I would probably suggest D7000 ($1200), Nikkor DX 35mm f/1.8 (~$200), the new Nikkor 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 VRII ($365), the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (VC [$549] or non [$414]: I have the non-VC and love it, some say it's better than the VC version), and an SB-600 ($220) or the new SB-700 ($330).
That's ~$2400-2600. She could pass on the 35 prime and get the 55-200 VR telezoom which is ~$200 instead of the 55-300, that would get the total down to just a little over $2k. Or just get the 17-50 and a flash, and add primes and telephotos later down the road...
The D7000 should be a great camera for several years, and the Tamron is a very nice lens. The Nikkor equivalent is 3x the price. I'd say that could get her happily shooting.
Alternatively, the Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 is very nice as well at $570, trading the constant 2.8 for more range. Sigma has some nice lenses as well. I hear good things about the 17-70 (IIRC).
I'd disagree with this, as I don't think 28 is wide enough on DX. That's personal preference, but I would feel very limited if my kit only went to 28. Heck, the widest I have is 17, and I feel quite limited by that...
The 28-300 is new, and it's an FX (full frame) lens. Not that it can't be used on DX, but it's larger and heavier than it would need to be for a dedicated DX shooter. All I can say about is that Trey Ratcliff mentioned picking it up a couple of weeks ago, and his comments so far about it have been very positive.
I'd disagree with this, as I don't think 28 is wide enough on DX. That's personal preference, but I would feel very limited if my kit only went to 28. Heck, the widest I have is 17, and I feel quite limited by that...
Actually, for family shooting, unless you're going real wide, why not the 28-300? I find more important than the wide for shooting, the zoom range of 300 helps get across a soccer field, or to the stage for a child performing music or drama. Need to have the extra zoom flexibility. 55-300 is apparently, not the best lens, almost unacceptable. I was recommending a lens they won't need to replace for all of the family needs, as we all know, glass is more important than the camera. A good lens will make a D40 look impressive, but a bad lens is going to make a good camera look terrible.
I was just working under the impression of "spend 2k ish, wants to shoot family stuff / candids kids playing etc but heres the kicker, she doesn't want to upgrade anytime soon i.e. she doesn't want to hit the limits of the camera too soon, she wants the body to be ok for 3-5 years. " yeah, if they want to buy something to get started, then do the 55-300, but that wasn't the impression I got from the original request.
Actually, for family shooting, unless you're going real wide, why not the 28-300? I find more important than the wide for shooting, the zoom range of 300 helps get across a soccer field, or to the stage for a child performing music or drama. Need to have the extra zoom flexibility.
I was simply making recommendations based on my experience, just as you were. I would not be happy with a limit of 28mm at the wide end, and I mentioned that it was my personal preference.
55-300 is apparently, not the best lens, almost unacceptable.
I have not heard anything about the 55-300 not being acceptable. It's brand new and while I admittedly haven't looked hard at all, I haven't seen any reviews about its awesomeness or lack thereof. I do own the 55-200 VR, and I find that very acceptable. I wouldn't understand Nikon releasing a newer 55-300 VRII and having it be any worse than the older lens.
I was recommending a lens they won't need to replace for all of the family needs, as we all know, glass is more important than the camera. A good lens will make a D40 look impressive, but a bad lens is going to make a good camera look terrible.
I agree on all points, except that (again, my personal experience) I don't think 28 on DX is wide enough for all the family needs. If you're shooting a group shot indoors in a relatively small room, it might not be wide enough to get everyone. I really like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for "normal" shooting. It's small, light, sharp, and wide enough for interiors yet tele enough to use as a portrait lens in a pinch.
The combo of Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and Nikkor 55-300 gives you more focal length than the 28-300, plus constant 2.8 over 17-50, and for less money combined than the 28-300. Of course, it means you have to swap lenses, and some "regular" people aren't interested in that, which is where the appeal of the superzoom comes in.
I was just working under the impression of "spend 2k ish, wants to shoot family stuff / candids kids playing etc but heres the kicker, she doesn't want to upgrade anytime soon i.e. she doesn't want to hit the limits of the camera too soon, she wants the body to be ok for 3-5 years. " yeah, if they want to buy something to get started, then do the 55-300, but that wasn't the impression I got from the original request.
