DSLR / D7000 Newbie with some questions

bmilcs

Senior Member
Hello ladies and gentleman of the forum,

My name's Bryan and I'm new to photography. I recently purchased a D7000 from KEH, a 35 1.8g and got shooting. My first body was randomly telling me the battery was dead after a fresh charge, swapped out batteries, same problem. Sent it back. Second body came back with significant dust on the image sensor. Sent it back. Third camera still had black spots and I said screw it. Started shooting, realized there was an option for cleaning the image sensor, took the lens off, flipped the "lever" to expose the image sensor and lightly blew into it. Yay! Clear, white backgrounds in my lightbox.

Anyhow, since then, I've acquired a 40mm 2.8 AF-S and a 60mm AF-D micro.

My main focus for shooting is product photography. I sell a lot of vintage shaving gear on ebay and participate in like forums.

I was able to realize and correct a serious back focusing issue (thank you Nikonites) with a AF Fine tune of -15 to -19 with various lenses. I did this last night and I'm thrilled. Finally, crisp, focused pictures! I was under the belief that I was truly that bad at taking pics. This is not the case :).

Now, I am on the prowl for a longer distance, zoom lens for capturing my stepson's baseball, soccer and basketball games --- and other various subjects. Ever since I've acquired the 60mm AF-D, I've had a hard time using anything else. Now that I have the AF issue corrected, it seems to be working superbly. I'm not sure if I'm alone here but it feels like the camera's ability to AF is better than individual lens' ability to do so. Also, the 3D AF works really well and picks up what I want to shoot moreso than center weighted.

Anyways, what lens would you fine gentleman recommend for taking shots with a D7000 of little kid's sporting events? I believe I've read that 200mm is the epitome of what you truly need with a DX camera. Is this true?

Thanks again in advance for your feedback,
Bryan
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Anyways, what lens would you fine gentleman recommend for taking shots with a D7000 of little kid's sporting events? I believe I've read that 200mm is the epitome of what you truly need with a DX camera. Is this true?
Well I'm not really sure that any particular focal length is the "epitome of what you truly need with a DX camera", but then that statement doesn't really make sense to me. I'd dismiss it if I were you.

On the subject of what a good lens for your needs would be, I would suggest the Nikon 55-200mm ED AF-S f/4-5.6 ($189 on Amazon) if you're on a bit of a budget, the slightly longer and more expensive 55-300mm ED AF-S f/4-5.6 ($396 on Amazon) or the still more expensive but truly awesome Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S ($586 on Amazon).

Any of those lenses would serve you well.

...
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
Well I'm not really sure that any particular focal length is the "epitome of what you truly need with a DX camera", but then that statement doesn't really make sense to me. I'd dismiss it if I were you.

On the subject of what a good lens for your needs would be, I would suggest the Nikon 55-200mm ED AF-S f/4-5.6 ($189 on Amazon) if you're on a bit of a budget, the slightly longer and more expensive 55-300mm ED AF-S f/4-5.6 ($396 on Amazon) or the still more expensive but truly awesome Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S ($586 on Amazon).

Any of those lenses would serve you well.

...

Thank you for the suggestions. Compared to my 35 1.8g / 60mm 2.8, should I expect somewhat comparable IQ? I am afraid of being really let down by one of these zoom lenses. All I hear about is how good the prime lenses are and how inferior the zooms are.

Considering I'll be shooting at very different focal lengths, I'm sure it'll suit my needs much more and the end result much better because of the amount of cropping I would have to do with say the 35mm for example.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
or the still more expensive but truly awesome Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S ($586 on Amazon).

Any of those lenses would serve you well.

...

In daylight settings, that 70-300 is a nice affordable telephoto for some action. I use it heavily at the Scottish Games, and it does a stand-up job. PLUS, you can get 'em around $400 in a factory refurb. I know Cameta attaches a 1 year warranty to it, not sure about Adorama, B&H, etc.

BTW, welcome to the forums!
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
In daylight settings, that 70-300 is a nice affordable telephoto for some action. I use it heavily at the Scottish Games, and it does a stand-up job. PLUS, you can get 'em around $400 in a factory refurb. I know Cameta attaches a 1 year warranty to it, not sure about Adorama, B&H, etc.

BTW, welcome to the forums!

Thanks man. I'm diggin the haircut :). I gotta get you started with wetshaving, if you're not already accustomed to it. Using a brush, soap and single blade on the head is fantastic.

Anyways, I really like your assortment of lenses. Of those three, which do you find yourself using the most?
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
Thanks man. I'm diggin the haircut :). I gotta get you started with wetshaving, if you're not already accustomed to it. Using a brush, soap and single blade on the head is fantastic.

Anyways, I really like your assortment of lenses. Of those three, which do you find yourself using the most?

