Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:44 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 4:21 pm 
I know there are thousands of threads regarding this subject. However, I wanted personalised suggestions from the experienced for my scenario.

I started this hobby whilst I was overseas early this year, therefore I decided something where as I would not require to change lenses, hence the 18-200mm.

Since then, I got bored of this lens quite quickly as it doesn't do much.... So I had decided to probably sell this lens to help finance a different setup.

I will keep the d7000 for now, however I would like to move to full frame in the future.

I would like to take this camera everywhere I go... So portraits, landscapes and outdoor for now

Please note I do not want to go third party lenses, however my budget is tight. I"ll look at selling the 18-200mm for $700 to help finance my new needs, so my budget will be about $2000 for now.

Some research suggests that if I go all out is to obtain the 24-70 2.8 & a flash. As this would cover a bit of landscape & portraits. Then down the track buy a 70-200 2.8.

Other research suggests to bump up the budget for the 70-200 2.8, a flash and the 35mm dx 1.8 prime lens. As the 35mm is necessary for indoor as being DX, I may find myself backing into a wall most of the time with larger focus lengths. A prime might not be so bad, better quality, cheaper and is only a few steps forward or back

Alternatively, am I better keeping the 18-200mm for now and buy x2 primes & a flash. I.e 35mm dx 1.8 & 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4, as when I do go fx sell the dx lenses then. (I want bokeh, hard on the 18-200)

I do not see the worth in investing in that dx zoom 17-55 as resell maybe difficult when i go fx. However the 35mm dx 1.8 is cheap and on demand.

Or do you suggest any other combinations, as I want to keep the budget relative as I'm still exploring how serious I take up this hobby. I appreciate your responses and suggetions, thanks in advance!

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 10:34 pm 
If you are sure you are going to go FF in the near future then the 24-70 might be a good investment, but it's not all that useful on DX to be honest. It's going to feel really front-heavy on the D7000, and the primes you mentioned (50/1.4, 85/1.8 ) would be just as good if not better for portraits while weighing much less (both of these lenses will work on FF too BTW). Plus, while 24mm is just about usable for landscapes, it's not really wide enough for landscapes IMO.

My vote would go for what suits you best right now, you can always sell them later on when you go to FF and you shouldn't lose too much, especially if you buy them second hand yourself. If you're finding your 18-200 a bit limited in a jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none sense, I would personally recommend something more specialised to what you want to shoot. My recommendations would be an ultra wide angle zoom for a general walkaround landscape lens (since you're ruling out excellent, and cheaper, third party lenses like the Tokina 12-24, you'd have to look at the more expensive Nikon 10-24 or 12-24) plus one or two primes - the 50/1.4 and/or 85/1.8 (depending on what your budget allows, but I'd go for the 50/1.4 first since it's a more useful FL on DX) that you mention would be perfect for portraits.

I know you may think you're missing out on a lot of focal lengths there by not having a normal zoom, but I don't think you'd miss them too much since that combination of lenses would do a far better job than having one of the top-end DX zooms like the 17-55 or 16-85, neither of which go super wide or do portraits as well as a couple of nice primes. Also, primes are very light so you won't mind carrying them around with you everywhere you go, unlike a big hefty zoom.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 12:37 pm 
I don't think I will buy the 28-70mm 2.8, cant seem to justify spending $2k for a lens right now, as I want to keep the budget low until I explore the hobby a bit more.

In your opinion, if i was to buy primes like the AF-S 35mm DX 1.8G would you buy the AF 50mm 1.8D, AF 50mm 1.4D, AF-S 50mm 1.4G, or 85mm 1.8D?

Or just buy a 3rd party zoom lense like the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM?
I heard Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 isn't bad either for the buck?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 1:37 pm 

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 1831
28-70 isn't $2k - the 24-70 is around that mark.

I'd rather have a 28-70 over the sigma 24-70 though

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 2:25 pm 
Sorry i did mean 24-70mm

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 2:37 pm 
Choosing the right lens setup is something personal - it really depends on what your photography style/needs are. I can bring some possible setups to your attention, but you have to make the final decision yourself.
Here are some setup options:
1. 16-35mm f/4 & 70-200mm f/2.8 (may add 50mm f/1.4)
2. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 & 16-85mm & 70-300mm VR (less than $2000)
3. 10-24mm & 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 & 70-300mm (less than $2000)
4. 24mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.4 & 105mm f/2.8 (primes only)

There are many combinations you can make - again it depends on your personal needs and style. Hope this was helpful for your choice.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 11:40 pm 

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:41 pm
Posts: 372
I thought I was going to go FF and so har the 50/1.8 and 70-300 for that eventuality. However, I wanted to have these lenses for DX anyway, as they are good performers.

When it came to it, I selected the D7000 over the D700 for a number of reasons (some more modern features, later electronics etc) and the camera has done very well for what I want. Low light is covered off well for me by having VR lenses or using a tripod - but that's just me - others go FF for equally valid reasons.

The prime lens route would be a good one because they are well-performed lenses that are less expensive and gather more light than a 2.8 zoom. They're also more compact.

The 18-200 should be fine for the wider end and it does give you an all-in-one lens for when you want to go compact. I really like my 35/1.8, but I would not have bought it if I had been expecting to go exclusively FF.

I would tend to pick lenses with their own focus motor unless there is a real price advantage the other way, as you ensure forward compatibility with other cameras you may want to buy. With Nikon making more and more m,otorised lenses I keep wondering which models the camera-driven focusing might ultimately be restricted to.

Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group