Understood, I made my reco's under the same impression. I think that both the 55-300 and 28-300 are "starter" lenses, and that either would be replaced in the future if this purchaser were to want to get more serious. Typically the superzooms have a lot of compromises. OTOH, the Tamron 17-50 is usually rated just about as good as the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. So while it's relatively inexpensive, it's not something that would need to be replaced in the near future, IMO.
Maybe the 55-300 is trash. I don't know as I've never used it or read reviews on it. But if it's along the same lines as the 55-200 I have, it will be pretty darn good (especially for the price). If it really is a crappy lens, then I apologize and retract my suggestion. But in that case I would still suggest the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikkor 55-200 VR. A cheap lens with a plastic mount, but light, small, and sharp. Very acceptable for a variable aperture telezoom until you want to step up to the pro glass.
There's a saying on the motorcycle forums that it's more fun to ride a slow bike fast, than a fast bike slow...
If she's just starting out, a closer-to-beginner-body will help her more during the time she needs to develop her skills and cost less to start out than a more expensive body that she gets frustrated with and gives up on after spending a ton of cash. GREAT Lenses hold their value well. Great bodies? Not so much.
Remember, the camera is just a tool. If she doesn't have the SKILL to wield it, it won't matter how great the camera and lens are. The camera does not a great photographer make.
Spend less on the tool and more on the skills (which are surprisingly free thanks to the interwebz).
Sorry if this sounds like a lesson but $2000 in my world is a grip of cash to make any kind of decision with.
Ah, so you understand the MC anology (I was going to carry it further with a reference to guys who buy desmos and can't ride but you get the point lol).
I am going to drop in here and give my 2 cents worth.....lenses first......I have never had a bad lens from Sigma and for family shooting there is
no reason that the 17-70 f2.8-4 and the 70-200 f.8 would not last for way more than 5 yrs...possible 10 if the owner did a small amount of
maintenance once every few years ...I like to send my lens in for a clean, lube and adjust every 2-4 yrs...depending on if I have been out in
the extremely dusty Ks wind a lot during the year.....
Body.........well I think Cab N Boston and others covered that pretty well..........
I started out with a D90 and the Nikkor 18-200mm lens and then added a fast prime (I bought the 50mm but should've bought the 35mm). It's a been a great combo delivering photos that, to my untrained eye, seem great. As a beginner, I didn't want to keep changing lenses so the 18-200 was a great compromise. I'm surprised none of you have mentioned it.
As for the bike analogy, I totally agree - there are way too many people on bikes way beyond their capability. I think you need to be using a camera a lot to get past the capabilities of a D90.... So, a D90, 18-200mm Nikkor, 35mm fast prime, perhaps a flash, plus a decent bag to carry it all If your friend is feeling rich, she can opt for the D7000
I started out with a D90 and the Nikkor 18-200mm lens and then added a fast prime (I bought the 50mm but should've bought the 35mm). It's a been a great combo delivering photos that, to my untrained eye, seem great. As a beginner, I didn't want to keep changing lenses so the 18-200 was a great compromise. I'm surprised none of you have mentioned it.
As for the bike analogy, I totally agree - there are way too many people on bikes way beyond their capability. I think you need to be using a camera a lot to get past the capabilities of a D90.... So, a D90, 18-200mm Nikkor, 35mm fast prime, perhaps a flash, plus a decent bag to carry it all If your friend is feeling rich, she can opt for the D7000
Comments
Lens 28-300 f3.5/5.6 $1,029.95
SB-600 $219.95
It's 2449.95 but you're not going to need anything anytime soon for that package.
You can substitute the SB-400 for $114.95 or a D90 for $899.95 and come much closer to your target of 2k-ish
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
That's ~$2400-2600. She could pass on the 35 prime and get the 55-200 VR telezoom which is ~$200 instead of the 55-300, that would get the total down to just a little over $2k. Or just get the 17-50 and a flash, and add primes and telephotos later down the road...
The D7000 should be a great camera for several years, and the Tamron is a very nice lens. The Nikkor equivalent is 3x the price. I'd say that could get her happily shooting.
Alternatively, the Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 is very nice as well at $570, trading the constant 2.8 for more range. Sigma has some nice lenses as well. I hear good things about the 17-70 (IIRC).
My site 365 Project
I'd disagree with this, as I don't think 28 is wide enough on DX. That's personal preference, but I would feel very limited if my kit only went to 28. Heck, the widest I have is 17, and I feel quite limited by that...
My site 365 Project
My site 365 Project
Actually, for family shooting, unless you're going real wide, why not the 28-300? I find more important than the wide for shooting, the zoom range of 300 helps get across a soccer field, or to the stage for a child performing music or drama. Need to have the extra zoom flexibility. 55-300 is apparently, not the best lens, almost unacceptable. I was recommending a lens they won't need to replace for all of the family needs, as we all know, glass is more important than the camera. A good lens will make a D40 look impressive, but a bad lens is going to make a good camera look terrible.
I was just working under the impression of "spend 2k ish, wants to shoot family stuff / candids kids playing etc but heres the kicker, she doesn't want to upgrade anytime soon i.e. she doesn't want to hit the limits of the camera too soon, she wants the body to be ok for 3-5 years. " yeah, if they want to buy something to get started, then do the 55-300, but that wasn't the impression I got from the original request.
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
I was simply making recommendations based on my experience, just as you were. I would not be happy with a limit of 28mm at the wide end, and I mentioned that it was my personal preference.
I have not heard anything about the 55-300 not being acceptable. It's brand new and while I admittedly haven't looked hard at all, I haven't seen any reviews about its awesomeness or lack thereof. I do own the 55-200 VR, and I find that very acceptable. I wouldn't understand Nikon releasing a newer 55-300 VRII and having it be any worse than the older lens.
I agree on all points, except that (again, my personal experience) I don't think 28 on DX is wide enough for all the family needs. If you're shooting a group shot indoors in a relatively small room, it might not be wide enough to get everyone. I really like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for "normal" shooting. It's small, light, sharp, and wide enough for interiors yet tele enough to use as a portrait lens in a pinch.
The combo of Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and Nikkor 55-300 gives you more focal length than the 28-300, plus constant 2.8 over 17-50, and for less money combined than the 28-300. Of course, it means you have to swap lenses, and some "regular" people aren't interested in that, which is where the appeal of the superzoom comes in.
Understood, I made my reco's under the same impression. I think that both the 55-300 and 28-300 are "starter" lenses, and that either would be replaced in the future if this purchaser were to want to get more serious. Typically the superzooms have a lot of compromises. OTOH, the Tamron 17-50 is usually rated just about as good as the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. So while it's relatively inexpensive, it's not something that would need to be replaced in the near future, IMO.
Maybe the 55-300 is trash. I don't know as I've never used it or read reviews on it. But if it's along the same lines as the 55-200 I have, it will be pretty darn good (especially for the price). If it really is a crappy lens, then I apologize and retract my suggestion. But in that case I would still suggest the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikkor 55-200 VR. A cheap lens with a plastic mount, but light, small, and sharp. Very acceptable for a variable aperture telezoom until you want to step up to the pro glass.
My site 365 Project
If she's just starting out, a closer-to-beginner-body will help her more during the time she needs to develop her skills and cost less to start out than a more expensive body that she gets frustrated with and gives up on after spending a ton of cash. GREAT Lenses hold their value well. Great bodies? Not so much.
Remember, the camera is just a tool. If she doesn't have the SKILL to wield it, it won't matter how great the camera and lens are. The camera does not a great photographer make.
Spend less on the tool and more on the skills (which are surprisingly free thanks to the interwebz).
Sorry if this sounds like a lesson but $2000 in my world is a grip of cash to make any kind of decision with.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Gene
no reason that the 17-70 f2.8-4 and the 70-200 f.8 would not last for way more than 5 yrs...possible 10 if the owner did a small amount of
maintenance once every few years ...I like to send my lens in for a clean, lube and adjust every 2-4 yrs...depending on if I have been out in
the extremely dusty Ks wind a lot during the year.....
Body.........well I think Cab N Boston and others covered that pretty well..........
As for the bike analogy, I totally agree - there are way too many people on bikes way beyond their capability. I think you need to be using a camera a lot to get past the capabilities of a D90.... So, a D90, 18-200mm Nikkor, 35mm fast prime, perhaps a flash, plus a decent bag to carry it all
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com