Nikon D7000. Lenses. Argh.

P

Persephone

Messages
92
Name
Amber
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just bought my new baby. Now I'm researching lenses and honestly, I don't know where to start! I want to photograph dogs and horses, and it would be nice to capture crisp, clean movement rather than a blur. A professional friend uses the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II but bloody hell, that's expensive! (She also uses a more expensive camera...) I've been piddling about with the D80 and a prime lens and it works well for portraits, but that's about all it's working for!

Do any of you folks have recommendations for a lens that will work well with the D7000 and take attractive shots of zoomy mongrels and bouncing horses in natural light? If it doesn't cost the earth, I'd be happy indeed - but I do know that you get what you pay for...
 
There is a Sigma of the same speed and focal length that is a lot cheaper and is not bad at all. But your D7000 is super when ramping up the ISO, so why not get a 55-200 or 55-300 (both under 200 quid) and shoot at higer ISO? Compare the results with your friend's and you might be surprised.
 
I'd go for sigma 50-500. Heard they are good and gives you a good range. Around 600-800 used if you look around. Might be worth hiring it for a few days to see whether you'd get on with it.

I've not used one, but the 300mm f4.5 tair (m42 mount) old lens is a little short for what I want, so the extra reach of the 500 might be more useful (I'm thinking birds... Horses being bigger you might get away with a 300mm).

What sort of budget are you thinking?
 
When I want to go lighter, I use a 35 1.8 dx and a 85 1.8. But for more flexibility, I use 2 zooms by Sigma. 17-50 2.8 os and 50-150 2.8 os. The 50-150 2.8 os is under £600 at panamoz when I bought it, if you're not planning to go full frame any time, then it's definitely worth looking in to. 75-225mm equivalent, f/2.8, with os, for under £600. What's not to like? :)
 
The Sigma 70-200 2.8's are excellent. Any of the HSM versions are good with the OS version being the pick of the bunch with a price to match. A top notch alternative might be a 300mm F/4 Afs. Fixed length so maybe more of a challenge but lenses don't come much sharper. They're still £600 used mind!
 
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM Macro version1. Can be bought for around £400 used.
I paid £350 for mine, and I actually prefer it to the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 I had that cost over double the money.

It does dogs very well.


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_9501.jpg by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
The nikon 300mm f/4 is also very good! This is the AF version not the AF-s, both are optically superb though, ive used both.


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Sebbe Portrait by TCR4x4, on Flickr


The only downside to the Af 300mm f/4 is the focus speed, its pretty slow. The AF-s Version is much faster. The sigma 70-200 wins though, as it beats them both in AF speed.
 
I dont know if you have used one but you may be pleasantly surprised with the results obtained with the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR/D7000 combination!
 
If it's mostly outdoor shooting, the 70-300 VR would be more than capable for the job, but if your shooting includes indoors, at shows etc ... I would suggest nothing less than a 2.8 zoom. Look around used sites for the sigma older versions. You won't get OS, but having 2.8 more than makes up for that IMO. Better quality optics than kit lenses too.
 
I knew that I'd get some outstanding answers from posting here! Thank you. I've spent the last ten days researching and deliberating and playing about with the new D7000 and I'm still none the wiser.

To clarify, in theory there is no budget - it's only that I might have to wait a bit longer for something that costs thousands, whereas if it costs hundreds I can nip out and get it whenever. ;) I'd rather delay gratification a bit than get something that will disappoint me, but I don't want to but a top-of-the-range lens if a middle-range lens will suit my needs just as well.

Professional friend recommends shooting at no less than 1/1000 shutter speed, which may make a difference to lens recommendations. I know that the D7000 is good in low light - comparing it to my D80 was a bit of an eye-opener - but I'm not sure how well I can rely on the camera body to compensate for an inferior lens. To answer a question asked previously, I plan to shoot exclusively outside, with natural light.

My priority in a lens is going to be perfect sharpness of a moving object - dogs and horses at speed. I'm hearing good things about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but I'm not sure why it's so much cheaper than the Nikon version...

Blah. Cameras are confusing. ;)
 
Last edited:
nikon Pro lenses cost a lot, Sigma lenses tend to be cheaper than the nikon equivalent.

you say you are shooting dogs / horses in natural light. well the normal zoom lens should be fine then (no need to get a constant F/2.8 aperture lens that will cost you a lot more and be a big heavy lens too). if you are shooting indoors then this would be preferable, but it will cost more.

dont forget on your cropped sensor D7000 the 200mm lens will be equivalent to 300mm on a pro model (so you have greater reach, one of the perks of cropped sensors). I had a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens and it was great the nikon 70-300 VR would give you even more reach and is a great lens. both these should be sub £400, second hand that is.

good luck!
 
johncook said:
nikon Pro lenses cost a lot, Sigma lenses tend to be cheaper than the nikon equivalent.

you say you are shooting dogs / horses in natural light. well the normal zoom lens should be fine then (no need to get a constant F/2.8 aperture lens that will cost you a lot more and be a big heavy lens too). if you are shooting indoors then this would be preferable, but it will cost more.

dont forget on your cropped sensor D7000 the 200mm lens will be equivalent to 300mm on a pro model (so you have greater reach, one of the perks of cropped sensors). I had a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens and it was great the nikon 70-300 VR would give you even more reach and is a great lens. both these should be sub £400, second hand that is.

good luck!
Click to expand...

