Reading mode: Light Dark

Start big or small?

Go to last post
R

RichS123

New member
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I have been lurking here now for a few months, and have been learning as much as I can about digital photography. I've done quite a bit of research both here and elsewhere, but I now need more directed advice. Hence, my first post.

I plan to purchase a D7000 and stick with zooms to start. I'll probably add primes and macro lenses later after I get a better feel for what I'll need.

For now though, I'm not sure if I should start out with the following pro zoom lenses:

NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

or save some money and start out with the following consumer zoom lenses:

NIKKOR 16-85mm DX f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

I plan on using my D7000 for family outings, parties, vacations, recitals, etc, as well as for more artistic photography (i.e. landscapes, nature photography, cityscapes, street photography, macro photography, etc).

I can afford the pro lenses, but if the consumer lenses will actually meet my needs long term, I'd rather not spend the extra $$$.

So far, I have come up with the following pros and cons for each set of lenses:

Pro Lenses

Pros:
Fast
Excellent IQ
Excellent DOF range
Covers wide angle better than consumer lenses
Reach can easily be extended by teleconverters
FX compatible if I decide to go that route in the future
Will make the D7000 shine

Cons:
Heavy and big
Expensive
Steeper learning curve
No VR on 14-24 & 24-70

Consumer Lenses

Pros:
Relatively light and small
Acceptable IQ
Longer reach (compared to pro lens w/o teleconverter)
Relatively inexpensive
VR on both lenses

Cons:
Slow
16-85 is DX only
Teleconverters not an option
Limited DOF range

If I go consumer lenses, my main concern is that I plan on doing quite a bit of low light photography (indoors & night photography), and I won't be happy with the speed.

If I go pro lenses, my main concern is that they are so big and heavy. I'm really not into studio photography, so for the most part, I'll be lugging around my gear. I'll probably need to purchase a street lens at some point, since there will be times I'll want to travel light.

Also, I've chosen the lenses based on what I "think" I'll need, but my actual usage may be better served by other lenses.

One other consideration is that I plan on taking advantage of the significant discounts that Amazon is offering on the pro lenses when purchased with the D7000, which I would lose out on for the most part if I decided to go consumer lenses first. The discounts would also minimize my losses if I find I'm not using one one or more of the lenses and decide to sell them.

As far as my experience level goes, I was an avid photographer in my younger days and loved using my Minolta film SLR. I made the switch to digital with a bridge camera about 10 years ago, but was never all that happy with the quality of my pictures. Finances at the time precluded me from moving up to a DLSR, so my interest in photography as a hobby waned. I've stuck with digital P&S cameras since then. I started looking at DSLRs last year and realized how much things had changed and how much I'll have to relearn. I understand that a camera is just a tool and will not make me take better pictures, so I've been reading as much as I can about composition, exposure, and lighting techniques and am really looking forward to getting out there and taking some pictures.

Any advice on which direction I should take would be greatly appreciated.
 
Whoa. Big post. If I were starting from scratch, I'd go with all pro lenses - so I agree with a lot of your thinking. As you become more discerning, you come to realize the limitations of consumer lenses (most of which are really excellent these days). But I wouldn't get some of the pro-lenses that you list -

For family outing, you need a general middle zoom - Really the 18-105 is not a bad lens - light, relatively cheap with reasonable performance and it will give you the time and experience to understand what focal length you tend to shoot at. Later if you get some pro glass, you can always use it to toss on when you want something light.

Get a 35 1.8 for low light - no VR but a sharp relatively inexpensive lens that may spoil you for primes.

If you are going to do night photography, get a good tripod (plan $400-700) which is an investment that most newcomers don't thing about but most pros will tell you is the best investment you can make.

Then relax and enjoy taking photos - learn the D7K and figure out what suits you needs next.
Really. There's no rush. They'll still be making lenses next year.

My point is that I think you'll make better and more informed decisions after you've had some DSLR experience. You may decide to focus on close up (105VR) or portrait (105 DC or 85 1.4), or wildlife (300 f4 or 300 2.8) or wide angle (12-24 or the stellar 14-24). But there is time to figure that out as you become more familiar with the system.
 
