Nikon D7000, Kit Lens Or?

[TheArcane]

I have been shooting with my Canon 450D for around five years now, and feel the need to upgrade to a different camera body. Since the recent death of my 28-105mm kit lens I now only have a Canon Ultrasonic EF 75-300mm, so I'm not too attached the glass that remains to me. I have used several Nikons over the last couple years that some friends of mine own, and I've decided to switch to Nikon. I believe I have narrowed down my selection to the Nikon D7000, because it has a lot of features I like, and it's within my price range. Now begins the second phase of my selection, where I decide what glass to begin with. I know that the 18-105mm kit lens it comes with is a solid lens from what many here have said, but I am wondering if it would be worth spending a little more, to get a better lens.

For the time being I plan to start with a lens that will work well for portrait, and landscape photography. Later on I will invest in a telephoto lens because I do enjoy wildlife photography, but that is something I can worry about later. While I do have a decent understanding of how to find my way around the average D-SLR and how to utilize the manual settings, I will be the first to admit that I don't have a fantastic understanding of lenses. Is it a good idea to stick with Nikon brand lenses? Am I mainly just paying for the name? Are lesser known lens brands like Sigma a viable option as long as it's compatible with my camera body? Specific suggestions on a particular model of lens would be preferable, since I feel like I'm already neck deep in lens reviews, and just getting more overwhelmed by the paragraph.

As far as my budget goes, I would like to spend around $1,500 for the body, as well as the lens. I tried to give you a good run down of what I'm looking for, but if you have any questions for me, or things you would like me to clarify then please just let me know .

[Brocken]

I bought just a D7000 body, as I already have the 18 - 105mm kit lens that came bundled with my D90. It gives decent results. I augment this with a few primes - Nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8, Nikkor AF 35mm f/1.8, and Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 - because I feel that the higher pixel density and 14-bit colour of the D7000 needs the sharpness that only primes can give to make itself visible.

If I had to choose just one of these primes, I would go for the 35mm f/1.8 which has about the same angle of view as the 50mm 'normal' lens of SLR days, and is the most versatile. I will often go out for the day with just this one lens fitted to the camera. It is much lighter and less bulky than the 18 - 105 mm kit lens, which becomes a burden on a long day out.

All of the primes can be made to work in zoom mode by moving nearer to, or further from, the subject simply by moving the feet in the forward or reverse direction until an agreeable framing distance comes to light. I find this encourages me to consider my relationship to the subject more thoroughly, and so leads to better ordering of the picture elements within the frame.

[IanCD]

Hi 'Arcane,'
The best compromise lens that will cover both landscape and portrait on the D7000 is the 16-85 DX - I did link to the review at Photozone, but re-reading your post, I take it you ma have already read it, and if not probably wouldn't want to...! If you haven't come across them, though, I'd certainly recommend their reviews.
I bought the 16-85 with my D7000 because the reviews I read at the time, and feedback in forums, suggested it was clearly better, both optically and in build quality, than the 18-105.
Later reviews of both lenses using the D7000 at Photozone suggest the difference between them on optical quality may be less on the D7000. The 16-85 consistently gets good feedback from users. I've certainly no complaints and like it a lot. I don't know whether that fits your budget though, nor whether it will be worth paying the extra, to you. It gives a slightly wider Field of View at 16mm, equivalent to a 24mm lens on full frame/35mm, compared to the 27mm equivalent of the 18mm. Of course, you lose out at the telephoto end.
As far as other makes are concerned, you'll probably get different views from different folks. Those who have good copies of their lenses and like them will be positive, those who've had bad experiences won't be... sorry to be stating the obvious..! Personally, although I put third-party lenses in the mix when I was looking for a particular lens (a wider-angle zoom), I was very much put off by the experiences of the guys testing at Photozone last year. They had a lot of problems with sample variation, especially decentered lenses, particularly with Sigma and Tokina.
Hope that helps a bit,
Ian

[Polar01]

