Reading mode: Light Dark

Ready to buy first lens for D7000

Go to last post
C

ckk09

Member
Messages
32
Reaction score
1
So I just got my D7000 body, and I've been waiting to get the 16-85mm lens, because I've heard good things about it. Nobody has had it in stock, so now I just want to go and purchase something else that will get me shooting, but I want to buy something nice that I can keep around.

Since I'm just getting into it, I can imagine that I'll want to experiment with everything from landscapes to portraits to nature. Anyone have any recommendations on a good all-around lens that's as good, or better, than the 16-85? I want something sharp, and will spend a little more money if I have to.
 
What about the 18-105? Sure, it’s plasticky, not-as-well-built, some might even say, boring… and the 2 mm missing at the wide end do make a difference. But… more reach at the long end, fastest aperture should be about identical, and IQ is said to be only marginally behind. Plus, I’ve heard a lot of complaints about the 16-85’s bokeh.

Probably won’t help you, but a camera gear dealer near me has the 16-85 in stock (as per their website). So perhaps you just didn’t look well enough… ;)
--
Pics, or it didn’t happen!
 
Hi,

First of all it depend up on the type of photos you are taking; so to start with, Nikkor 18-55mm and 55-300mm can help you to save money, and you are done.
 
The 18-55mm is intriguing. I could then get a 55-300...

Does anyone have an idea where I could find pictures taken with this lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=532521&Q=&is=USA&A=ShowProduct

I just want to see if it's crisp, how the bokeh looks. Not a huge zoom range, but it'll get me started taking pics.

My other thought was to pick up the 35mm f/1.8 lens that I had planned to pick up anyway, for low-light. Maybe that route is best?

I don't want a ton of overlap.
 
in my opinion for what its worth...

the 16-85 is a waste of money, it costs premium dollar for a nothing special consumer lens.

Either get a 17-55 (Used is not that much more of a stretch for a lens that is leagues beyond the 16-85) or go with cheaper set consumer lenses that gives you more reach such as the 18-55 and 55-300. I have both and while clearly not pro they meet a wide variety of uses. The 55 mm is a kind of an awkward switchover, but it it is good value.

Another good option would be a Sigma 17-50/F2.8, if still within budget get a 70-300
 
For less than the 16-85, you could get a refurbished 18-105VR and 55-300VR ($508 total for both lenses, free shipping included). Cameta has both in stock (right now). The bit of overlap is not a bad thing...you can get away with less lens swapping.

Those looking for consumer grade lenses are foolish to not consider refurbished. It's a great way to get more lens for your buck. One year warranty included (90 day Nikon, 4th-12th month thru Cameta).
--
K.B.
 
ckk09 said:
My other thought was to pick up the 35mm f/1.8 lens that I had planned to pick up anyway, for low-light. Maybe that route is best?
Click to expand...
This is what I was going to suggest. In my opinion you cannot go wrong with the 35/1.8. Even if you bought the 16-85 now, you would still want this lens later for low light. It is a very handy, light, low cost lens, and produces excellent images.

You will probably miss the convenience and versatility of a zoom, but it will let you use your camera while you work out what zoom to get.

Some people think the 16-85 is a waste of money.

I don't.

I have it, it's on my camera most of the time, and I am happy with the results.

At the same time you may consider getting the 18-105, which is a cheaper lens still offering very good image quality.

Good luck.

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas
 
A LOT of people have had focus problems with the D7K and 35mm f/1.8 G combo, myself included. It's a great lens, and works very well with my D80 and D300, but gives very inconsistent results with my D7K.

If you search these forums, there are tons of posts about it.
 
Depending on how far you want to go with your photography I wouldn't be putting your money into the 18-55 or 55-300...those are usually lenses that people are fairly quick to upgrade from. The 18-105 is a good starting lens, gets you a chance to figure out where you want to go, the 70-300 is also a good all purpose zoom, either Nikon or Tamron, and the UWA tokinas.
--
Herby
 
blue_cheese said:
in my opinion for what its worth...

the 16-85 is a waste of money, it costs premium dollar for a nothing special consumer lens.
Click to expand...
if you go to http://www.photozone.de the tests shows a fair difference in distortion control and CA

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/410-nikkor_18105_3556vr?start=1

The 18-105 has good performance and is a bargain in terms of bang for buck no doubt; there are many members (who I respect) speak highly of it.. But the numbers pressed on the side of the barrel are not the whole picture.

Not sure if the 18-105 has a mount to body seal for dust/moisture like the 16-85.. couldn't find that out... I am not overly concenred about the 18-105 having a plastic mount personally
blue_cheese said:
Either get a 17-55 (Used is not that much more of a stretch for a lens that is leagues beyond the 16-85) or go with cheaper set consumer lenses that gives you more reach such as the 18-55 and 55-300. I have both and while clearly not pro they meet a wide variety of uses. The 55 mm is a kind of an awkward switchover, but it it is good value.
Click to expand...
again regarding the 17-55.. check out the test before commiting... centre of lens IQ is excellent but there are other factors.. read the article.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/231-nikkor-af-s-17-55mm-f28-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1
blue_cheese said:
Another good option would be a Sigma 17-50/F2.8, if still within budget get a 70-
Click to expand...
300

Agree: I really liked the 18-50 and 17-50 Sigma f2.8s.. Centre and edge perfomance was very good in the ones I had. I have their 70-300 APO HSM (a bit misleading a description =APO) but there is a real improvement over their standard 70-300.

my 2 cents
--
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.' :'!':
 
I compared the Nikon 16-85 to the Sigma 17-70 os while shopping for my midrange lens. Similar focal range. While the Nikon typically gets points for sharpness and is very likely an excellent choice for landscape/travel needs, I chose the Sigma for its close focusing and bokeh which makes it excellent for flower closeups and portraits. It has proved sharp enough for my needs and is sold at @ $450. It should be readily available.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
ckk09 said:
The 18-55mm is intriguing. I could then get a 55-300...
Click to expand...
If your statement about wanting sharp lenses is genuine...
then I would watch what kit lenses and superzooms you buy.

--
Look at the bright side... Whitney Houston is 5 months sober !
 
Peter Jonas said:
Some people think the 16-85 is a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Peter Jonas said:
At the same time you may consider getting the 18-105, which is a cheaper lens still offering very good image quality.
Click to expand...
I don't remember people saying the lens itself is a waste of money.

The way I remember it is people were buying the D90 and 18-105 kit, then buying this expensive, recently-released 16-85 VR... and finding it wasn't any better/much better than their kit lens.

Some said "waste"... and others justified it by saying they "needed" that extra 2 at the wide end, and that's why they got it.

If you have the cheaper 18-105 then it's not really necessary.
If you don't, then the 16-85 is a good lens, 2mm wider and double the cost.

--
Look at the bright side... Whitney Houston is 5 months sober !
 
Buy prime lenses. Start with the 50mm 1.8. No collection is complete without a 50mm lens. And if you take any beginners photo courses, that is the lens they generally make you use.

--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com
 
intensity studios said:
Buy prime lenses. Start with the 50mm 1.8. No collection is complete without a 50mm lens. And if you take any beginners photo courses, that is the lens they generally make you use.
Click to expand...
OP, the worst thing you can do when stepping into DSLR photography is limit yourself to 1 focal length.

No better way to bore yourself of the hobby.

Not to mention the OP specifically mentioned the different types of shooting he wants to experiment with. Don't force such limits on yourself.

Nikon 18-105, or better yet a Tamron 17-50.
Then go from there.
 
TFergus said:
intensity studios said:
Buy prime lenses. Start with the 50mm 1.8. No collection is complete without a 50mm lens. And if you take any beginners photo courses, that is the lens they generally make you use.
Click to expand...
OP, the worst thing you can do when stepping into DSLR photography is limit yourself to 1 focal length.

No better way to bore yourself of the hobby.
Click to expand...
Can't really agree with you there. I shot film for years with just the included 50mm lens.

But, I have to agree with there, too. After getting my first zoom six years ago, there has been no going back. I used a fixed lens for macro and that is about it.
TFergus said:
Not to mention the OP specifically mentioned the different types of shooting he wants to experiment with. Don't force such limits on yourself.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you there. The op does seem focused on getting a midrange zoom. However, suggesting a prime is not the worst idea in the world. Lots of people here swear by them.
TFergus said:
Nikon 18-105, or better yet a Tamron 17-50.
Click to expand...
Everybody loves the kit lens. The great thing about the kit lens is it provides all the focal lengths he needs for the purposes he listed. Then, after shooting with it for awhile, he can ...
TFergus said:
Then go from there.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
If you can't make good photos with a 50mm lens or you "get bored" with your camera because it can't zoom, then photography probably isn't for you! :)

--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com
 
hello
you can see som images taken by the lens you have mentioned here:
phosee.dk/lens/406-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-vr-dx
best regards David
 
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