Rich, you've written a long, thoughtful post that indicates you've done a lot of careful research. But, I would point out one striking feature of your post - it includes 1 sentence about photography (I plan to shoot...) and all the rest is about equipment. As you yourself note, photography isn't about equipment (for the 98% of shooters who have generalist needs), it's about photography. So, since you haven't shared your photography goals, and perhaps haven't well defined them, I'd say the no-brainer answer for someone in your situation is to buy the D7000 & kit lens and then practice with them for some months. That experience will tell you quickly what gear you really need to accomplish your photographic goals. Be careful with the seduction of becoming a gear collector. We all feel this, but there's nothing like hard use to really justify an "upgrade" and prevent the useless spending of hard-earned cash!

And, as a final note, I'd say that since you haven't yet shot a DSLR, you'd be nuts to invest in the super heavy, pricey pro zooms. Just nuts. Even pros gripe about that stuff if its not something they REALLY need.
 
Start by getting the D7000 and a 16-85VR lens. Then start learning digital SLR.

After a while you could add the 12-24/4.0 and one longer lens, for instance the 70-300VR or possible the better but heavier and expensive 70-200/2.8 VR. It really depends on what you are going to shoot.

Soon you will know the direction. Forget about finding the perfect blend of lenses in the beginning. And don't buy the misplaced for DX 14-24 or 24-70.
 
RichS123 said:
I have been lurking here now for a few months, and have been learning as much as I can about digital photography. I've done quite a bit of research both here and elsewhere, but I now need more directed advice. Hence, my first post.

I plan to purchase a D7000 and stick with zooms to start. I'll probably add primes and macro lenses later after I get a better feel for what I'll need.

For now though, I'm not sure if I should start out with the following pro zoom lenses:

NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

or save some money and start out with the following consumer zoom lenses:

NIKKOR 16-85mm DX f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

I plan on using my D7000 for family outings, parties, vacations, recitals, etc, as well as for more artistic photography (i.e. landscapes, nature photography, cityscapes, street photography, macro photography, etc).

I can afford the pro lenses, but if the consumer lenses will actually meet my needs long term, I'd rather not spend the extra $$$.

So far, I have come up with the following pros and cons for each set of lenses:

Pro Lenses

Pros:
Fast
Excellent IQ
Excellent DOF range
Covers wide angle better than consumer lenses
Reach can easily be extended by teleconverters
FX compatible if I decide to go that route in the future
Will make the D7000 shine

Cons:
Heavy and big
Expensive
Steeper learning curve
No VR on 14-24 & 24-70

Consumer Lenses

Pros:
Relatively light and small
Acceptable IQ
Longer reach (compared to pro lens w/o teleconverter)
Relatively inexpensive
VR on both lenses

Cons:
Slow
16-85 is DX only
Teleconverters not an option
Limited DOF range

If I go consumer lenses, my main concern is that I plan on doing quite a bit of low light photography (indoors & night photography), and I won't be happy with the speed.

If I go pro lenses, my main concern is that they are so big and heavy. I'm really not into studio photography, so for the most part, I'll be lugging around my gear. I'll probably need to purchase a street lens at some point, since there will be times I'll want to travel light.

Also, I've chosen the lenses based on what I "think" I'll need, but my actual usage may be better served by other lenses.

One other consideration is that I plan on taking advantage of the significant discounts that Amazon is offering on the pro lenses when purchased with the D7000, which I would lose out on for the most part if I decided to go consumer lenses first. The discounts would also minimize my losses if I find I'm not using one one or more of the lenses and decide to sell them.

As far as my experience level goes, I was an avid photographer in my younger days and loved using my Minolta film SLR. I made the switch to digital with a bridge camera about 10 years ago, but was never all that happy with the quality of my pictures. Finances at the time precluded me from moving up to a DLSR, so my interest in photography as a hobby waned. I've stuck with digital P&S cameras since then. I started looking at DSLRs last year and realized how much things had changed and how much I'll have to relearn. I understand that a camera is just a tool and will not make me take better pictures, so I've been reading as much as I can about composition, exposure, and lighting techniques and am really looking forward to getting out there and taking some pictures.

Any advice on which direction I should take would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
My 70-200mm f/2.8G VR just arrived. Simply put, it weights a ton. Condsidering what I want to use it for, I have high hopes for results. But, when I don't need the fast lens, I will happily use my 55-200mm consumer lens b/c it is small and light.

I would/did start with a consumer lens for every day use until I found a real need for a pro lens.
 
I'm with the other respondents so far - start out slower/cheaper, and decide what you need before going all out on the big guns. I'd start with a 16-85vr myself.

I also think you have some incorrect logic on the pro zooms. I do not think they have a higher learning curve, though I'm not sure what you mean there.

