I currently have a nikon d40 kit and am seriously considering the upgrade. I was hoping to get some feedback on the set up i am currently looking at.
I can get the d7000 with the 18-200 vr II and the 35mm 1.8 for the same price as
the d7000 with the tamron 17-50 2.8 and the 35mm 1.8.
I will probably keep the d40 for a backup and taking pictures when im out biking in the wilderness.
I shoot mostly my kids and trips to disney. I am not sure i need the reach of 200 but it seemed like a great value though. I also have started to take more picture of mountain biking and nature. any thoughts about other lenses or setups would be greatly appreciated. thank you
#1. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
The question you need to answer is, which of the two lenses better meets the needs of your shooting style and subjects?
trips to disney
mountain biking and nature
This suggests (to me) that you probably might prefer the 18-200mm.
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
#2. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
It all depends on what you want to do. I lurk on the D7000 forum because I am a likely future D7x00 owner, but my wife and I currently shoot D90s, which are the predecessor to the D7000. I think your lens questions are independent of which DX body you are looking at.
First of all, the 35 mm f/1.8 is a no-brainer. This is a superb fast lens at a great price for DX format shooters. It provides the DX equivalent of the old "50mm lens" from film days. It's fast, sharp, and cheap. (Typically you only get the chance to choose two of those three features!)
The zoom option is where your particular interests come into play. Unless you have a real need for constant f/2.8 in the 17-50mm zoom range, there are a variety of other options you might want to consider. The Nikkor 18-200mm is a very useful lens for those seeking a single lens DX solution. My wife uses this as a primary lens on her D90, paired with a Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 macro to feed her passion for close-up nature photography. The 18-200mm lens is capable of excellent images -- the cover photo on the February 2013 issue of Outdoor Photographer, which hit my mailbox today, was taken with a Nikkor 18-200mm lens on a D300.
If you don't need constant f/2.8 or 200mm, there are a couple of additional options that will give you excellent images and save you some money and some weight around your neck. The first is the Nikkor 16-85mm VR lens. This is an excellent all-around "standard" zoom lens on DX bodies and is the lens I have on my D90 most of the time. As former amateur Nikon enthusiasts abandon the DX format in response to the siren call of Nikon's new FX bodies (D600, D800) the prices for excellent used examples of this lens have dropped a bit. Second, do not ignore the Nikkor 18-105 VR "kit" lens that was sold with lots of D90s and D7000s. It is not quite as robust in build as the 16-85 (e.g., plastic rather than metal lens mounting plate), but it produces excellent images, provides more reach at the telephoto end while sacrificing some wide angle capability, and is available VERY inexpensively on the used market as people offload the lenses they acquired when buying D90 and D7000 kits.
So, as I said at the beginning, it depends on what you want to do. There is no single right answer, but one of the many possible answers will suit your photographic needs and budget.
At the end of the day, it's more important to go out and take photographs than obsess over the equipment...
Visit my Nikonians gallery
#4. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
I purchased a D7000 with 18-200 about 2 years ago and couldn't be happier with it. Since then I have added a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 17-70 and a Tamron 70-300. But, I find that when I'm going somewhere and can only have one lens - I rely on the Nikkor 18-200. Many people refer to it as a "kit" lens, but I find that it's really versatile, provides very good image quality and is light and easy to caryy with the camera.
If I were you and facing this choice - I'd go with the D7000 and the 18-200 and 35mm 1.8.
Have a great time with your, yet to be purchased, D7000!
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#5. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
You're most of the way there, since both options include a D7000 with great lenses. Since you won't want to miss a great shot opportunity with your kids, the 18-200vr II would be a good choice. You probably don't want to stop and change lenses at Disneyland.
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and the image quality is very good on the D7000. But for more reach, I also have a Nikon 85mm 1.8 that I have carried along as a tourist. The downside is lens changing, and the gap in the focal lengths. If you choose the 18-200 vr II, you will be giving up some low-light performance, shallow depth of field portraits, and subject isolation at longer focal lengths. You will be able to find a Tamron 17-50 2.8 used later on. With the D7000, I don't find a need for the BIM (built in motor) version of the Tamron. Other options exist for portraits, such as a Nikon 50 1.8.
Here's a vote for the decisive moment with your kids: 18-200 vrII.
Your D40 is perfect for taking out biking.
*technicality: you can't bike in the wilderness
#6. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
I came from a D40 to the D7000. You are in for a wonderful surprise. Gone are the days when it seemed the camera just didn't to want to focus. The picture quality of the D7000 will amaze you.
I think you are going to like your new camera.
On the lens issue. This past spring my wife and I traveled to Hawaii. Because of weight and space, I only took the D7000, the 18-200 lens, a 35 mm f1.8 lens for evening shots.
95% of my shots were taken with the 18-200mm lens. The 18-200 lens is a good all around lens that will give you many many great shots. If it gets dark...just put the camera and lens on a tripod.
BTW - For the trip to Hawaii, I took along a GrizloPod. It looked goofy and I had to get on my belly sometimes, but it and the D7000/18-200 setup took some great pictures in Hawaii. Here is one, to show what the combo can do.
My Pictures may be seen here: http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/
#7. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
I got the D7000 with the 18-200 and i love the colors, depth of field and zoom range I get on my family pics. I uploaded a few to my gallery as I tried out the new camera and SB700 flash.
#9. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 7
#11. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 10
Hang around here and you will learn. There aren't many questions which can't be answered by the members. That and practice, practice, practice.
Thank you for the nice compliment.
My Pictures may be seen here: http://jmiguez.smugmug.com/
#12. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 0
At first you might be disappointed. The D7000 is a much more capable camera but the D40 is no slouch. Both produce quality images, the D7000n just does it in lower light as well, and keeping faster action sharp.
The reason for disapppoint is newer Nikons have default settings for sharpening and contrast set low so you might find your initial images to be a bit more dull and less crip looking. Also colors will be less saturated but in reality that is normal and the D40 and most Point and Shoot cameras get people trained to expect over saturated colors. Shortly after getting up to speed with all the features of the D7000 and create your own Picture Controls, or get involved with post process deeper, you will find the files are really flexible, quiet and critically sharp.
Lenses? As mentioned, the best for you depends on your interests. None of the superzooms really stand out compared to pro constant aperture lenses but they are all good. I would suggest the kit 18-105vr because it is so cheap and capable that you will be happy with it until you decide what focal range your first specialty faster lens purchase need to be. The 35 is fast and sharp even pretty good wide open. So a 18-105 for general work and the 35 for lower light work would be the best bang for buck. All the better lenses are better in specific criteria but are less considered general purpose lenses. For example the best low cost portrait lense is likely the 85 1.8G which is incredible sharp, with good bokeh and only $450, great for that focal length but not suitable for things like wider angles, architecture, landscapes etc. If you need telephoto reach, the best bang for the buck is the 70-300vr, but a prime like the $800 180 2.8 is excellent. After about 5,000 shots with the D7000 and a kit lens I will have a pretty strong idea of what specifically you need to upgrade for one particular favorite type of subject. If you gravitate towards landscape, every company makes better low cost wide and ultrawide lenses for that subject than the kit lenses, at a lot less money than the 18-200. If your subject is wildlife, you will run into the marginal image quality of the 18-200 over 135-150 mm and will want more speed.
St Petersburg Russia
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#13. "RE: considering the d7000" | In response to Reply # 12
I have found that setting sharpness and saturation higher for JPEG compression gives me the crisp look and colors I like. Making these changes in different modes (standard vs. vivid) produces different results.