Arcane: the 16-85mm DX is a great len, it is on my D7000 95% of the time, it is only off if I have to shoot really wide or long. Another I understand that is getting good reviews is the new 24-85 f3.5 VR FX len, (remember all lens stated sizes are as if they are on a full size 35mm camera even those made for c-crop cameras). You would loose a little width but it is a couple of hungred less (Canadian) than the 16-85 f3.5 DX len.
Most of my images are landscapes, getting better at it is close up of flowers do those to get the vivid colours, but like landscape the best,

Cheers:

Allan

[carloshpvp]

Arcane, I`m thinking of getting a D7000 + Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I'm trying to decide between VC and non-VC version of it.

[Mike Buckley]

One advantage of going with a Nikon lens, especially a prosumer or pro lens, is that it will retain its resale value very well. If you decide later that you don't want it, you can sell it.

Also consider KEH.com for purchasing a used lens. KEH has impeccable standards for publishing accurate descriptions of the quality of each lens. Many people, including me, rave that the product that arrives is actually in better condition than as described. Having said that, I don't understand why people pay the used prices that they do when the new lens comes with a 5-year warranty. That's especially important if the motor is in the lens.

[TheArcane]

Where is a good place to buy the 16-85mm DX lens for decent prices? For the sake of pricing I checked shopping.google and got a very broad range of prices. Maybe they are slightly different models, which accounts for the wide range in price? This is the lens I'm supposed to be looking at, correct?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-...16-85+DX+Nikon

[doomed forever]

Arcane, I`m thinking of getting a D7000 + Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I'm trying to decide between VC and non-VC version of it.

way good decision! i'd consider the tamron 17-50mm without VC, because the lens is sharper.

[IanCD]

Hi Arcane,
Yes, that's the one... not sure where you'd buy...
Unlikely (I think) to be different models. Nikon have filed a patent for a new, constant f4, version of the lens, but I don't think it's out yet...
Ian

[TheArcane]

Hi Arcane,
Yes, that's the one... not sure where you'd buy...
Unlikely (I think) to be different models. Nikon have filed a patent for a new, constant f4, version of the lens, but I don't think it's out yet...
Ian

Alright. I just want to make sure I order from a website with a good reputation. I often order things from or through amazon, but I wasn't sure if there was a better option for me.

[TheArcane]

Yesterday I decided to stop in at my local camera shop so I could hold and get a feel for the D7000 before I make the purchase. I really love the camera itself and feel I'll be very happy with the upgrade. I did talk to the gentleman there about lenses however in order to find out what his thoughts were. He said that optically the 16-85mm gives you the same quality of image that the 18-105mm does. He also argued that while it will give you a slightly wider angle, you lose on the telephoto range, and being that the minimum aperture number is f/3.5 on both lenses, you aren't even getting a faster lens. His conclusion being, why spend $500 more on a lens that only has a slightly wider angle. His suggestion then was that if I want to spend some extra money on a lens, to just buy the Nikon D7000 kit that comes with the 18-200mm lens, advantage being the extra telephoto abilities as well as the 18-200mm having a metal mount in opposed to the plastic mount on the 18-105mm.

A lot of information to process, and I would love to hear what some of you think. I agree that if I'm not going to get a higher quality image with the lens, then it isn't worth spending an extra $500 for it. The problem I have with a prime lens, is that is has no telephoto abilities, and since I've honestly never shot with a lens like that I'm not sure what I would think of it. With that being said I think it would be wise for me to have my first lens for the D7000 have some telephoto capabilities so I at least have a wider range of options with my first lens, since it will take a few more months of saving before I can add another lens to my collection. So I would like to have some form of zoom capabilities with the lens, my biggest concern is the quality of the image. I am the type of person who likes to zoom in pretty close on my computer to check the clarity of an image, so I am willing to spend some extra money if it means I'll produce a higher quality image with a given lens.