Let's take the 24-70 zoom for instance, which I have. This is a lens with a lot fewer flaws optically than other zooms. I find that it just gets out of my way and lets me take pictures in more situations, without worrying about lens characteristics, than almost any other lens I've used. I rarely worry about flare. I rarely worry about distortion (- a bit at 24, but I also don't shoot subjects that really care much about a bit of barrel or pincushion distortion), and I certainly rarely worry about sharpness. (In fact I never worry about sharpness - this lens is good enough for me at every f-stop and focal length). I do worry about depth of field, but I wouldn't have as much choice there with a slower lens.

So in my thinking, the 24-70 doesn't have much of a learning curve. My 18-200vr does though, as it has weak points in its ranges, and certainly worries me about sharpness at certain settings.

The more flaws a lens has, the more learning curve there is to it, in my opinion.

Of course there is more to learn about focus accuracy (and placement) shooting at F2.8 than F5.6, so one could say there is a learning curve there not present in a consumer zoom.

My 14-24 has flare issues - doesn't take much to learn about it though, just take a few shots of backlit subjects and see what happens. My 12-24 is much better, so in that respect has less learning curve.

On the subject of speed:
-you can use high ISO
-you can use VR
-you can use wide apertures

Or maybe you can't! VR does no good if your subject is moving and you need a high shutter speed to stop action. Essentially VR helps to replace a tripod in some circumstances.

Wide apertures do no good if you don't have enough depth of field to achieve the sharpness you want.

Which leaves high ISO. Even if you have a slow lens, you may WANT (or need) to shoot at F8 in dim lighting, with a higher shutter speed. So your answer there is higher ISO, not a more expensive lens. (Or add some light with flash...)

I say a D7000 and 16-85 is already going to cover 90% of the shooting situations you'll be in, outside of wildlife or situations you want very shallow depth of field. Add a single F1.8 prime to that, and you've probably added another 3-5%. And you have money left over to buy all the other gear you'll need anyway, such as good tripod, head, arca-swiss plates, software, backup storage, monitor calibration tool, etc, etc.

On the other hand...

If you have the money, and you simply want to get some really nice toys to enjoy, I say go ahead and do it! I'm sick of seeing people feel guilty for spending money on this hobby and trying to justify it. (You don't see my wife feeling guilty about the 150 pairs of shoes in her closet...) But I would suggest not buying everything in one fell swoop. Stretch the pleasure out by limiting yourself to one lens a month or something.
 
Small. I used to shoot Minolta and then Nikon F3 before returning to digital with a D90. I highly recommend the 16-85 and 70-300 VR. I started there and then added as my needs dictated. But the 16-85 is still my mainstay. I'd start small and see where your photographic needs take you.
 
I disagree with starting with a kit or consumer lens. You've obviously given this a lot of thought and it appears photography might become more than a passing hobby for you. I believe if your interest in photography increases, you will quickly grow out of your consumer zooms and their limitations. Buy the body only and start learning with a constant 2.8 zoom. That's what I did and I have no regrets. There is no substitute for fast glass. The only downside is the price and weight/size. You said you can afford it and I think I'm saving you money in the long run, because your consumer lenses will eventually sit there collecting dust or you'll sell at a loss. Plus, there's a nice rebate if you buy the lens together with a specific camera body (I don't remember what qualifies with D7000). GL with your decision and welcome to the club.
 
Dude!

I'm usually the one here trying to talk people down from the ledge but I think this time I'm going to be the only one yelling jump. You state in your post that you can afford the pro stuff, well to me, that means that you can afford the pro stuff. I'll take that at face value. Lots of people spend more money than that on a first jet-ski or motorcycle. It's one of many expensive hobbies and you can afford it. Go for it. If you don't like it you can sell everything and you are only down a couple of grand. Big boys like expensive toys.

I will, however, address what I see as flaws in your logic.

You are proposing the D7000 which is a consumer grade DX camera...coupled with that, you are proposing the 14-24 which is a pro grade FX lens. Problem. While the 14-24 will take fine pictures on the camera you will probably find that 14mm just isn't a super wide on DX. If you decide to stick with the D7000 then you should make a DX compromise and get a DX super-wide. Perhaps the Nikkor 10-24, Tokina 11-16 2.8 or even the Sigma 8-16 would fit the bill better (and save you a few hundred). The other way to address the problem is to spring for the D700 right out of the gate...Go all FX. The 14-24 is indeed a super-wide on a D700.

