Almost Holy Trinity- D7000
- Thread starter Stormy08
- Start date
Erm.TS. U have to be more specific. like what or which area u would like to know.
Else..The generic reply would be.
There arent much to complaint about..(less the price..if its bothering) If not, they are all good lenses and are capable to produce great result.
Else..The generic reply would be.
There arent much to complaint about..(less the price..if its bothering) If not, they are all good lenses and are capable to produce great result.
The 3 lenses are primarily designed for FF cameras, which the D7000 is not. I read of how some FF lenses may work better on DX cameras due to their smaller sensor size. I read of how good these lenses were. As there are pricey, I would like to know whether the extra cost is justificable on a D7000. I do hope to cross over to FF in the near future.
Work better is kind of incorrect but because they have light fall off at the corners on FX and are generally softer on the edges, in DX it is cropped so these short comings don't show up but at the same time, it loses the purpose of its intended FOV on the wide side.
Each of these lens is more costly than the D7000 itself and for immediate uses, given the price, the 17-55 f/2.8 DX will provide more versatility when comparing Nikon lens alone not to mention the third party ones.
Depending on how soon is soon for your upgrade to FF, what you predominantly photograph, what range you predominantly use and budget, each lens will be different.
So, do you want to buy ALL of them? or if you want to chose one to start with, you'll have to disclose what you predominantly photograph, what range you predominantly use for fellow photographers to give comments.
Each of these lens is more costly than the D7000 itself and for immediate uses, given the price, the 17-55 f/2.8 DX will provide more versatility when comparing Nikon lens alone not to mention the third party ones.
Depending on how soon is soon for your upgrade to FF, what you predominantly photograph, what range you predominantly use and budget, each lens will be different.
So, do you want to buy ALL of them? or if you want to chose one to start with, you'll have to disclose what you predominantly photograph, what range you predominantly use for fellow photographers to give comments.
With regards to extra cost ....... i personally wont buy them for DX unless i am 3-6 months away from getting a FF body or the range and aperture offered by the lens can serve me well both now on the DX as well as on FX later. Rather, i'll spend money (or better still, save) to get a DX lens i can use to get the photos i want for the next 9 months than live with the limitations provided by a FX lens on the wide end then think about what FX lens i would buy when i am closer to the FF lens purchase.
Basically if u use a FF lens on a Crop body.. You are just carrying more glass..or ie. More weight. And longer FL. eg UWA for crop 10-22? 16-35 for FF? (also. Most FF glass will be heavier than the crop counterparts.)
Work better or not..well.. They all will work just as good as the user.
Many people often say this...buy FF lens only. Because i will cross over in the future.. Well..but that's in the future.. How long? and perhaps by then u wont feel like crossing over anymore? well..of cos this is no right or wrong its your money. What's important is..the gear u get/choose should fits your shooting style or preferences and finally at the end of the day. As long u are happy. Its fine.
Last edited:
These lenses will work great on a Full Frame camera body like a D800 or D600. On a APS-C cam like D7000, some of the focal length ranges are a llittle harder to use IMHO. For D7000, personally I will go for:
a. Tokina 11-16/2.8
b. Nikon 17-55/2.8 (or Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS)
c. Nikon 70-200/2.8 (or Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS)
In the end, when you buy zoom lenses, you need to consider the flexibility when using them in the field. 24-70 on a DX cam will give you a FOV of 36-105mm. This range will be ok for portraits, but you really lose the wide end of a standard zoom. 16-35 on the DX will give you the standard zoom range but when you need the slightly longer end, it is not there. And you do not have a UWA range in your line up.
One thing to remember also, is that you do not need to cover the entire range of the focal lengths.. Just get the ones you are likely to shoot the most.
I am also a D7000 user. In my opinion, no need to rush for investing in ultra wide FF lens for crop sensor camera. Any way, you wont get the wide side. 17-55mm has a lot of more sense than 16-35mm. It is the normal zoom lens for crop sensor camera. Buy a 2nd hand one. Its 2nd hand price dropped a lot since many people shifted to FX body.
No regret to invest in telephoto range. 70-200mm is a very usable range. In D7000, its 105 to 300mm. That's even greater! If budget is not a problem, I would recommend f2.8 than f4. f2.8 means not only aperture, also pro grade build quality and image quality. Honestly speaking, 70-200 f2.8 is the most value for money lens in fast telephoto range.
24-70mm is Nikon's most beautifully build lens. I really love the feeling of holding it in hand. IQ of course, nothing to complain about. 35 to 105mm range is ideal for portrait in D7000. Buy it! No regret
Besides of trinity zoom, invest on prime lens will never be wrong, and no constrain on what sensor you use. If you have decide which zoom to go, get a prime at that rang to use first.
No regret to invest in telephoto range. 70-200mm is a very usable range. In D7000, its 105 to 300mm. That's even greater! If budget is not a problem, I would recommend f2.8 than f4. f2.8 means not only aperture, also pro grade build quality and image quality. Honestly speaking, 70-200 f2.8 is the most value for money lens in fast telephoto range.
24-70mm is Nikon's most beautifully build lens. I really love the feeling of holding it in hand. IQ of course, nothing to complain about. 35 to 105mm range is ideal for portrait in D7000. Buy it! No regret
Besides of trinity zoom, invest on prime lens will never be wrong, and no constrain on what sensor you use. If you have decide which zoom to go, get a prime at that rang to use first.
All the lenses mentioned pairs mates very well with the Nikon D7000.