Its very rare you will get 1/1000 outside in this country with a standard zoom.
I shoot animals outside in natural light too, and I always have to use a fast aperture if you want to freeze the motion.

f2.8 zooms arent just for indoors!

I still say the sigma 70-200 is the one you want, unless you want to shell out the extra for the nikon version.
 
I'd say get the Sigma to get the gratification now....and if/when you've saved up enough for the Nikon version then sell the Sigma to help fund the purchase. You don't lose a lot nowadays. Esp not if you sell it on this forum :)

70-200's are very popular so providing it's in good nick you shouldn't have a problem shifting it.

Oh lastly, what about a used Nikon 70-200 VR1? That would be cheaper than the VR2 but very very similar.
 
Just get a VR1 version of the 70-200mm from the classifieds... probably set you back about £950 for a used one. Worth it IMO.

Alternately, get the Sigma, best of the 3rd-party lenses in the 70-200mm f/2.8 market.

Personally, I'd get the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D two-touch if I couldn't afford the VR1... amazing lens, built like a tank and the focussing is speedy despite the older AF-D design.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Its very rare you will get 1/1000 outside in this country with a standard zoom.
I shoot animals outside in natural light too, and I always have to use a fast aperture if you want to freeze the motion.
Click to expand...

This is my conundrum. Given that London is basically Mordor, I'm really going to need that fast aperature if I want to avoid artificial light. (Or I could just move to Australia. Hm...)

Thank you all for weighing in. I'm going to deliberate for a few days but I'll let you know what I end up buying!
 
Hey there glad you are liking the D7000 (my old one), i have a lens that might be of interest to you its a Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S. Quite a rare lens (not many AF-S versions around) but its a solid performer. It lacks VR but then shooting at 1/1000ths you dont really need VR but quick AF which this lens has.

Its a bit cheaper than the vr1 70-200 as well. If interested il put a sales thread up.
 
At least the D7000 has the in body AF motor, so older, non AF-S/HSM etc lenses work properly on it!

I have (but don't use often) an older, non HSM Sigma 70-200. The only reason I don't use it that often is the Nikkor 70-300 VR that I also have (and use often!). For me, the extra reach of the 70-300 is a draw and the relative slowness is offset by the D700's great high ISO performance. If I needed ultimate image quality, I would upgrade to the Nikkor 70-200 VR II but the 70-300 VR deilvers plenty of IQ for prints up to A3+, even wide open. If I wanted/needed less DoF, the f/2.8 would obviously deliver that better than the slower 70-300 too.

You say that you're using a prime at the moment but say no more as to what focal length or maximum aperture that prime is! If it's a 300mm and is giving you the results you want (in terms of frame filling), I would be tempted to set its aperture to the 70-300 VR's 300mm wide open aperture and see how easy it is to get up to the shutter speed you're after by upping the ISO. The D7000 is supposed to have very good high ISO noise handling, so you may well be able to get there with acceptable noise. If not, I would be another to recommend one of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8s. What I would add to that recommendation is that you try the copy you're going to buy before parting with the cash/card - some people have reported problems with Sigma lenses (some of those people have even had their own problems rather than just repeating reports they've read about...) (FTR, I've got/had several Sigmas and never had any problems with them).

Happy shopping and I hope you're pleased with and get the results you want from whatever you end up with!
 
Tamron 70-300 vc usd get a good one and its a cracking lens and it will only cost you about £280 - cheaper 2nd.

I have used it for equine event togging too... 1000th may be a tad quick I have no problem shooting at around 640th


2AB_9868 by ob1chubster, on Flickr


2AB_9846 by ob1chubster, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
For 280 quid you'll be able to buy the Nikon 70-300VR....superb lens and as a previous poster says the D7k high ISO ability is the best on any Nikon crop dslr....1000th second exposure should be very manageable.
 
Persephone said:
This is my conundrum. Given that London is basically Mordor, I'm really going to need that fast aperature if I want to avoid artificial light. (Or I could just move to Australia. Hm...)

Thank you all for weighing in. I'm going to deliberate for a few days but I'll let you know what I end up buying!
Click to expand...

Where do you live? Could borrow mine.if you're anywhere near Middlesex...
 
neilos100 said:
Where do you live? Could borrow mine.if you're anywhere near Middlesex...
Click to expand...

Actually, I spend a ridiculous amount of time in Harrow. This is a very generous offer - thank you. I absolutely cannot be trusted with precious equipment (I have an unfortunate habit of dropping things!) but it would be great to meet up for a supervised play with the 70-300 VR.

Again, thank you to everyone for such considered responses. It means a lot to this photography newbie to have so many experts willing to advise.
 
Ok....I live near Ruislip so really not far.....I'll drop you a PM with contact details a bit later. Mrs Neilos has just had a baby boy so timings may be a.little tricky! Still...a nice subject for the new 35mm 1.8 I have now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top