-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ready to buy first lens for D7000
- Thread starter ckk09
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d7000
friedbrains
Active member
good choice! might want to include there 50 1.8D, it is dirt cheap and you can't go wrong with that price!
Photographer124
Forum Enthusiast
I agreed with all your points, PROVIDED you hit a good sample... Sample variation with Sigma is huge... Took me 4 to get a 17-70 which focused correctly or and was not soft on one side, etc... Ended up giving it back.
For me, the 16-85mm is the perfect all-around lens... The 24mm equivalent makes a huge difference. But that's just me.
For me, the 16-85mm is the perfect all-around lens... The 24mm equivalent makes a huge difference. But that's just me.
sshoihet
Veteran Member
I prefer to choose my perspective first and then find the focal length that's going to work rather than the other way around.
I have a 50mm, i usually only pull it out when i need shallow dof or i notice that my zoom lens is at 50mm for a shot. As much as i find it to be a good length for landscapes, most of the time it's sitting in my bag with my 35mm which i use even less.
I have a 50mm, i usually only pull it out when i need shallow dof or i notice that my zoom lens is at 50mm for a shot. As much as i find it to be a good length for landscapes, most of the time it's sitting in my bag with my 35mm which i use even less.
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
olyflyer
Veteran Member
Yes... the snobs and those who have no clue.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
The 16-85 is an excellent lens. It covers a very nice range, it is fairly fast focusing and is very sharp. I don't know how it is on the D7k, I have the D300s, but on that camera it is very nice lens.
Good luck.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
...and if there is a wall or a rock preventing you from taking a few steps back then you just blast that wall or rock away from the face of the earth, and if you can't get a wide enough view you just take many images and stitch them together...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!
Comments like yours are always amusing to read. It is a pretty narrow minded opinion not to be able to imagine any other needs and wishes.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
both lenses are virtually identical, buying the 16-85mm instead of 18-105mm is a waste of $400.
Sold mine after a couple of months.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
I disagree. The 16-85 is better build and the extra 2mm makes a difference. It is also optically better.both lenses are virtually identical, buying the 16-85mm instead of 18-105mm is a waste of $400.
If I could turn back time I'd still buy that one before the 18-105 but sure, the 18-105 would be my second choice. Now I have the 16-85 and I will only sell it if I also sell the D300s. It's the best travel lens there is for the DX, good range, VR and very sharp, even wide open and even at the widest focal length.
I use a hammer for hitting nails. The build quality makes no difference. Both lenses are plastic, it's not a pro vs consumer level of difference - the 16-85 build quality is pathetic when compared to a 24-70mm. As well as the AF speed.
as well as the 20mm on the long end for the 18-105mm
no it isn't. If you can spot the difference, you've got a bad copy.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
OK.
To you...
...how about one sealed the other not...
I know, you use an umbrella to protect you against rain...
We are not talking about that 24-70 are we? Is the OP interestted in that lens at all? I am certainly not, because it is the wrong focal length for DX.
No it doesn't. Not as much as the WA end.
Yes it is. The 18-105 has considerably more CA and distortion and it is in fact clearly there, no bad copy needed.
...but whatever rocks your boat is OK for me.
codeNsnap
Well-known member
I'm surprised that no one suggested the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. I have the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4 which is very good, but I really wish it could do f2.8 all all focal lengths. I have used the 17-50mm and found that it produces some really really sharp images even in low lighting.
NikonShoot3r
Veteran Member
I agree...the 16-85MMM VR is very sharp and one of the best Nikon DX zoom lens. I have it mounted to my D7K and have excellent IQ.
I disagree. The 16-85 is better build and the extra 2mm makes a difference. It is also optically better.both lenses are virtually identical, buying the 16-85mm instead of 18-105mm is a waste of $400.
If I could turn back time I'd still buy that one before the 18-105 but sure, the 18-105 would be my second choice. Now I have the 16-85 and I will only sell it if I also sell the D300s. It's the best travel lens there is for the DX, good range, VR and very sharp, even wide open and even at the widest focal length.
intensity studios
Leading Member
Wow, get your meds adjusted man. We are talking about camera gear, not curing cancer. If someone has a different point of view, they are not narrow minded. Just different. Take it down a notch.
--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com
--...and if there is a wall or a rock preventing you from taking a few steps back then you just blast that wall or rock away from the face of the earth, and if you can't get a wide enough view you just take many images and stitch them together...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!
Comments like yours are always amusing to read. It is a pretty narrow minded opinion not to be able to imagine any other needs and wishes.
--
Antonio
http://www.intensitystudios.com
not important to me, and certainly not worth the extra $400
for you..
to you..
TFergus
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,188
- Reaction score
- 118
Needs and wishes like those of the guy in this thread who sees more value in the 18-105 than the 16-85 ?
Does your arguing with him, and telling him how he's wrong, equate to "narrow mindedness" ?
olyflyer
Veteran Member
I guess you have no humor... or I was not funny, because I was not supportive to your idea. Guess which...
Different point of view is one thing, but your comment was just a narrow minded nonsense. I love primes, but they are not a solution for every situation, especially not one single lens, and especially not the 50, which is a bit long on a DX indoors in many situations.
olyflyer
Veteran Member
...for you.
...and for many others. That's why Nikon made the 17-55, that's the DX version of it. The 24-70 is for FX and is the wrong focal length on DX.
...and to many others, but not to you.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum