Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Advice for lenses on a Nikon D7000...

rymack

rymack

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 27, 2010
207
13
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Hello all!
I am currently trying to decide which lens to go with on a D7000. I am wanting to purchase FX lenses to futureproof myself for when I eventually switch to a full frame camera. At the moment I am trying to decide between the 16-35 VR Nikkor or the 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor. Any advice/suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!
 
You should give some serious consideration as to when that FX body is really going to come. Buying an FX lens now for a body you may or may not own for 3-4 years is stupid at best. Oh and when you finally do buy that FX body, you'll likely still want to sell off that 24-70 for the 24-70 VR II version that will exist then too.

Secondly, the 16-35 and 24-70 are two very different lenses, with completely different purposes. There is no choosing one or the other, you simply select the one that better fills your current shooting needs/desires- or get both. If you buy the 16-35, your'e going to miss out on longer FLs and fast aperture. With the 24-70, it will be too long for much general use on DX and also will lack VR.

The saying "if you have to ask..." comes to mind
 
Quality lenses retain their value really well, independently of whether they are DX or FX lenses. Since crop sensors are here to stay in the long run, I don't think your strategy to pretend you'll upgrade to a FX body `soon' (or perhaps never) makes much sense. And you're not future proofing anything. Instead, you should buy lenses that reflect your needs now and if you happen to buy a full-frame body at one point, then simply sell the lenses at a small or no loss (depending on whether you bought them new or used).

You can invest the proceeds into new lenses that you could at one point sell again.

In any case, to give you recommendations, you should tell us what kind of lens you want: a bread and butter zoom, wide angle, normal, tele, would you consider a prime?
 
without any pointers on what you want to shoot, this is kind of pointless. Both are excellent lenses but for different purposes. the 24-70 is a great lens for a walk around (albeit a bit large) and a superb all rounder lens. The 16-35 is pretty specialized towards landscape of wherever you need a wide (almost ultra wide on FX). They have a 9mm overlap and that overlap won't do much really.

One has VR, the other one doesn't, one has f2.8 the other one f4 etc. so you are looking at completely different lenses for completely different shooting purposes.
Contrary to other replies, I don't see a problem with buying an FX lens if you are comfortable with the field of view you get on a crop sensor.

just my 2c.
 
flosseR said:
Contrary to other replies, I don't see a problem with buying an FX lens if you are comfortable with the field of view you get on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...
IMHO you should make the decision based on the focal lengths you need: the 24-70 mm is a big long on the short end (24 mm corresponds to 36 mm on full frame) while the 16-35 mm has a rather small zoom range (corresponding to 24~50 mm on full frame). Whether this is an issue for the OP, I can't say, because (s)he hasn't really specified what he wants to shoot.

All I'm saying is that you should buy lenses that suit your needs now rather than lenses that would suit your needs if used on a full frame body.

There are many good bread and butter zoom options (17~55 mm f/2.8), be it a used pro-grade Nikkor or a Tamron with very good price/performance, for instance.
 
Hey everyone, sorry about the lack of info and thanks for the replies.

I primarily shoot landscapes and nature/wildlife, and of course because I have a "nice camera" the family gets me to take snapshots at all parties and stuff, but I am mainly looking for a decent walkaround with a primary focus on landscapes.

The situation is this: I recently had my entire kit stolen during a house robbery. It consisted of a D60, 18-55 kit, 55-200 VR, 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8, as well as various accessories and flash. I am using the necessity to replace my kit as an opportunity to upgrade. I had decided on the D7000 and the 16-85 VR, 105 f/2.8 micro, and the 70-300 VR. In talking to my local camera store owner, he had suggested I invest in one or two better lenses now as opposed to the above kit mentioned. I am well aware of the limitations/advantages of mixing DX and FX equipment and hope I don't sound like TOO much of an idiot! :eek:

So this left me second guessing my original idea of the above kit, but I wasn't sure where to go. I know I want the extra reach of the 70-300 VR which is an FX lens, so no issues there. Just a matter of deciding between the 16-35 or 24-70. I realize the 24-70 is faster, but lacking VR, and the 16-35 has a much shorter zoom range, but will net me a wider angle than the 24-70.

I guess I'm just looking for advice on which lens would be better suited to the D7000. If anyone has any other reccomendations or advice, please, by all means, I'm all ears! :)

I have a budget of about $3000 Canadian, but realize I'll have to pay a bit more to accommodate sales tax and memory cards, etc.

The best way to learn is to ask questions...
 
I should also note that I am planning on getting a few inexpensive fast primes, but those aren't a necessity at the moment and would rather invest my budget as best I can. Again, if you have advice as to how I should best do that, let me know!
 
- As a normal zoom, I'd get either a used 17-55 mm f/2.8 Nikkor (there are plenty of those on the market, this used to be their pro zoom in lieu of the 28-70 mm f/2.8 before Nikon's pro bodies received full-frame sensors) or Tamron's 17-50 mm f/2.8. Make sure to get the cheap version without VC (that's what Tamron calls VR), because it is optically better and cheaper. The Tamron feels more like a good kit lens (think 18-70 mm or 16-85 mm), but the optics are very good.
- I'd also get a 30 or 35 mm prime. I have a 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma and love it to death. By far my most-used lens on my D7000. Plus, it's very sturdily built. Nikon's 35 mm is optically better, but not as bright.
- I'd get a 50 mm f/1.8, perhaps the new AF-S version which is supposedly better than the f/1.4 version.
- As a tele zoom, I'm not sure here: I own (and love) a 80-200 mm Nikkor, but it is very heavy and it takes some skill to focus since the depth of field wide open is quite small.
- Then I'd get a Nikon SB-700 flash.
 
Investing in FX lenses is not stupid. Even on DX bodies they produce amazing results. After all, they just use the 'sweet spot' of the FX lens.
 
OreoCookie is pretty spot on.

I'd repeat nothing wrong, especially not stupid, with getting quality FX lenses for a DX body but you do want to take in to consideration your needs/desires.

The only thing that gives me pause about your questions is when the owner of a camera shop suggests more expensive glass, red flags go up for me.

The best way to "future proof" any lens purchase is to buy a good condition used high end lens. The 17-55 f/2.8 fits that bill. They are out there and in a few years you can re-sell for near if not equal to your purchase price.
 
I'm glad to hear that I am not far off with wanting to invest in FX lenses. The operator of the store knows exactly what my budget is and knows that is what I am spending in his shop; I think he just wants me to use that budget as best I can. But you're right, I need to make sure I'm getting what's best for me, and not the shop. I think the 16-35, 70-300, and then a 50 prime would be a decent kit for the moment...
 
rymack said:
I had decided on the D7000 and the 16-85 VR, 105 f/2.8 micro, and the 70-300 VR. In talking to my local camera store owner, he had suggested I invest in one or two better lenses now as opposed to the above kit mentioned.
Click to expand...

I've got those three lenses (well, my 105 is the older non-VR version). Only the 16-85 is DX. I've got 5 primes, all FX but for the fish-eye, and a Tokina 12-24 (DX) as well.

I primarily shoot landscapes and the 16-85 is so good that I rarely use the three primes I've got in that range for landscapes. I use a 35 prime for panoramas because it has less distortion and stitches seemingly flawlessly. (Note that the FX 35 I've got is optically inferior and more expensive than the 35m DX prime you had!)

Somebody may disagree, but in general you don't need an F2.8 lens for landscapes.

Now wildlife is another problem. The 70-300 is marginal because it is soft at the maximum extent and is only F/5.6 there as well. But a good telephoto for wildlife will be FX and a good investment, but is far beyond your budget (or mine for that matter!).

One last thing. You do have a good tripod, don't you? Money spent on good glass is wasted without a sturdy support system.
 
rymack said:
Hey everyone, sorry about the lack of info and thanks for the replies.

I primarily shoot landscapes and nature/wildlife, and of course because I have a "nice camera" the family gets me to take snapshots at all parties and stuff, but I am mainly looking for a decent walkaround with a primary focus on landscapes.

The situation is this: I recently had my entire kit stolen during a house robbery. It consisted of a D60, 18-55 kit, 55-200 VR, 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8, as well as various accessories and flash. I am using the necessity to replace my kit as an opportunity to upgrade. I had decided on the D7000 and the 16-85 VR, 105 f/2.8 micro, and the 70-300 VR. In talking to my local camera store owner, he had suggested I invest in one or two better lenses now as opposed to the above kit mentioned. I am well aware of the limitations/advantages of mixing DX and FX equipment and hope I don't sound like TOO much of an idiot! :eek:

So this left me second guessing my original idea of the above kit, but I wasn't sure where to go. I know I want the extra reach of the 70-300 VR which is an FX lens, so no issues there. Just a matter of deciding between the 16-35 or 24-70. I realize the 24-70 is faster, but lacking VR, and the 16-35 has a much shorter zoom range, but will net me a wider angle than the 24-70.

I guess I'm just looking for advice on which lens would be better suited to the D7000. If anyone has any other reccomendations or advice, please, by all means, I'm all ears! :)

I have a budget of about $3000 Canadian, but realize I'll have to pay a bit more to accommodate sales tax and memory cards, etc.

The best way to learn is to ask questions...
Click to expand...

I think the 35mm f/1.8 is a perfect landscape/nature/wildlife lens for DX. Definitely would replace your stolen one, no brainer at $199. The new 50mm f/1.8G is also amazing for portraits and flowers, etc. Superior bokeh to the 1.8D. Also take a look at the 18-200mm DX f/3.5-5.6, I love that lens for just a simple walk around kit, especially in well lit situations.

Edit: Sorry, just realized you want to go FX later. 50mm f/1.8G still stands as it's FX. As for the other DX lenses, they are still good and if you end up going FX, you can always keep the 35, 18-200, and D7000 as a backup. 24-70 f/2.8 is an amazing lens, it's next on my list.
 
H2Ockey said:
I'd repeat nothing wrong, especially not stupid, with getting quality FX lenses for a DX body but you do want to take in to consideration your needs/desires.
Click to expand...

I would argue that it is both wrong and stupid to buy an FX lens that doesn't meet your needs now (because it's the wrong FL, or has the wrong features) in the hopes that it may or may not meet your needs in the indeterminate future.

rymack, as you are rebuilding after a theft and not starting a new kit, it would be useful for you to go back and look at your past library of photos. What FLs did you shoot most at? What ranges? What apertures? Of your favorite pictures, what kind of gear tended to produce those shots? This will tell you a lot about what lens you would benefit from most.

I had previously written up a fairly long reply with some other gear recommendations but I was worried it was getting too far OT. Instead, I present this:

You asked earlier which (of the two listed lenses) was a better match for the D7000, the answer for which is really "neither". There is no such thing as a better match for the camera, it's what is the better match for YOUR PICTURES. This is not something that can really be advised on over the internet, and you'll likely find a more useful answer via some consideration of your own library and shooting preferences. We can all stand here and tell you how to spend your money, (and have great fun doing so!) but at the end of the day the only one who really knows what is going to make your shooting more productive or more enjoyable is yourself.
 
Ruahrc said:
I would argue that it is a bad idea to buy any lens that doesn't meet your needs now (because it's the wrong FL, or has the wrong features) in the hopes that it may or may not meet your needs in the indeterminate future.
Click to expand...
This may have been a better way to put it.

I think I just read your statement as a little overly harsh. There is nothing wrong with buying FX glass if you have a DX body and are planning on getting an FX body in the future, as long as, as you pointed out, the lens you buy meets your needs/desires now as far as focal length and/or features. Which is a point many people in this thread made without saying anything is "stupid".
 
I was buying full frame lenses on my D70 and that was several years before Nikon released a full frame body. I'm currently using the D700.