You may need something wider than 16mm, which is why a dedicated DX ultra-wide lens may be useful.
Having said that, I dropped my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-f/5.6 for the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G. I make up for the angle of view by stitching, although the perspective is a little different.
You may need something wider than 16mm, which is why a dedicated DX ultra-wide lens may be useful.
Having said that, I dropped my Sigma 10-20mm f/4-f/5.6 for the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G. I make up for the angle of view by stitching, although the perspective is a little different.
Thanks all for your insights and suggestions. I do general photography, macro, landscape, street and nature. I hope the 3 lenses together with my manual 105 AIS and 50mm prime will cover all my needs, except for the ultra wide end. Maybe should get the Tokina 11-16. I am deciding whether to bite the bullet and buy the 3 Nikon lenses in Europe. Making a trip to Europe soon and from tax rebates should save about $800. Regards.
The Max VAT rebate is between 11 to 13% if I remember correctly depending on how much the total bill on one single receipt and you have to be in time to claim the VAT at the airport as there are also opening hours for the VAT claim at different airports. You can only claim and the last port of departure. So I suggest getting to the airport early if it is the first time you are there.
After which you'll have to change to SGD and see some further loses on the exchange rate.
Actually, the 70-200 f/4 may or may not be a good option if you are looking to use it at the long end for nature. 300mm isn't much for wildlife especially in SG and with the f/4, the only TC one can use on a f/4 lens would be a 1.4x TC that gives you an effective FoV of 420mm and aperture of f/5.6. While using a 1.7x TC is possible on f/4 lens on a FX sensor, I have yet know what trade off are there when used on an APS-C sensor. For nature, I suggest the AF-S 300mm f/4D coupled with a TC-14E II and when used on an APS-C sensor, it gives you 630mm FoV. From there, for nature photography you must be ready to set aside time, quite a fair bit of time like 2-4 hours (incl travelling time) to capture something interesting. So, the more important question is do you have/or is willing to spend this type of time?
What you don't have now is a landscape zoom so you can consider getting the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 II now and drop the 16-35mm f/4 VR or get the 16-35mm f/4 VR and a FX body from the money budgeted for the 24-70mm f/2.8. The reason I cited dropping the 24-70mm f/2.8 for a FX body is because the 24-70 is almost the same cost as a D600 if not more expensive and you already have a 50mm and with a 16-35mm zoom, the most commonly useful range of 24mm to 35mm is covered, leaving you with a 70mm not covered.
A pretty complete lens range setup for what you mentioned (minus nature) could be 16-35mm f/4 VR, 50mm f/1.x, 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8G.
After which you'll have to change to SGD and see some further loses on the exchange rate.
Actually, the 70-200 f/4 may or may not be a good option if you are looking to use it at the long end for nature. 300mm isn't much for wildlife especially in SG and with the f/4, the only TC one can use on a f/4 lens would be a 1.4x TC that gives you an effective FoV of 420mm and aperture of f/5.6. While using a 1.7x TC is possible on f/4 lens on a FX sensor, I have yet know what trade off are there when used on an APS-C sensor. For nature, I suggest the AF-S 300mm f/4D coupled with a TC-14E II and when used on an APS-C sensor, it gives you 630mm FoV. From there, for nature photography you must be ready to set aside time, quite a fair bit of time like 2-4 hours (incl travelling time) to capture something interesting. So, the more important question is do you have/or is willing to spend this type of time?
What you don't have now is a landscape zoom so you can consider getting the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 II now and drop the 16-35mm f/4 VR or get the 16-35mm f/4 VR and a FX body from the money budgeted for the 24-70mm f/2.8. The reason I cited dropping the 24-70mm f/2.8 for a FX body is because the 24-70 is almost the same cost as a D600 if not more expensive and you already have a 50mm and with a 16-35mm zoom, the most commonly useful range of 24mm to 35mm is covered, leaving you with a 70mm not covered.
A pretty complete lens range setup for what you mentioned (minus nature) could be 16-35mm f/4 VR, 50mm f/1.x, 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8G.
Last edited:
I started using 17-35, followed by 70-200VR, then 28-70 on my DX bodies.
Sold the 28-70 and used mostly 17-35.
In 2012, I finally crossed over to FX when Nikon finally woke up DX is not the continuing answer to professional cameras (starting D3/D700) and launched D4.
I'll say it's a matter of time before FX becomes affordable, and it's always right to invest on proper lenses than the camera and lenses (bulk of it) WILL cost more than the camera eventually.
Now we have the D600 at 2.4K (opposed to D100 DX in 2003 at $3.6K), FX is here to stay, as well as DX, it would just be a matter of time more people would jump the bandwagon to FX.
IYAM, I still advocate avoiding DX lenses. They certainly cost less than it's counterparts, but they're not usable on FX in due time.
I didn't suffer for the past 7 years on my D2X/D300S with FX lenses.
You have the option to get the 24-120VR f/4 instead of the 24-70 f/2.8.
Have tested the 24-120VR on the D4 and D600, I'll just say take the online reviews of it with a pinch. I find it's quite a performer at it's cost (S$1699).
The range + VR + f/4 is quite suitable for your needs.
Thanks for the sharing. I did considered the 24-120VR f/4. It is lighter, has extended range and cost $600 less. However, prefer the classic 24-70 f2.8 because of better IQ and lowlight handling. Perhaps others with experience with both lenses may want to give their view. Cheers.
Similar threads