Be prepared to spend. You should be prepared to spend a bit more (no matter which path you choose) on things like a flash, tripod, bag, filters...etc. We all have to get this stuff at one time or another regardless of budget (or lack thereof).

Be prepared to spend some time. DSLRs are complex pieces of equipment, and to be frank, if you don't learn how to use it you will grow frustrated and once again "your interest will wane". You've got to put in the time, especially when you can't blame your equipment as many of us do at the beginning. "If only I had better lenses, if only I could shoot at F2.8, if only I had more ISO....if only...if only".

You comment on steeper learning curves with the professional lenses. Not true. The only thing that will be steeper with be any hills you have to climb hauling that camera bag. These lenses will just work. In fact, because you won't have to find work-arounds for lens weaknesses there should be an easier learning curve.

Have fun with your upcoming shopping spree.
RichS123 said:
I have been lurking here now for a few months, and have been learning as much as I can about digital photography. I've done quite a bit of research both here and elsewhere, but I now need more directed advice. Hence, my first post.

I plan to purchase a D7000 and stick with zooms to start. I'll probably add primes and macro lenses later after I get a better feel for what I'll need.

For now though, I'm not sure if I should start out with the following pro zoom lenses:

NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

or save some money and start out with the following consumer zoom lenses:

NIKKOR 16-85mm DX f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

I plan on using my D7000 for family outings, parties, vacations, recitals, etc, as well as for more artistic photography (i.e. landscapes, nature photography, cityscapes, street photography, macro photography, etc).

I can afford the pro lenses, but if the consumer lenses will actually meet my needs long term, I'd rather not spend the extra $$$.

So far, I have come up with the following pros and cons for each set of lenses:

Pro Lenses

Pros:
Fast
Excellent IQ
Excellent DOF range
Covers wide angle better than consumer lenses
Reach can easily be extended by teleconverters
FX compatible if I decide to go that route in the future
Will make the D7000 shine

Cons:
Heavy and big
Expensive
Steeper learning curve
No VR on 14-24 & 24-70

Consumer Lenses

Pros:
Relatively light and small
Acceptable IQ
Longer reach (compared to pro lens w/o teleconverter)
Relatively inexpensive
VR on both lenses

Cons:
Slow
16-85 is DX only
Teleconverters not an option
Limited DOF range

If I go consumer lenses, my main concern is that I plan on doing quite a bit of low light photography (indoors & night photography), and I won't be happy with the speed.

If I go pro lenses, my main concern is that they are so big and heavy. I'm really not into studio photography, so for the most part, I'll be lugging around my gear. I'll probably need to purchase a street lens at some point, since there will be times I'll want to travel light.

Also, I've chosen the lenses based on what I "think" I'll need, but my actual usage may be better served by other lenses.

One other consideration is that I plan on taking advantage of the significant discounts that Amazon is offering on the pro lenses when purchased with the D7000, which I would lose out on for the most part if I decided to go consumer lenses first. The discounts would also minimize my losses if I find I'm not using one one or more of the lenses and decide to sell them.

As far as my experience level goes, I was an avid photographer in my younger days and loved using my Minolta film SLR. I made the switch to digital with a bridge camera about 10 years ago, but was never all that happy with the quality of my pictures. Finances at the time precluded me from moving up to a DLSR, so my interest in photography as a hobby waned. I've stuck with digital P&S cameras since then. I started looking at DSLRs last year and realized how much things had changed and how much I'll have to relearn. I understand that a camera is just a tool and will not make me take better pictures, so I've been reading as much as I can about composition, exposure, and lighting techniques and am really looking forward to getting out there and taking some pictures.

Any advice on which direction I should take would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
--
eddyshoots
 
IMO if you're asking the question you should start small and add a prime or two for the low light.

You will either want to keep the consumer glass for times when you want to go light or cheap - or - you sell it and lose almost nothing. Get a good deal on a 16-85 and 70-300 and you might lose $150 when you sell.

It sounds like you really don't know what pro glass you really need. Will the 14-24 range really work for you on DX? What about 24-70? Some love the 24-70 range and some hate it. Why not the 17-55? (and the fact that it's a DX lens shouldn't matter. If 17-55 is the range then 24-70 isn't).

Find out what you really need/want and then move up to pro glass.
 