Also, if you disagree about the 16-85mm producing the same quality image as an 18-105mm, I'd like to hear why that is so I can have a good understanding of it.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Joshua,

I have the 18-200mm as my first lens with my D5000, I don't regret that decision and I'd probably do it again if starting over. I moved from a 10x zoom bridge camera, so I couldn't entertain the idea of going to a 3x kit lens.

It did me well for two years or so, before I bought a 70-300mm, for longer telephoto reach, as my preferred subjects are wildlife. The 70-300mm now stays on the camera 80% of the time. I have other cameras that cover wider angles, so the 18-200mm doesn't get a lot of use these days, but it won't be sold.

I do wish I had a faster telephoto - I now have a couple of primes in the 50/1.4 and the Macro 105mm which is f/2.8, they help.

However, a decent (read Nikon) 70-200mm f/2.8 is both heavy and expensive, and given all the other lenses I have that cover that range, I can't justify the spend now. My next new DSLR lens is likely to be one of the faster Ultra Wide Angles (10/11/12 to 16/20/24mm).

If they did a D7000 with a tilty-swivelly LCD screen, I'd buy one too.

Cheers,

[Polar01]

Joshua: I am in the same boat as Dave, my 16-85mm is on my D7000, 95% of the time, I also like Dave have the 70-300mm, another excellent very fast focusing len great for wildlife and birding. You like myself live in North America, and I think thatwith the 18-200mm you will find yourself wanting more reach. As you have 28-200mm covered then you are not going to want another different len to cover over most of the same lenght to get the extra reach (70-300), to just cover past the 28-200, now 200-400 that is almost a $7000.00 len. For myself I found with a Sigma 10-20mm, nikkor 16-85mm and the 70-300, I have it all covered, as the D7000 is a cropped sensor that is really 16-450mm covered FX equallivent.

Cheers:

Allan

[Mike Buckley]

Joshua, I'm not a gear head but I have found a particular website very helpful when it comes to evaluating corner-to-corner sharpness of lenses across various focal lengths and apertures. I looked up the two evaluations provided below and they indicate to me that the 16-85 and the 18-105 are reasonably comparable across all common combinations of focal length and aperture. The 16-85 loses out only at about 70 - 85mm but only when using a very small aperture, such as about f/32. You won't use that aperture often and even if you do, the difference in sharpness is not enough reason to go with the 18-105 in my mind when taking into account all of your considerations.

16-85: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1177/cat/13
18-105: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1221/cat/13

Once you read the reviews of each lens, click the Blur Index graph. A new window will be displayed that allows you to change the aperture and focal length.

Hope this helps!

[Manfred M]

I personally find that there is far too much discussion about the theoretical performance of various lenses, when in reality; the photographer is the biggest variable in getting a great picture.

The first thing to remember is that all commodity lenses (that covers pretty well everything Canon and Nikon produce) have to meet a price point, and the designers will make decisions that allow these manufacturers to sell the lens at a markup that gives them a reasonable profit level on every unit sold.

As a general rule, the sharpest lenses will always be fixed focal length ones. Even here, there are differences; as a general rule, moderate to longer focal length lenses tend to be sharpest. Wide angle lenses (especially the ultra-wides) tend to be more difficult to produce and require more lens elements, speciality glass and aspherical elements for improved sharpness; all of which add to the cost.

Fast lenses, whether they are zoom or fixed lenses are more expensive to produce as larger apertures introduce distortion which require larger optical and mechanical components, additional elements, special glass and aspherical elements, all of which add to the cost. A more expensive lens does not necessarily give you better optical qualities, but will give better low-light performance and shallower depth of field. Often fast lenses are aimed at prosumer or pro full-frame cameras.

Zoom lenses are much more complex to build than fixed focal length a lens, which adds to the weight and cost. If you look at pro zooms, you will note that they top out at just under 3x zoom; the standard pro Nikon zooms are the f/2.8 24-70mm (2.92x) and f/2.8 70-200mm (2.86x). Once you get beyond that you start getting some fairly strange and sometimes complex distortion, especially at the extremities of the range. The other factor that drives costs is variable maximum speed; f/3.5 – 4.5 is probably a fairly good mid-range speed, but of course, the slowest maximum aperture is at the longest focal length, forcing the user to use either lower shutter speed or higher ISO settings.

