Need Advice on Some Lenses

Hey Guys and Gals,

Thinking about getting a new lens for my 7000.

I have the kit lens.
A 50mm 1.8
A 35mm 1.8

I do mostly families and newborns...... Do I even need another lens??? Is there something with a small zoom in a 2.8 that doesnt cost 1000s?? I dont have that kind of money, lol. Im also not interested in a mega zoom the 105 kit lens is plenty for me. I gave my mom my 200 because it never came out of my bag.
Any suggestions, and your preferences on lenses that arent Nikon..

Just let me know your opinion, of what your fav. lens is that you think would work for me and my needs, as I dont know a bunch about these lenses....

Thanks tons
Courtnie

Hi Courtnie. Well whether you need another lens or not only you know. In what way do you feel limited by your current set-up?

If you are looking for an excellent, small range zoom, with a fast constant aperture lens, then one great choice to consider is the Tamron 17-50 (LINK). It is an extremely well priced lens - economical and great bang for the buck.

The link I just posted takes you to an ad at B&H which also contains tons of reviews by satisfied customers. Good reading. Of course there are many other technical reviews of this lens that can be found but I also like to review a broad spectrum of "regular" person experiences.

I was just trying to see if, knowing what I am using my primes for, if there was another lens that may benefit me in my type of photography. newborn, children and families.

Take a look at the Nikon 24-70. Fabulous lens.

ccoulson said:

? Is there something with a small zoom in a 2.8 that doesnt cost 1000s?? I dont have that kind of money, lol.....Any suggestions, and your preferences on lenses that arent Nikon

Click to expand...

fotojack said:

Take a look at the Nikon 24-70. Fabulous lens.

Click to expand...

Urm...Jack. Did the Nikon 24-70 suddenly become *heavily* discounted from it's almost $2,000 price? LOL!

(hence my economical, non-Nikon recommendation for the Tamron 17-50 2.8. )

The Tamron that James suggested would probably fit your needs. It's not expensive, has nice (very nice) sharpness, and VR (tamron call it VC). I have this lens and it's difficult to see a difference between the Nikon 17-55 2.8 ($1400) and the Tamron.

ccoulson said:

I was just trying to see if, knowing what I am using my primes for, if there was another lens that may benefit me in my type of photography. newborn, children and families.

Click to expand...

Your question is: is there another lens that may benefit my type of photography?

Let's look at what you said and what you have:

- You aren't interested in any zooms longer that your current 18-105.
- You have 2 very fast, sharp prime lenses in the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8.
- You have a camera (D7000) that does very well at high ISO shooting.
- Your "type" of photography is "newborns, children and families"

You also asked for a recommendation for a short, fast zoom lens that wasn't overly expensive (I provided that above).

So aside from my Tamron 17-50 suggestion, I'd say you've pretty much got it covered. You don't need a wide angle lens for your stated style of shooting really. You don't need a macro lens for your stated style of shooting.

What may you need? I'd say perhaps a flash like the SB-700. That can really help freeze the action of a fast moving baby and help you use lower ISOs while still keeping the shutter speeds high. Also perhaps you might want to set up a small in-home studio with a backdrop, strobes, light stands, etc. (families love portraits! ) However this is on the expensive side so you may not want to go that way - at least not yet.

So without any other information I don't see much else you "need" (although I do have a limited imagination! )

Hope this helps.

bluenoser said:

What may you need? I'd say perhaps a flash like the SB-700. That can really help freeze the action of a fast moving baby and help you use lower ISOs while still keeping the shutter speeds high. Also perhaps you might want to set up a small in-home studio with a backdrop, strobes, light stands, etc. (families love portraits! ) However this is on the expensive side so you may not want to go that way - at least not yet.

So without any other information I don't see much else you "need".

Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

Great suggestions by James.

I got the sb-400 for fill / bounce flash and a grip to help with hand-holding.
You already have fast, sharp lenses.

James and everyone!!,
Great suggestions!

Would an Sb-600 work for my needs?? they seem to be cheaper, im not sure if they are still making them, but I saw some used on Amazon for like 250?

ccoulson said:

James and everyone!!,
Great suggestions!

Would an Sb-600 work for my needs?? they seem to be cheaper, im not sure if they are still making them, but I saw some used on Amazon for like 250?

Click to expand...

Oh yes, an SB 600 would work very well. In fact I would think you could get one for closer to about $200 if you looked around a bit more. However I really believe that the SB 700 is worth that extra bit of money if you can swing it.

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk

Good suggestions! I am in the same boat as Courtnie and these sound great. The SB-700 is one I have been looking into, found one on craigslist for a good price the other day. Guy hasn't responded back yet, it's been a few days too

Is there a large difference in an sb-700 and an sb-600. And are their uses different. Do these help with outdoor photography??? Ive always been afraid of flash because it sometimes makes things look generic and I like the natural look...

Never had a flash before but I really would like to have one tho!!!!

I really wish I had like, a million dollars so money wasnt an issue, then I could just habve it all!!!

If you're really serious about newborns then you will need a f/1.2 about $1900 or a f/1.4 about $600 or so for that extremely razor thin DOF. Then there is a ton of props and specialty equipment that you will need that doesn't get used for anything else. To me it is a huge investment and I stay away from it unless specifically asked and then they provide the props. The lens and lighting setups have other purposes and are worth it. Good luck.

If you're really serious about newborns then you will need a f/1.2 about $1900 or a f/1.4 about $600 or so for that extremely razor thin DOF.

Click to expand...

Just curious as to why you would want that kind of Dof for newborns?

Some folks say it is useful for isolating the baby from the parents thus bringing the focus of the picture to the baby and that is a legitimate reason for using the faster stuff although even a slower lens can have some razor thin DOF.

Most cases the baby will be laying down and with direct overhead shots DOF is nil because the blanket bed whatever will typically be a flat plane...that only applies to overhead shots when the baby is laying down...

I think the "razor sharp thin DOF" is a matter of taste. I. personally, wouldn't use it on a newborn. Most parents want to see their "entire baby" in focus.

Take a look at the hottest and most crazed newborn pics and you will see the use of a VERY shallow DOF and it also depends on the props that you use as well. Also, you can always decrease the aperture size (eg, 1.2 to 2) but you can't increase it (eg, 2 to 1.2) if you don't have it. Most who own the 1.8s will tell you that the achieve good shots at 2 and really good shots at 2.8 so is the 1.8 really worth it? Not for me that's why I had to go with a better lense. That's my experience others may differ.

Yeah so 2.8 works therefore the only reason to have faster lenses is not really DOF so much as light gathering capability (which is very very important in the case of babies I would say...can't have them under so many high intensity lights...might warp their brain...LOL)...

This probably is situation where the faster lens makes a difference when you come to think about it...

bluenoser said:

Urm...Jack. Did the Nikon 24-70 suddenly become *heavily* discounted from it's almost $2,000 price? LOL!

(hence my economical, non-Nikon recommendation for the Tamron 17-50 2.8. )

Click to expand...

LOL...yeah, I thought of that after and forgot to take it out, James. My bad.