I made the switch....need some advice

[amy_bb]

Dipping my toes into the Nikon thread here and hoping I've made a good choice

I've been a Sony shooter/Momarazzi/occasionally published hobbyist for the past 2yrs and recently realized I had outgrown my camera. Sony is great for beginners, not too much camera, very intuitive controls and for the price and weight takes a good shot. I knew I needed an upgrade when I could no longer live w/2.5 fps, horrible performance in low light and missing focus b/c of limited focus points. I would like to think I can grow with this camera and will no longer get those "aww..isn't she adorable" looks when I show up with my Sony to shoot a local events with with hopes of newspaper submission and am greeted by the paid photogs as they look down their noses at me

So the debate, in my head, began....Sony a580? Nikon 7000? Research, comparisons, camera shop visits, etc, discussions w/husband (who is a gear head but not w/cameras, with cycling)...

As of noon today, I'm the proud owner of a Nikon 7000. My Sony lenses are on eBay with bids and watchers so I'm hopeful I can unload the whole kit (the body is already sold to a friend of mine w/the original kit lenses).

So I ask, knowing I did take the kit lens (55-105) just to get started and also knowing that I will probably buy the Sigma 70-200mm (had this lens for my Sony and loved it--shoot a lot of kids sports), what would your walk around lens be? Price and build are a consideration but convenience and picture quality is also important.

Thoughts?

[autofocus]

The Nikon 18-70 is a very decent general purpose lens. We have it in our bag, and it does get some use, even on paid jobs. It's a nice fairly wide mid range zoom. See link below:
Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Zoom lens - 18 mm - 70 mm - F/3.5-4.5 - Nikon F#

[Dave C.]

hands down favorite walk around lens is the Nikkor f2.8 17-55mm....built like a tank, and the glass is great!

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by Dave C.

hands down favorite walk around lens is the Nikkor f2.8 17-55mm....built like a tank, and the glass is great!

Yes Dave, a very good lens, but a little shorter than the 18-70 and more than 3x the price

[amy_bb]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Yes Dave, a very good lens, but a little shorter than the 18-70 and more than 3x the price

Took the words right out of my mouth! Both look nice but the lens that Dave C recommended is a bit spendy.

Thanks, though for the suggestions. Always looking to build the collection and may add some/all of these in the future.

Keep them coming!

[Dave C.]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Yes Dave, a very good lens, but a little shorter than the 18-70 and more than 3x the price

Correct it is quite a bit more $$, and if your not looking at that kind of an Investment ( I say investment and not price, because I feel pro grade quality lenses are an investment, and tend to hold their value, as well as having the best possible construction and durrability) then by all means the 18-70 is also a good lens. i prefer the 17-55 because of the build quality and the larger aperture ( dont have to bring my speed light as often).

Also i have found i really dont shoot much in the 60-75mm range, and if so i can normally move forward a few feet, or slap on my 70-200 ( my favorite lens of all, is actually on my body more than any other lens because i have yet to see anything else produce a better quality image.)

i actually wish the 17-55 was more of a 11-55 i often find with that lens i wish it would go wider and not longer, but that is just me.

[sk66]

Ok, it really depends. On my FF my "best" walk around lens the 24-70 (17-55equiv) or the 70-200 if doing "details". But my "favorite" is the 28-300 (18-200equiv).

I bought it because I very much missed the versatility and freedom I had with the 18-200 on my Dx body. (but I haven't actually used it much since I haven't done much of that type of photography)

But here's my question for you. Do you think you will stay with DX? There are reasons to stay w/ DX (sports) and reasons you may want to go FF eventually (street/journalism/low light etc). The differences seem to keep getting smaller though.

A top quality FF lens will work well on a DX body (actually, better). A DX lens will not work on a FF body (vignetting at a minimum). Just something to think about when you start spending big dollars.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by amy_bb

So I ask, knowing I did take the kit lens (55-105) just to get started and also knowing that I will probably buy the Sigma 70-200mm (had this lens for my Sony and loved it--shoot a lot of kids sports), what would your walk around lens be? Price and build are a consideration but convenience and picture quality is also important.

Thoughts?

Since there is no such kit lens as a 55-105, I would guess you mean 18-105. It is a great lens, and with VR, I really don't see the need for a f4.5 vs 5.6 lens that covers the same range. Forget the the Sigma.... it is really not all that sharp. Save a few bucks up and get the 70-300 Nikon. That will cover you (and overlap) a good range. After you have been shooting with these for a while, you can find where you are lacking and address it from there (i.e. focal length too short or not wide enough or low light etc. etc)

[amy_bb]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

Since there is no such kit lens as a 55-105, I would guess you mean 18-105. It is a great lens, and with VR, I really don't see the need for a f4.5 vs 5.6 lens that covers the same range. Forget the the Sigma.... it is really not all that sharp. Save a few bucks up and get the 70-300 Nikon. That will cover you (and overlap) a good range. After you have been shooting with these for a while, you can find where you are lacking and address it from there (i.e. focal length too short or not wide enough or low light etc. etc)

Heh Heh....uh, yeah. That. 18-105. Just a little over excited about my new gear

i have been shooting my kid's sports for a long time and my 2 big challenges, gymnastics and now diving are low light, fast action, no flash gigs. I liked my old 70-200mm f.2/8(for the Sony mine was a Tamron) b/c I could keep it at 2.8 even at 200 (although perhaps I will learn from you that with a crop sensor I was not really ever at 200?)

Either way, the Sigma I tried out today in the local camera store had a nice, quiet, fast motor and could be used on a FF if I go that route some day. It is a bit beastly but I grew to love my beast. I also had a Tamron 18-200mm lens that was my nice, small, versatile walk around lens. Not as impressive looking but got the job done.

I'm somewhat torn between realizing that for now, this is a hobby and I need to treat it as such. I should get suitable, useable, versatile gear that will allow me to shoot what I like, get a few pics in the paper and a few "Wow, love that shot"s from friends, family and some scattered admirers and thinking---hmmmm...better buy the best gear as it's an investment in the future.

If at some point I feel like this is something I can make money at b/c I have the experience and business sense to approach it correctly, I may think about pro-grade lenses.

Is my head completely up my a** here?

[sk66]

Not at all.
Makes complete sense to me.