Buying D7000, need lenses

[necigrad]

First off I am TOTALLY new to photography, short of a 110 camera something like 25-30 years ago. I have decided that I want a digital camera. Part of that decision was that I want a decent to good camera. After some research I decided on a D7000, although I almost went with a D90. I'm probably overkilling a little, but I'm not going to spend $500 on a camera now to spend $1500 later that I wish I did. The camera is for personal use and fun. I don't have a specific use for it, but I would like to have it for the personal pics and maybe occasionally to play around with as a hobby. Since I'm in Vegas I'm sure I can find SOMETHING to photograph! I also plan on taking a class or classes at some point, be it at a camera store or the comm. college.

I'm posting here because I need some educated input on where to start with lenses. I'm spending a good bit of money on the camera, so I'm thinking $300-$500 on lenses. I might be a little flexible on that, maybe to $700, but I'd prefer not. My choices (that I've picked out) are:

• Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED (the kit lens)
• Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX or Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX
• Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX or Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR

Since I'm not "smart" yet with whats best for what, I'd call these semi educated guesses from reading online. I'm sure the kit lens is OK, but I think I'd like a bit of flexibility for zooming. I wasn't sure if it was better to get the prime or zoom lens for wide angle, but I'm leaning towards the prime. Lastly, being inexperienced, I don't know how much of a difference 200 - 300mm would make, so I'm undecided.

I appreciate whatever help I can get. Thanks in advance.

[Fraucha]

1. You are NOT over killing. Don't sell your intelligence short or ever let anyone tell you that you are over your head on a camera, simply learn how to use it. Sure it takes time, but that is the fun of photography also. You made a good decision on the D7000, it is the D90's replacement...

2. Decide what you want to shoot, not that you will be tied down to anything, but at this stage it would be difficult to say "which lens to buy". Someday you may want do do mostly macro, or landscape or weddings ... But with that being said, your kit lens gives you a great start. So as you use this lens keep a mental note at what focal lengths you usually shoot at, you may decide to get something longer for later if you need to. Save the money you have right now, put it away and add to it a little at at time.

3. I like the 35mm f1.8 for low light but right now it is being price gouged. I found for travel the 18-200 does pretty well, but that really is only a little over 100mm more than you have now.

4. Also, consider a tripod in your future and a ball head that is not a cheap combo, but trust me, if you buy cheap you will more than likely replace it, tripods can cost $800 WITHOUT a head! The head is also a matter of personal selection.

5. Take a look at the info on this forum and also look at the Nikonians Forum at Nikonians :: The Nikon User Community Sometimes Ken Rockwell has great information also at KenRockwell.com: Photography, Cameras and Taking Better Pictures

6. Software! To process your photos at home. Can be expensive, you should have received View NX2 and maybe a version of Capture NX2? There are many choices between Nikon, Adobe and Apple plus plugins from Nik Software, etc. Read up on them carefully and be prepared to shell out bucks for GOOD software that is upgradeable. Many of these packages have trial versions for you to get a good idea of what is going on.

Money is tight for everyone, so take your time, no one is pushing you to do any one single thing, so going at your leisure will make it more enjoyable. Try not to waste your money.

First thing to buy: A High quality UV filter (think mount) to protect your lens!
Camera Bag? Well, yeah that is a never ending ever evolving spending problem also. Try Think Tank, LowePro, Tamarac ...

Enjoy your new camera! :-D

[jdepould]

I'd say just get the kit lens for starters. Once your wallet has had some time to recover, you'll have a better idea of what's next for you. It doesn't have to all come at once.

[SwissJon]

Hi and welcome

Ok, having just got a D7000, I'm new to the Nikon world, here's my thoughts..

First, read the manual for the D7000, there's very many settings to play with, some are more obvious than others, but it's definitely worth finding the hidden gems.

Second, I would avoid the kit lens. In general, you will keep your lenses longer than you keep the camera body, so if you have a limited budget, I would consider spending more on the glass and less on the body.. Next year or the year after, the next model will come out with xx megapixels more, and you'll wish you had that, and so on.. The race is not going to stop.

Ok, with that over, I'd suggest you change your lens considerations completely. The kit lens is ok, but just about the best "walkabout" lens is the 16-85 af-s 3.5-5.6 g ed VR . It's got the VR 2 vibration reduction, and most people I've spoken to who take general photography keep it on their camera most of the time. I would consider that ratarther than both the kit and the prime.. You won't avoid buying more lenses in the future, but for a lens that lasts you longest, this one will outlast the kit lens.

I would then get the 70-300 4.5-5.6g ed af-s VR. These two should tide you over until you decide what you want. You've got a good wide angle lens, a good super zoom, and all the mid range.

If your budget allows, get a 50mm prime, not a 35mm prime. 50mm is about the same "zoom" that you get with your eyes, so for most people, the "nifty fifty" is the first prime they get. The 1.8 is supposed to be almost as good as the 1.4, but for about 1/3 the price.

Oh, and one last thing.. Don't forget, these are your paintbrushes and paints, you're the painter.. Good paintbrushes don't make for a good artist, so when you go to take a course, don't take one that teaches you how to use your camera, or how to correct mistakes in post processing, take one that teaches you how to compose a shot, how to look through the lens and "see", because you can learn the functions of a camera in your living room at night with the manual, you can't learn what makes a good photo, why one angle is better than another, lighting, exposure etc. Those are things that you have to learn by practicing, and the more time you spend practicing while someone is looking over your shoulder helping you to "see" the quicker your photographs will turn from snapshots into pieces of art.. Photography is a right brain activity.