The only "DX" lens that I bought were the 12-24mm f/4 and the 17-55mm f/2.8. I kept the 12-24mm DX until I went full frame and replaced it with the 14-24mm FX, but I sold the 17-55mm for the 28-70mm f/2.8, which got replaced by the 24-70mm f/2.8 FX.

It's better to put a full frame lens on a crop body because you will be getting the sweet spot of the lens. And if you're doing telephoto work, there's that 1.5x crop factor. The 70-200mm f/2.8 on a crop body was very nice. The only disadvantage is for ultra-wide to wide shots.

I know a lot of people who will push for the 50mm prime because it's a great lens for the price, but it becomes more of a portrait lens on a DX body. I would recommend 35mm instead, which will give you a normal view on DX and wide on FX.

Invest in good glass because it will last longer than your camera body. I've sold many lenses over the year and I've lost very little money. I usually break even or even make a profit.
 
Wow, thanks for all the useful information, everyone! The most frustrating part of the whole thing is waiting for insurance to come through with the funds to actually go shopping, so to speak. Another option I toyed with was the 16-85 DX and then forking over some extra for the 70-200 f/2.8. It's just a matter of how to appropriately allocate the funds at my disposal.

I really like the idea of stitching photos for ultra-wide landscapes if need be, as Talmy pointed out...
 
If you have a DX body, you will be limited with FX lenses for wideangle.

For non-fisheye, the widest FX is the Sigma 12-24, which becomes a 18-36 on Nikon crop.

If you go DX you have 8-16 (12-24 equiv.) and 10-20 (15-30 equiv.) zooms.
 
Nikkor 24-70mm ((drool)).

If you can afford it go with a lens that's meant to be on your D7000. I'm partial to 3rd party lenses. Some people do well with them. Me, personally, there are some things I don't like. Maybe its just me.

However I'm loving the 24-70mm and 28-70mm is great too. I don't mind not having the nano-coating. Both lenses I don't own but I've rented and used a lot. Paring that with a 70-200mm in your bag will cover a lot.
 
mofunk said:
Nikkor 24-70mm ((drool)).

If you can afford it go with a lens that's meant to be on your D7000. I'm partial to 3rd party lenses. Some people do well with them. Me, personally, there are some things I don't like. Maybe its just me.

However I'm loving the 24-70mm and 28-70mm is great too. I don't mind not having the nano-coating. Both lenses I don't own but I've rented and used a lot. Paring that with a 70-200mm in your bag will cover a lot.
Click to expand...

3rd party lenses are fine if they can do equal or better than the Nikkor. In my experience, I have only come across two lenses that fitted the criteria. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for almost half the price of the Nikon version and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 prime which is better than the Nikon version in my opinion.

I shot a wedding two weeks ago and the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm were the ones that I used the most.
 
Maybe I've been thinking about this so much I have failed to remember that DX and FX lenses on a DX body will both have the crop factor applied to it, correct? So a 50mm DX lens will look the same as a 50mm FX lens, when both lenses are mounted on a DX body.... ?
 
rymack said:
Maybe I've been thinking about this so much I have failed to remember that DX and FX lenses on a DX body will both have the crop factor applied to it, correct? So a 50mm DX lens will look the same as a 50mm FX lens, when both lenses are mounted on a DX body.... ?
Click to expand...

Yes, and with Nikon a DX lens will still mount on an FX body. On a DX body, and 50mm DX will be 75mm, and a 50mm FX will be 75mm. On an FX body, a 50mm DX will be 75mm (with reduced megapixels) and the 50mm FX will be 50mm.
 
mackmgg said:
Yes, and with Nikon a DX lens will still mount on an FX body. On a DX body, and 50mm DX will be 75mm, and a 50mm FX will be 75mm. On an FX body, a 50mm DX will be 75mm (with reduced megapixels) and the 50mm FX will be 50mm.
Click to expand...

So why then would there be a disadvantage for me to buy an FX lens for a DX body if it will still give me the same angle of view as the DX on DX equivalent?? lol I've just confused myself I think....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back