Hi everybody, New in digital photography and also a new member. A lot to learn from you guys very excited to be part of this group. After one year of waiting finally ready to buy the d7000 as soon as the body will be available at B&H. Is the 18-200 VRII a good much or shall I spend more money to start with a better lens for ex. 24-70/2.8 and build from there. Also SB-700 is it OK or shall I go for SB-900. Thanks in advance.
#1. "RE: New member and concider to buy d7000" In response to Reply # 0
The 18-200mm VR II is an excellent Jack-of-All-Trades lens for genenral purpose photography and traveling. It is optically very good between 18mm and 135mm. If you are looking for the best performance: Since the D7000 is a DX body I would recommend the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S DX over the 24-70mm f/2.8. I have both lenses and the 24mm is not very wide on a DX body. The 17-55mm is a much more useful range on a DX body. The SB-900 has about a stop more power than the SB-700 and can zoom out to 200mm. As for what to get, it depends on your budget and what your needs are based on what you will be shooting and the ambient conditions that you will be shooting in. The other thing to consider is how much weight are you willing to carry around with you. Both the 17-55mm aqnd the 24-70mm are both larger and heavier than the 18-200mm. So is the SB-900 compared to the SB-700. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#2. "RE: New member and concider to buy d7000" In response to Reply # 1
Saddle river, US
Unless you know that you'll need the flash, I would wait on it. The ISO performance of the D7k is outstanding. I've just been shooting indoors at 4:30 in the afternoon, with no direct sun, and the shots at ISO 2700 - 3600 look really good (at least on the LCD). In any event, you can always pick up the flash if you miss it.
I shoot primarily with the 18-200. Again what you need depends on what you do. The other lenses offer better apertures, which is very useful (and again mitigates against needing the flash). However, it would mean potentially carrying more gear and weight and changing lenses, which itself is inconvenient.
You might consider starting with the kit lens (18-105) and see how the aperture, quality and range work for you. The quality would be roughly the same as the 18-200, although the range is obviously shorter. It's "only" $300 and you can always get a good portion of it back if you decide to upgrade and sell it.
#4. "RE: New member and concider to buy d7000" In response to Reply # 0
St Petersburg, RU
Good lenses are expensive so should not be on whim. My suggestion would be to start with the kit of D7000 and 18-105vr That one has a wide enough range to let you learn and experiment on different subjects and shooting styles. You may find that your shooting is more portraits or candids so you would want your first great lens to probably be a prime in the range of focal length your portraits were taken at with the 18-105vr, like a 85mm 1.8, the new 85 1.4, a 105mm, or 70-200vr 2.8 zoom. I you find that you get the most use out of the wide end, for landscape or architecture, a ultra-wide like the 10-24, 10-20, 11-16 would be high on your list. You will probably end up with one or more of the Trinity, Nikon's highly regarded f/2.8 zooms: 14-24(not really wide enough for DX but stunning in results),24-70(great mid zoom that is a little too long at 24 on DX but an excellent portrait and general purpose lens) and the most popular of the 3, 70-200VR which is a must have for most photographers. Nikon makes a DX version of mid zoom, 17-55 2.8. It is not as good optically as the 24-70 but is less expensive and offers a very practical range. I have it, but find that my most often needed range is longer than 24 so I plan on selling the 17-55 to get a used 24-70, since many of my events shots are in the 24-70 range, the rest are covered by the 70-200 perfectly. Most people would probably like the 17-55 range better however. This illustrates why you should learn the camera and your style for a while before investing in good lenses. What is good on average might miss you YOUR style most demands, until you know what subjects you gravitate towards, you might collect a lot of expensive glass that sits in the bag. In my own case I got the camera to do studio style fashion shots for my GF, a designer. After setting up a good home made studio I found (after about 2,000 shots) that I liked portrait and candids, and later event shooting. These required a different orientation is lens collecting. Some of my most expensive lenses literally sit collecting dust. My cheapest lenses; 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 get a lot of use but the one that has 30,000 frames is the 70-200. My 85 1.4D seldom is used, nor the 17-55, although both are great lenses that others would love to shoot with all the time.
Consider the flash. A good flash(Nikon's flash system is famous as the best in the industry and a good reason to select Nikon) greatly extends the usefulness of lower cost lenses, and your whole range of shooting options. The SB600, 700 and 900 are useful everyday, even in broad daylight. It more than any other item in your kit has the biggest impact on your range of shooting option. When there is a enough light, of which the quality of the light in under you control, you can stop down the 18-105 into its sweet spots in aperture and get images that will surprise people who assume cheap lenses are not sharp. Learning proper use of the flash(it is really easy with the Nikon CLS compatible speedlights) really returns more in results than its cost by a wide margin. You will read people reporting they only want ambient light to avoid the "flash look". That is only because they do not understand how to use it. But those same people marvel at the images in fashion, fine art, glamor etc galleries yet almost all where taken with flash. Shooting only with available light means most of the time you will be waiting for good light conditions to come. Good natural light and desired subjects work on different and independent time scales. By having the option to augment the light totally under your own control, lighting becomes your friend and creative tool, not challenger. Good choice of the d7000, which looks to be another Nikon mid level classic in the making. The definition of "mid level" has changed radically. The performance of this new $1200 camera is better in almost all respects except build strength that top pro cameras just 5 years ago that were $5000 in dollars that were worth more. Stan St Petersburg Russia
#5. "RE: New member and concider to buy d7000" In response to Reply # 4
Thank you all, I appreciate the time you took to educate me on many things. I will consider all these and hopefully make the right decision with the goal in mind to add at some point a FX body and be able to utilize my investment on lenses. Thanks again
#6. "RE: New member and concider to buy d7000" In response to Reply # 5
St Petersburg, RU
Do you have a specific reason to move to FX? If IQ is it, DX and FX are similar now that the D7000 ha come out. The main advantage is for landscape photographers, wide angle lenses are really wide on FX. If that is the reason, you will NOT want to waste money on a 18-200 now, but invest in such wide lenses now as the 14-24 for $1800 which will work on both DX and FX. If for sports, wildlife, general photography, FX lenses for the desired field of view will be much more expensive for any given image quality. A 200mm telephoto on a DX that delivers great quality if on a FX would require a 300mm of the same speed and quality(at 2-3 times the cost) for equal field of view. A 70-200 is not much of a telephoto on a FX, it is more a mid range zoom, while on a DX is a great range for general purpose sports, wildlife, portraits, etc. I use 200mm often which is the main reason I have not gone to FX, $4000 to get back the field of view of what I have now in a very good 70-200 is not the best use of my limited funds. Stan St Petersburg Russia