[Fraucha]

Keep in mind the crop factor of your camera a 35mm prime is about a 52mm, this is why I suggest it. The 50mm will be about 75mm. The "Nifty Fifty" refers to 35mm film days as well as FX (Full Frame cameras D700, D3 etc.), our eyes do not see at 75mm, hence 35mm 1.8. is your fifty.

Megapixels: It is a difficult math problem that involves sensor size as well as the WAY the pixels are processed in camera, don't get caught up in the hype in thinking the more megapixels the better, keep in mind we need BETTER Pixels not more. If you get caught in this rut you will never be happy, always upgrading to find the magic pixel that will make you a better photographer, which of course, does not happen.

As SwissJon has said: Composition and seeing are the real keys! I have seen big time pros make really great shots with a cheap tiny camera with only a few megapixels, simply because they know how to see! Look at Chase Jarvis and the iPhone.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Fraucha

Keep in mind the crop factor of your camera a 35mm prime is about a 52mm, this is why I suggest it. The 50mm will be about 75mm. The "Nifty Fifty" refers to 35mm film days as well as FX (Full Frame cameras D700, D3 etc.), our eyes do not see at 75mm, hence 35mm 1.8. is your fifty.

I'm not going to disagree with you about crop factor, but you need to think in terms of crop factor AND magnification. (And this only applies to DSLR lenses with cropped sensors)

What I mean by this is that the width and height of the 35mm lens will resemble what you see with your eyes, but the depth perception will be different. A picture taken with a 50mm lens will have a smaller width and height than your eyes, but the way you perceive depth within the picture will be similar. Let me explain what I mean, you're welcome to tell me I've misunderstood this. A picture with a 11mm camera makes close things look very much closer than things in the background, hence a donkeys nose will appear huge and its tail, a metre or so further away will look tiny for example. a picture taken at 300mm is the opposite, it flattens depth, so things that are at a distance appear at a similar size to things that are nearby, so two people in a crowd, 1 a hundred meters away and one 150 meters away, would look similar in size. This depth perception is a result of magnification.

Now my understanding is that a 35mm lens will still give this wide angle effect to pictures, despite the crop factor being similar to how your eyes perceive, this being a result of trying to squish the same information onto a smaller space. This "Squishing" occurs on a FF sensor too, so a 35mm Lens is wide angle for both, you just don't see as much on a cropped sensor. And a 50mm lens gives the same depth perception as your eyes, on both FF and Crop, it's just on a FF sensor you have the same "width and height" as you get with your eyes, it's the same magnification, but the cropped sensor gives you a smaller width and height than you get with your eyes, but the magnification remains the same as a FF.

However this is actually all pretty subjective, because if you wear glasses, your field of view is restricted to the area your glasses allow you to see clearly anyway, so for me, field of view is not as important as magnification distortion, which is pretty much the same for everyone.. Hence 50mm.

[Fraucha]

:-) Got it SwissJon!! I understand and you are correct! :-) Thanks!

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Fraucha

:-) Got it SwissJon!! I understand and you are correct! :-) Thanks!

Yay! First time for everything!

[necigrad]

So from the comments I see one vote for the kit lens, one vote for two lenses that each use up my budget for both, and maybe a vote for the 18-200. I also think I need to explain slightly more. Since I've yet to buy the camera I have the choice of buying the kit or body only with lenses separate. I don't have a problem with either, and am willing to spend a little more if I buy lenses separate. My goal is to come up with a pairing that gives me whatever variety can be expected within my budget.

The reason I'm not nailing types of photography is that I expect it to be varied, from shooting out at Red Rock or an airshow with a zoom (and why I'm looking at 200-300mm lenses) to generic home photos to maybe photos of coral in my reef tank (which I won't be buying the macro lens for for a while since they're so expensive). Whatever lens(es) I buy is/are not going to be great, but I'm looking for something to get me through a couple of years, get into the hobby, and then upgrade later when I have the money. My logic of other then the kit lens is that I open up the variety past 105mm, and with the 35mm I still have something for closer shots all while close to the price with the kit lens.

[Fraucha]

Got it, then in this case I would say the Nikkor 18-200, (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-200mm-ii.htm) it gives you a fairly wide range plus you can get in pretty close and use as a almost macro, here are two examples:

http://fraucha.aminus3.com/image/2010-09-04.html
http://fraucha.aminus3.com/image/2010-09-08.html

When I travel that is my go to lens. Your Nikon camera will fix most of the CA, sometimes this lens has a little at wide open both long and short but it really is not an issue, unless you require edge to edge in landscape photography. It hasn't been a problem for me.

Lenses I have are:
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (no VR)
Tokina 50-135 f.2.8 (no VR)
Tokina 100mm macro f2.8 (no VR)
Nikkor 35 f1.8 (no VR)
Nikkor 18-200 f3.5 5.8 (VR)
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 (VR but I seldom use this as my daughter has pretty much taken it for portraits and dog shows ...)

Yeah I know, I have duplicate focal lengths. The 70-200 was a speed issue, but I got such a good deal on one of the last Tokina 50-135's in my country so I could not pass it up!

Looks like swissJon has made a case for me on the 50mm, but it is a toss up between that lens and a boxed set of 100 of Kurosawa's DVDs .. (hummm ... Kurosawa ... glass ... greatest filmmaker in the world ... glass ... ) either one will have to be justified since I will getting wife aggro over this like the 50-135.