Lens Questions Nikon D7000

[HiddenLane]

Per my last thread I was trying to decide between the D7000 and D5100.

My decision has been made I am going with the D7000. Now I am considering what lenses to go with.

As I stated I shoot primarily low light urban exploration, architecture and portrait shots.

I was looking at this lens for the low F stop. However, I would prefer not spending that much money. Is there a suitable Tamron or Sigma that is as good?

Amazon.com: Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo

Also, what would be a suitable telephoto lense be to compliment this one. I have done some research but would like to get the opinions of those in the know.

I appreciate all of your help ahead of time.

[JFSanders]

There are other lenses in the same category but there is a reason that Nikkor lenses command such a premium. The other guys have to cut somewhere in order to get the price down and they usually do it in coatings, and build quality. Also, you may not be able to use a third party lens at the same f/stops as the Nikkor due to lens quality at maximum aperture. Look for older used FX lenses, you may have to manually focus but you get a tack sharp lens for less. That said any lens in the 2.8 and less category will not be cheap and good IQ.

Your choices are Cheap, Fast, Tack sharp. You can have any two but not all three without going deep into the wallet.

Just to add, If you were willing to give up some f/stop the 18-200 vr II or I is a very capable walking around lens that will give you the length you want without changing lenses and being a VR lens it is capable to hand hold at pretty low shutter speeds. It goes for about 800 online.

[HiddenLane]

I appreciate that information. On one hand I am looking at it as an investment. On the other I have the small voice screaming I can't believe you are spending money.

So If I did drop the money for the Nikon lens what would be a good telephoto to compliment it?

[Shokinen]

Here is a few option for a telephoto (Nikon).

- 70-200mm f/2.8 (expensive but it's THE reference for many application)
- 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (this is actually a very good lens for the price. I love mine)
- 105mm f/2.8 (a macro lens that can still use as a regular lens. Image quality is very good)

If you don't plan shooting music shows or interior sports, there is other option you can consider. Large aperture Zooms are expensive and also convinient when things goes fast and you don't have much time to compose your shots. But Primes on the other hand, are a cheaper solution because it's a fix focal lenght.

The 18-55 is not a bad lens. But I wouldn't go with a DX lens if you are willing to spend that much on a single piece of glass. For approximatly the same prices, you could get a 16-85, a 70-300 and a 50f/1.8 instead. Add an flash such as the SB600/700, a good tripod, and you now have a good kit what can cover most of the situation.

[HiddenLane]

I like those lens choices. Thank you both it is greatly appreciated,

[Dave C.]

i have the nikon 17-55 2.8 and the nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I, i have never found myself wanting anything else in quite a while...it is a considerable amount of $$ to put into glass but once you have it you are set, and they make every other inexpensive lens look like crap and you begin to see why a $1500.00 - $2000.00+ lens costs what it does. from build to image quality they are second to none, now just dont stick a $50.00 filter on your $2000.00 lens.... hahaha!