Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DanF" data-source="post: 25234" data-attributes="member: 6834">Hi there --- new to forum and new DSLR owner. I just brought home the D7000 with 18-105 VR kit , and am wondering if I should return it for the body only. For the last few years I've been using a Panasonic FZ20 digital, but the smallest aperture available is 8, and I find that very restrictive when i need greater depth of field, hence stepping up to a DSLR. The extra 11 MP doesn't hurt either. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I already have a couple of Tamron lenses bought for my Nikon N80 film 35mm SLR at least 10 years ago. One is the AF Aspherical LD IF 28 - 200 1:3.8 - 5.6 72 zoom, the other is an SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Macro 1:1.I like shooting macro, so I know I want to keep that one, and I like the zoom for landscape and general walking about. I wonder how the Nikkor kit lens compares with the Tamron zoom? Would they be redundant, or is there a reason to keep both of them? I like the 200, and often wished that I'd gotten the 300, so if I ditch one, it would probably be the Nikkor.  I don't photograph people much, mostly wild things and landscapes. I also do woodturning, so the other main use would be to shoot pictures of turnings: vases, southwest style hollow forms, bowls, pens, and such. I think the macro will be a bit long for this. I want these to be free of wide angle distortions. I would be open to a prime lens for this, but don't have any currently.I am thinking of moving up to the successor of the D700, whenever it is released, so I'm not sure that I want to get any (many) more DX lenses. I don't often need really wide angle shots either. Is the Nikkor a true 18-105 in DX mode, or is it subject to the same conversion factor as a 35mm film lens?Thanks for your thoughts on this.Dan</blockquote>

Verification