Ha, thanks! I do enjoy a good wetshave, but go for the brush with the Gillette Fusion, as those 5 blades are a bit less maintenance for the ol' "shave and go". :cool:

As for the lenses, depends on the day and what shots I'm going for. The 50mm 1.8 is a gem, but so is the 70-300, so they fight for time. Of those two, I'd say the 50mm has a slight edge on camera time. If I need a shorter focus distance (within 12"), I still go back to the 18-55, but the other two get most of the work.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Thank you for the suggestions. Compared to my 35 1.8g / 60mm 2.8, should I expect somewhat comparable IQ? I am afraid of being really let down by one of these zoom lenses. All I hear about is how good the prime lenses are and how inferior the zooms are.

Considering I'll be shooting at very different focal lengths, I'm sure it'll suit my needs much more and the end result much better because of the amount of cropping I would have to do with say the 35mm for example.
Well generally speaking you're not going to get the same IQ out of big zoom that you are out of the 35mm f/1.8G for example, no... Not in a corner-to-corner, pixel-peeping sort of way. Zoom lenses have moving parts that prime lenses do not, which puts them at a distinct advantage from a stability standpoint. Now, that being said, that's not to say you can't get really, *really* good IQ out of a zoom lens. Most zooms tend to be best at the center, while the corners are where things tend to go "soft". Cropping anyone? I'm the first to admit that cropping is a harsh mistress so sometimes maybe I shoot with cropping in mind...

Getting down to brass tacks and, as my car mechanic would ask, "How fast do you wanna go and how much do you have to spend?" Because if you want really good IQ *and* the convenience of powerful zooming, you got's to pay my friend. You will pay dollars up front for outstanding glass and the IQ it provides, or you will pay fewer dollars up front and make up for with less contrast and softer IQ overall. Are you willing to break into The Fourth Digit on this? If you are, I can suggest you look at the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 APO HSM. This beast maintains a constant aperture of f/2.8 and has amazing image quality that rivals some of my primes. It will also set you back, roughly, $1K. There are other choices like the Sigma but, again, are you willing to pay for them?

....
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
As far as $$ goes, I want a great all arounder zoom for under $600. $600 is absolute max and not comfortably so.

I'm a complete photography noob so really I should be fine with middle of the line lenses. The 60mm I have seems to be a monster IQ wise. It's hard to fault it.

I want a lens that's convenient however. A 60mm micro isn't cutting it for baseball shots and I doubt the 35 1.8 would be a better choice.

I really like how the AF-D is vs the newer AF-S.

1 more question - when it's time to trade in one of these lenses I have for $, is there a good BST anywhere I can post?
 

monk3ym4jik

Senior Member
An alternative to the Nikon 70-300 can be the Tamron 70-300. I have it and love using it on my D7000. Make sure you get the "Vi DC" version if you do though... the "G" is not the same lens.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
That 70-300 is a full frame compatible lens, so you're using the sweet part of the lens with your D7000 anyway. Check out the last pics on my 365 to see its quality at the 300mm end. 70-200 it's even sharper. Truly not a bad lens at the price point.
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
I'll check it out once I'm out of work - all the image sharing sites are blocked here.

Ken Rockwell seems to love the " Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II DX Lens " for a wider angle zoom lens. Have any of you tried this new one? Seems like a range I have covered already though. If I were to get a zoom of this nature, I'd like it to go up to 80mm or so.
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
That 70-300 is a full frame compatible lens, so you're using the sweet part of the lens with your D7000 anyway. Check out the last pics on my 365 to see its quality at the 300mm end. 70-200 it's even sharper. Truly not a bad lens at the price point.

Where do I find these pictures?
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I've used two versions of the Nikon 70-300 on 3 different Nikon bodies, including the D7000. You can pick up a refurbed model for under $400. Unless you have to shoot in low light situations, this lens is great. As for Ken Rockwell, some of his stuff make me laugh. I have disregarded his advice many times and have no regrets.
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
I've used two versions of the Nikon 70-300 on 3 different Nikon bodies, including the D7000. You can pick up a refurbed model for under $400. Unless you have to shoot in low light situations, this lens is great. As for Ken Rockwell, some of his stuff make me laugh. I have disregarded his advice many times and have no regrets.

His opinion is just so readily available to someone new in the game it's hard to ignore. His google presence is astonishing.

Hence, why I'm trying to join forums and find out the real deal :).

Are there any other forums that you recommend I check out? I like how this subforum is specifically tied in with the D7000.
 

aced19

Senior Member
If it was me I would buy a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 two ring version. You can get one used from $500-$750. It will get the reach you need plus with the 2.8 you'll be able to shoot in any light. I have that lens and it works well with the D7000.
 
Top