------



## ausemmao (Mar 26, 2011)

flatflip said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > It would be more worthwhile to save for a better lens and use your kit lens for the interim.
> ...



That is one where you don't need to spend $1500 to get an improvement.
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is what you're looking for. It's slightly wider than the Nikon 17-55, and loses a bit at the long end. It's just as sharp through the entire frame (from reports from reviews and comparison with my 70-200) fairly quick focusing, colours and contrast are great, and it's a third of the price of the Nikon new. 




Grand Union St. Mary's by ausemmao, on Flickr

Taken with the Tamron.


----------



## flatflip (Mar 26, 2011)

ausemmao said:


> flatflip said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



For $459 at Amazon, I think thats what I'm looking for. Thanks


----------



## flatflip (Mar 26, 2011)

That answers my question.

I think the OP's question is; What is "better"? The 18-105? Or the 18-55 AND the 70-300 G? (for the same price)


----------

