Looking for D7000 Lens recommendations

[JimmyPitt]

this is a DX camera you want a 18--xx lens, not 28 thats for FX, 18-200 is the go

I disagree, the 28-300 is better option than the 18-200 DX. A lot of people apparently use FX lenses on their D7000. There is no inherent CON to using FX lenses on a DX body, as long as you consider the crop value. In fact many argue that since the DX camera uses only the center part of the FX lens, image quality is sharpest. Plus if you ever wanted to make the jump to FX body, you've already started your lens kit. Right?

Camera Lens Explained | DX & FX Format Lenses from Nikon

 

[grandpaw]

When I was looking, I asked at the Nikon Cafe forums about the 70-300mm lenses. Most people there said to get the Tamron 70-300mm (not the one with the macro). They said that in the 200mm - 300mm range, it was sharper than the Nikon 70-300mm. I've never tried the Nikon version, so I don't have the personal comparison. I bought the Tamron and have been very happy with it. It's cheaper than the Nikon. The AF on it is pretty fast, and the VC (vibration compensation) is very good. The VC on my Tamron 70-300mm is a lot better than the VR on my Nikon 18-105mm kit lens, but the VR is quieter. I don't care that the VC is noisier. I love that it works so much better. Tamron is usually running rebates too. Good luck with whatever you get.

I am very curious about something you said. The longer the focal length the more noticeable and the more effect the VC or VR will have, so if you are comparing both of the lenses at the same focal length that is one thing but if you are comparing the Nikon18-105 VR against a Tamron 70-300 VC at the long end of each then it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Before making a blanket statement that the Tamron VC is better than the Nikon VR, I would be interested in knowing if they were both at the same focal length because if they weren't this comparison is very misleading, I'm just wondering if it was a fair comparison or not. If you compared a Nikon 70-300VR against a Tamron 70-300VC and found the Tamron VC to be better then your statement would be much more meaningful to me.
Jeff

 

[emoxley]

I've tried it all different ways. With the Nikon lens on 70mm and the Tamron 70-300mm set on 70mm The VC was still better than the VR, at least on my lenses. The VC held the image completely still, long enough to get a good picture. I still got a good picture with the Nikon too, but I saw more movement of the image in the viewfinder. My hands have gotten very shaky over the years. I don't know if it's nerves or the oncoming of Parkinsons. I suspect nerves, because of other things in day to day life. I also tried both lenses at 105mm, and same thing, The VC was better. But, I haven't noticed what you're talking about either. I've noticed no difference in the VR on the Nikon lens, whether it's at 18mm or 105mm. By the same token, I've noticed no difference with the Tamron, whether it's at 70mm or at 300mm. I will mess with it some more tomorrow, and pay even closer attention, and see what happens.

I had read that online before, and gave it a quick try, using those different settings. In the quick try (operative word being quick) the results were what's posted above. So, since you're real concerned about it, you've got me questioning my results. So, I'll try again, and really concentrate on it this time, trying to be more scientific about it. I'll post here what I find out...........

 

[grandpaw]

Thanks for your reply. I do not own any Tamron lenses to be able to compare the two against each other so I would be interested in finding out how like focal lengths compare. This will be helpful information to readers one way or the other. I am interested in the results but just wanted to make sure we were comparing them fairly. I know that the longer the lens the more predominate the movement shows up in a viewfinder. Looking forwar to seeing the results if you get a chance to try it. This may be more than you want to compare but if you took two pictures with the same settings would the actual picture when viewed or printed show a difference? The end result of how it effects the picture is the most important thing. Thanks again for your reply.
Jeff

 

[emoxley]

Didn't get a chance today. Maybe tomorrow. Wife will be back at work tomorrow.........

 

[emoxley]

Ok, I tried them out today, and paid more attention to them. The VR in the Nikkor lens and the VC in the Tamron lens, are about the same speed. No stop watch to measure it with, but counting in my head, they're about the same.

I shot the Nikkor 18-105mm at the 70mm focal length, and at the 105mm length with AF on and VR on. I also shot the Tamron at the 70mm focal length, and at the 105 length with AF on and VC on. Actually the Tamron turned out to be 102mm instead of 105mm. Best I could do eye-balling it. I doubt the 3mm it was off made a difference. I'll have to stand by my original findings. The VR is quieter, but the VC is better at holding the image still. Used the same focal lengths, settings, etc.......