RichS123 said:
Steeper learning curve
Click to expand...
why do you think pro lenses have a steeper learning curve? if anything, they're easier to use, because they're more flexible. you put the aperture at 2.8, and it's at 2.8 regardless of focal length. stick your 16-85 on 3.5, and it doesn't stay there. the variable maximum aperture is just one more thing to get a handle on.
RichS123 said:
If I go consumer lenses, my main concern is that I plan on doing quite a bit of low light photography (indoors & night photography), and I won't be happy with the speed.
Click to expand...
truthfully, if you really wanna do low-light photography, you should look into primes. the pro zooms exist to fill a specific set of compromises. they're designed to be flexible and reasonably fast, at the cost of weight and money. they're made for people like wedding photogs who don't always get to pick where they have to stand, and need that flexibility of a zoom lens for composition, but still also need a reasonably fast lens. if you have the luxury of moving around, you can get a whole lot more light out of a prime lens.
RichS123 said:
If I go pro lenses, my main concern is that they are so big and heavy.
Click to expand...
you get used to it. you really do.
RichS123 said:
I'm really not into studio photography, so for the most part, I'll be lugging around my gear. I'll probably need to purchase a street lens at some point, since there will be times I'll want to travel light.
Click to expand...
ironically, the heavier gear is meant for shooting on-the-go. it takes the abuse, and has the speed you might find is required. in the studio, you're probably shooting at f/8 or f/11 anyways, and will probably get good results from just about any lens .
RichS123 said:
One other consideration is that I plan on taking advantage of the significant discounts that Amazon is offering on the pro lenses when purchased with the D7000, which I would lose out on for the most part if I decided to go consumer lenses first. The discounts would also minimize my losses if I find I'm not using one one or more of the lenses and decide to sell them.
Click to expand...
three things to consider:
  1. if you need pro lenses, buying consumer stuff is basically wasting your money, because,
  2. you're probably not going to use the consumer lenses very frequently when you have pro lenses. and,
  3. if you don't need pro lenses, they have a very high resale value.
 
eddyshoots said:
You are proposing the D7000 which is a consumer grade DX camera...coupled with that, you are proposing the 14-24 which is a pro grade FX lens. Problem.
Click to expand...
i don't see a problem here.

get the best lens you can get. the camera should always be secondary to the glass. in the film days, it was practically irrelevant. it's a bit more important now, but that d7000 will take pictures that are basically as good as any of the pro cameras, just DX. the only bit it's really lacking is the pro ergonomics, and controls. the glass is clearly more important than that.

now, the focal ranges might not be quite what he wants on DX. but it might be fine. who knows. strictly personal preference. i prefer my 17-55 on DX.
 
arachnophilia said:
arachnophilia said:
You are proposing the D7000 which is a consumer grade DX camera...coupled with that, you are proposing the 14-24 which is a pro grade FX lens. Problem.
Click to expand...
i don't see a problem here.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't ....because you didn't appear to read my next sentence.

I go on to state: "While the 14-24 will take fine pictures on the camera you will probably find that 14mm just isn't a super wide on DX."
arachnophilia said:
get the best lens you can get. the camera should always be secondary to the glass. in the film days, it was practically irrelevant. it's a bit more important now, but that d7000 will take pictures that are basically as good as any of the pro cameras, just DX. the only bit it's really lacking is the pro ergonomics, and controls. the glass is clearly more important than that.
Click to expand...
arachnophilia said:
now, the focal ranges might not be quite what he wants on DX. but it might be fine. who knows. strictly personal preference. i prefer my 17-55 on DX.
Click to expand...
--
eddyshoots
 
arachnophilia said:
three things to consider:
  1. if you need pro lenses, buying consumer stuff is basically wasting your money,
Click to expand...
I agree but the OP wouldn't ask the question if they knew what they needed. I think the amount of money you waste is really not much in the grand scheme of things. Buy a 16-85 new $625, sell it used $550 = net loss $75. It's worth $75 to find out if the consumer lens will work or not. Many of the better consumer lenses hold their value too. Test the water with the 24-70 and decide you would like to sell it and get the 17-55, you will almost certainly be out more than $75.
 
