D7000, which quality walk around lens?

P

paula

Messages
79
Edit My Images
Yes
So, I have decided to get the D7000 after a few years with the D80. But I need to get a zoom lens that will allow me to take photos on travel.
I rented and loved the Nikon 24-70 2.8, but it is expensive, big and heavy for my traveling, besides does not have a great telephoto reach that sometimes I would like.

Currently I own a Nikon 50 f1.4G, 85 f1.8D and a kit lens I never use (18-70).

So I did look the 18-200, but everyone seems to think that it does not perform well with the D7000.

Is the 24-120 F4G better with the D7k? I dont really shoot very wide, so 24 with a DX is fine by me, but I like to invest in good glass and I am undecided if this is the lens for me.

Or any other recommendations?
 
Last edited:
It is an excellent lens and it does look like you want the reach otherwise I'd suggest one of the 17-50 type lenses.
 
What about the 16-85mm? That would give you a filed of view of 24-128mm, its supposed to be a really sharp lens.
 
I would try using the 18-70mm for a while and see what you think. It's the best kit lens Nikon made in my opinion.
I know a lot of users rate it also. It's nice and sharp and well made for the money.

Kev.
 
But the OP doesn't need wider than 24mm...
 
Yes, 24 is wide enough, and 85 not long enough.
I hear that the 18-70 is one if the best kit lenses all the time, so I do wonder how unsatisfied the other kit lenses would leave me.
 
I've had the 18-70mm and was very happy with it. :) Why is it that you don't use that lens much?

I've found the 16-85mm as good if not better, (I didn't do a side by side test) but it is a more versatile lens and the VR is a big plus occasionally. ;) There is also the 18-105mm for the extra reach, though I think the 16-85mm is seen as the better lens.

But if you're not already using the 18-70mm for whatever reason, then you may want to go for a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8, 17-70mm F2.8-4, 24-70mm F2.8. These offer wider apertures than the Nikon offerings if that is what you're missing in the 18-70mm you already have, but don't give much better zoom ranges, but the 24-70mm F2.8 is a much cheaper alternative to the Nikon version you said you liked. :shrug:

It depends on how much you want to spend, if you need a longer zoom range and whether you'll be using the wide apertures.

You said you don't need wider than 24mm on a DX, is that 16mm, and so 24mm view with crop, or 24mm and so 36mm view with crop?


You posted as I was writing this ;)
 
Last edited:
The Tamron SP AF 24-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF Macro is a cheaper alternative to the Nikkor 24-120mm, though second-hand examples often look well-used. You can occasionally find new, old stock for sale on eBay.
 
Another +1 for the 16-85mm, use it almost exclusively on my D90. Got it over the 18-70mm for the VR.
 
i bought my 18-70 secondhand and i would only trade it in for the 16-85, you want VR so the latter would be a better travel lens with nice zoom properties also.
 
I think you should still continue considering the 24-120 f/4 though. It's likely to retain it's value over time, especially as it makes a good full frame standard lens - so if you ever do move to FF, it still is useful, and if you want to flog it, the likely increase in full frame models in the Nikon range over the coming years is likely to mean there will always be a market for it.

And it fits your criteria almost perfectly really - on your crop body the long end is ~180mm (35mm focal length equivalent), serving your telephoto needs well.
 
I really like my old 18-70 which came with my D70 many moons ago and still used it with my D7000, nice and reliable lens.
 
freecom2 said:
I think you should still continue considering the 24-120 f/4 though. It's likely to retain it's value over time, especially as it makes a good full frame standard lens - so if you ever do move to FF, it still is useful, and if you want to flog it, the likely increase in full frame models in the Nikon range over the coming years is likely to mean there will always be a market for it.

And it fits your criteria almost perfectly really - on your crop body the long end is ~180mm (35mm focal length equivalent), serving your telephoto needs well.
Click to expand...

I think that is what drew me to that lens first of all. I am not overly keen on DX lenses as I am planing on getting a Full frame camera in the near future, so investing FX lenses makes sense unless there are better lenses DX.
I really like good glass, strive to get the best I can afford, but seen mixed (very good, and not so good) reviews about the 24-120, that is what worries me.
 
dejongj said:
I really like my old 18-70 which came with my D70 many moons ago and still used it with my D7000, nice and reliable lens.
Click to expand...

I found it really soft with my D80. I wonder if with a D7000 would be better or worse.
 
Mmmm, the 24-120mm f4 does not get universally good reviews and its still a lot of money. I've used both the 18-70mm and the 18-135mm and I have found the 18-135mm to be a little sharper and with the extra reach a little more useful, they are both however DX lenses and from the cheaper build quality end of the market.
I've been doing a lot of research as I'm looking for a lens which will fulfil quite strict criteria as I want to use it on my D300, my F3 (so needs an aperture ring) and my D401 so needs to be FX and I'm leaning toward the 24-85mm which is a really solidly built lens and receives mainly excellent reviews about sharpness and distortion.

Don't know if this is of any help, its a difficult decision, so much choice.

Cheers

Andy
 
I'm using the 24-120 on a D300 and just came back from a week in Italy. It covered everything I needed.I have no regrets about buying this lens.
 
Andysnap said:
Mmmm, the 24-120mm f4 does not get universally good reviews and its still a lot of money. I've used both the 18-70mm and the 18-135mm and I have found the 18-135mm to be a little sharper and with the extra reach a little more useful, they are both however DX lenses and from the cheaper build quality end of the market.
I've been doing a lot of research as I'm looking for a lens which will fulfil quite strict criteria as I want to use it on my D300, my F3 (so needs an aperture ring) and my D401 so needs to be FX and I'm leaning toward the 24-85mm which is a really solidly built lens and receives mainly excellent reviews about sharpness and distortion.

Don't know if this is of any help, its a difficult decision, so much choice.

Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

The bit in bold is what makes me :thinking:. But then I read good reviews by guys that I usually agree with so...:bonk:
 
I have got a 16-85 lens. This is my main lens. It is sharp, the focusing speed is not bad. I would recommend this lens.
 
paula said:
I really like good glass, strive to get the best I can afford, but seen mixed (very good, and not so good) reviews about the 24-120, that is what worries me.
Click to expand...

Here's the crux of it. Reviews are a great way to get a general indicator, but only up to a point. Rent one, try it out for yourself and see how you find the results, and then decide from there. You using the lens to shoot stuff that you shoot and coming to a conclusion on it is better than some random reviewer shooting the outside of his office and deciding that CA or fall-off or whatever else is not quite as good as another Nikon or third-party lens.

Heck, buy it and try it and if you don't like it return it.
 
freecom2 said:
Here's the crux of it. Reviews are a great way to get a general indicator, but only up to a point. Rent one, try it out for yourself and see how you find the results, and then decide from there. You using the lens to shoot stuff that you shoot and coming to a conclusion on it is better than some random reviewer shooting the outside of his office and deciding that CA or fall-off or whatever else is not quite as good as another Nikon or third-party lens.

Heck, buy it and try it and if you don't like it return it.
Click to expand...

Very sensible advice. I think I may follow it up.
 
At the end, I did buy the D7000 and the 24-120 f4. I went to Spain for a few days and had plenty of occasions to test it. The combo is exactly what I wanted/expected as a walk around solution upgrade from my D80.
There were a couple of occasions were I missed the 18-24 range (DX version), but I do think that I would have missed more the 70-120 range or the constant f4 if I had gone for another lens.
 
paula said:
At the end, I did buy the D7000 and the 24-120 f4. I went to Spain for a few days and had plenty of occasions to test it. The combo is exactly what I wanted/expected as a walk around solution upgrade from my D80.
There were a couple of occasions were I missed the 18-24 range (DX version), but I do think that I would have missed more the 70-120 range or the constant f4 if I had gone for another lens.
Click to expand...

Always good when you're happy with what you've bought. :)
 
The lens that I mainly used on my camera on my trip to the USA was the 24-120mm Nikon, seemed to cover 95% of what I wanted to take photos off.

Realspeed
 
paula said:
The combo is exactly what I wanted/expected as a walk around solution upgrade from my D80.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it! Did you find yourself utilizing the longer end of the lens much? I'm set on a 17-50 but don't know if I'll lust for more reach...
 
freecom2 said:
Glad to hear it! Did you find yourself utilizing the longer end of the lens much? I'm set on a 17-50 but don't know if I'll lust for more reach...
Click to expand...

Think you may struggle a bit with that range of lens. The 17-50mm must be Sigma as Nikon don't make that one (cost £549)

The Nikon I used was the Nikon AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
(cost £403). Prices quoted from http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk
Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR (cost £844) as a comparison

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
freecom2 said:
Glad to hear it! Did you find yourself utilizing the longer end of the lens much? I'm set on a 17-50 but don't know if I'll lust for more reach...
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. I know that I missed only once the 17-24 range, but i would have missed the 50-120 a whole lot more, maybe half of my photos.
 
I have and use the 18-70, a super little lens, not expensive and takes pretty good pics.

I would only get rid of mine for a 17-55 F2.8 and only then if I found one going cheap

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top