Tamron is considered to be a third party lens, but they've been around a very long time. They've built up a very good reputation for themselves, having quality lens at cheaper prices than the "big boys". I love my Nikon stuff, but have to admit that when you buy a Nikon product, you're paying extra for that name. Like buying a Harley Davidson, Ranger Boat, etc.... Tamron, along with the cheaper price, gives a better warranty than Nikon. Nikon is 5 yrs. on their lens, and Tamron is 6 yrs. on theirs.

 

[grandpaw]

Thanks very much for taking the time to verify the results. I like all of my Nikon lenses and I am also very happy with the two Sigma lenses I have. I am after good sharp pictures no matter who's name is on it. I highly recommend my Sigma 17-50 F2.8 and would replace it immediately if something happened to it. I have shot Nikon cameras for around forty two years and have been very happy with the Nikon brand but I am also happy with the Sigma lenses. Thanks again for going through the trouble to test the lenses.
Jeff

 

[JimmyPitt]

Has anyone seen Ken Rockwell's recent review of the Nikon Super Zooms?
Nikon 18-200 vs 28-300 vs 18-300

Very interesting. From this, I suppose an 18-300mm VR would be best option for the D7000 if you wanted that extended reach. And the 18-200mm VR would be the better (since it is lighter) if extended reach isn't a priority. Surprised to see 28-300 FX wasn't marginally better considering only the center portion of the lens is being used.

I'm curious about this mostly because i wanted to replace my 18-55mm VR kit lens and the 55-200mm VR telephoto lens with one all inclusive general walk around lens. But I wonder whether I'll even see much improvement in quality & sharpness switching to the super zoom??? It would be great to see a comparison of the cheaper pair 18-55 & 55-200 (or 55-300) to the more expensive 18-300.

In case anyone missed my earlier post. I've already got a 35mm f/1.8 and the 10-24mm wide angle DX lenses, and was hoping to reduce my camera bag to only 3. Added benefit of both the 18-300 and the 28-300 is that both have 77mm filter, same as my wide angle.

 

[AC016]

Has anyone seen Ken Rockwell's recent review of the Nikon Super Zooms?
Nikon 18-200 vs 28-300 vs 18-300

Very interesting. From this, I suppose an 18-300mm VR would be best option for the D7000 if you wanted that extended reach. And the 18-200mm VR would be the better (since it is lighter) if extended reach isn't a priority. Surprised to see 28-300 FX wasn't marginally better considering only the center portion of the lens is being used.

I'm curious about this mostly because i wanted to replace my 18-55mm VR kit lens and the 55-200mm VR telephoto lens with one all inclusive general walk around lens. But I wonder whether I'll even see much improvement in quality & sharpness switching to the super zoom??? It would be great to see a comparison of the cheaper pair 18-55 & 55-200 (or 55-300) to the more expensive 18-300.

In case anyone missed my earlier post. I've already got a 35mm f/1.8 and the 10-24mm wide angle DX lenses, and was hoping to reduce my camera bag to only 3. Added benefit of both the 18-300 and the 28-300 is that both have 77mm filter, same as my wide angle.

I have looked into these "all-in-ones" before and they are okay. Nikkor may do a bit of a better job over Tamron, but i still will not buy one. I obviously can't say that the 18-300 sucks; but i think if you wanted that focal length, you would be better off trading in your 55-200 for a 55-300 or a 70-300. Or, you can get a secondary camera and not have to worry about changing lenses.

 

[czecht]

What are you going to use your Nikon for?
Are you new to photography?
Is your plan to become PRO?
Do you need Macro, super telephoto, landscapes or sports photography?
Do you just like to take all kinds of pictures, nothing specific at this time?
How much money do you have for one or more lenses?
Are you planing in the future to go with a FULL FRAME - ie D810 or D750 ?

At this point I can't help you, since I do not know anything about your needs.

Have a great light!!

Tony

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

What are you going to use your Nikon for?
Are you new to photography?
Is your plan to become PRO?
Do you need Macro, super telephoto, landscapes or sports photography?
Do you just like to take all kinds of pictures, nothing specific at this time?
How much money do you have for one or more lenses?
Are you planing in the future to go with a FULL FRAME - ie D810 or D750 ?

At this point I can't help you, since I do not know anything about your needs.

Have a great light!!

Tony

The original poster has not logged into this site since 05-11-2011 05:51

This is a very old thread.

 

[skene]

cocaine is a helluva drug... LOL!!!!