So, what am I trying to say? Pick the lens that gives you the best price / performance characteristics for your particular needs. There is a lot of truth to the saying that the rich man buys things once, while the poor many buys it many times.

I have a fairly simple way of deciding whether or not to buy something:

1. What is the minumum amount of money I have to get the features I want in a product?

2. How additional money will I have to pay for the product I really want?

3. Is the price difference worth it to me?

[TheArcane]

Joshua, I'm not a gear head but I have found a particular website very helpful when it comes to evaluating corner-to-corner sharpness of lenses across various focal lengths and apertures. I looked up the two evaluations provided below and they indicate to me that the 16-85 and the 18-105 are reasonably comparable across all common combinations of focal length and aperture. The 16-85 loses out only at about 70 - 85mm but only when using a very small aperture, such as about f/32. You won't use that aperture often and even if you do, the difference in sharpness is not enough reason to go with the 18-105 in my mind when taking into account all of your considerations.

16-85: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1177/cat/13
18-105: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1221/cat/13

Once you read the reviews of each lens, click the Blur Index graph. A new window will be displayed that allows you to change the aperture and focal length.

Hope this helps!

After reading what that site has to say, I can't say that I can justify spending an extra $500 on the 16-85mm over the 18-105mm. Each has their shortcomings, but they both are quite sharp lenses when it comes down to it. At least by saving $500 for a standard lens, I can put that toward buying a macro, or a nice prime lens.

[thequacksoflife]

After reading what that site has to say, I can't say that I can justify spending an extra $500 on the 16-85mm over the 18-105mm. Each has their shortcomings, but they both are quite sharp lenses when it comes down to it. At least by saving $500 for a standard lens, I can put that toward buying a macro, or a nice prime lens.

I've never used the 18-105 but I do like the 16-85. To me the extra 2mm at the wide end is worth the 20mm at the long end. I've sold my wide angle lens because 16mm dx is wide enough for me. Your view may differ.

You need to decide where your priorities are do you need width or more reach. The problem is of course that when bought as part of a kit the 18-105 is good value. If you go for the reach option then I reckon you have two choices, go for the 18-105 and 70-300 OR get the 18-200. The former will give you better image quality longer reach BUT the 18-200 sure is convenient and it does perform very well for a super zoom. If i'm honest unless I turn to convenience more often than not.

These days my dSLR tends to have a telephoto zoom on it and like Dave I use something different for wide angle e.g Micro 4/3

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm

I think these were done on 12mp body. Hogan commented later that the 16-85 performed better on a 16mp body. I've only ever used the 16-85/18-200 and 70-300 on a 12mp body

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...kkor16853556vr
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...kor181053556vr

[Mike Buckley]

Joshua,

After reading your most recent post and re-reading mine, I realize that I accidentally got confused about which lens is more expensive. Sorry about that. (This proves my comment that I'm not a gear head.)

Best of luck with the outcome of your decision. You seem to be using an excellent process of thinking through all of the issues.

[TheArcane]

It seems like most people who do portraits agree you should have at least one 85mm prime lens at your disposal. I was on the photozone.de website looking at different reviews, and I liked what I saw from this lens here. I just want to clarify that it will work on a D7000, since I know it uses DX lenses. On the description on the B&H website it says "Optimized for FX Format", but on Photozone I believe the lens was tested on a D7000. Just wanting clarification.

[Mike Buckley]

Click the "Overview" and "Specifications" tabs of the web page accessed by the link that you provided for absolute confirmation that the lens is designed for use with a DX format.

Consider buying the D series lens instead of the G series lens. The D series is less expensive, I assume because it's a screw-type lens rather than having the motor in the lens. It's less expensive and seemingly would suit your needs. But remember that I'm not a gear head, so this is a recommendation to consider the lens, not to buy it.