Ocgasman said:
I disagree with starting with a kit or consumer lens. You've obviously given this a lot of thought and it appears photography might become more than a passing hobby for you. I believe if your interest in photography increases, you will quickly grow out of your consumer zooms and their limitations. Buy the body only and start learning with a constant 2.8 zoom. That's what I did and I have no regrets. There is no substitute for fast glass. The only downside is the price and weight/size. You said you can afford it and I think I'm saving you money in the long run, because your consumer lenses will eventually sit there collecting dust or you'll sell at a loss. Plus, there's a nice rebate if you buy the lens together with a specific camera body (I don't remember what qualifies with D7000). GL with your decision and welcome to the club.
Click to expand...
Agree ! My first DSLR was Fujifilm S3 pro (without lenses) from my father. I bought 50 1.4G to practice. Later, I found S3 pro was very slow and ISO was very limited, so I bought D700. Later I found I needed a fast zoom lens to shoot indoors, because she was growing up, and walking or running all the time. And her cute expression was alsting for a few seconds. If I used 50 1.4G, after I found the right position, the expression was gone. So, I bought 24-70 2.8G. Later, I found I needed a telephoto lens to shoot in the park, so I bought 70-300 VR, that was a mistake( it's good only for outdoors) because when I needed to take pictures for her piano recital, the flashlight was not allowed, and the piano stage was dark, so her face was dark, too. I used ISO 5000, the maximum aperture, still did not work well. So, I bought 70-200 VR 2. That's a good decision. Now 70-200 VR2 is my favorite lens, although it's heavy. But, trust me, you don't feel hevay when the time passed, you will gain your muscle. My hands and arms are stronger than 6 months ago, which is good for your health, because we know more muscle, the faster metabolism. I never knew photography as a hobby would improve my health !

You said you could afford it, then why not ? You will need the pro lenses if you want the quality results, even you are not a pro. I am not a pro, but for my daughter to have a "clear, vivid" memory, I would pay for it now. Techonologies today is out of date 5 years later. So, the amazing, stunning quality now, is probably only acceptable for for our children 20 years later.
 
Another 2 cents - I like the idea of buying pro stuff to begin with since you have had an interest in photography for a long time (even with its up and downs) go whole hog! My problem is that the computer (camera) you are hooking up all these excellent lens to is just too underpowered! I'm concerned you are buying a cheap (?) base unit that will not/can not fully utilize the lens you are going to put on them - then you are going to be unhappy and lay photography down again just like before! My suggestion would be get a D700 (even a D3s - you said you could afford it!) with the pro 24-120 and start shooting - enjoy! Shoot and shoot and shoot! Lens these days can take a lot of getting used to - buy one - shoot the heck out of it - learn it inside and out!! Then get another and do the same! Build up the lens you need when you need them! You won't have to ask what lens to buy next - you will know by what you lack!!
Blessings man with your decisions - welcome to our club!!!
 
You have offered us two distinct paths and you are getting two distinctly different sets of responses. I will offer a third. IMO, you are planning to buy a DX camera so you should plan to buy a DX-friendly set of lenses. But, perhaps, instead of concentrating on focal lengths, you should think more about varying the speed. In other words, get both the 17-55 2.8 and the 16-85 vr. You say that you want to take a wide variety of pictures: landscapes, candids, vacation shots, cityscapes, etc. Most of these would seem to involve the wide-normal fl's. So, get a variety of tools and explore these approaches. Following this advice, you will have a heavy lens and a light lens, fast glass and slow, an isolating lens and a broad dof lens. Thankfully you did not mention bif.
 
Brev00 said:
You have offered us two distinct paths and you are getting two distinctly different sets of responses. I will offer a third. IMO, you are planning to buy a DX camera so you should plan to buy a DX-friendly set of lenses. But, perhaps, instead of concentrating on focal lengths, you should think more about varying the speed. In other words, get both the 17-55 2.8 and the 16-85 vr. You say that you want to take a wide variety of pictures: landscapes, candids, vacation shots, cityscapes, etc. Most of these would seem to involve the wide-normal fl's. So, get a variety of tools and explore these approaches. Following this advice, you will have a heavy lens and a light lens, fast glass and slow, an isolating lens and a broad dof lens. Thankfully you did not mention bif.
Click to expand...
bif means?
 
That would hinder your learning. The best possible advice to follow at this point is to master one thing at a time as much as possible.

Get the camera body and the 35mm f/1.8, then shoot everything you can think of for at least a month. That lens is inexpensive and has a marvelous reputation; you'll never outgrow it. Find out how to make it work for you. After that that you will have your own ideas on what seems to be missing along with many specific questions.

You'll know you're learning when you stop being concerned about the abscence of VR in the 14-24mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top