Another Nikon glass question

endurodog

Ok got my D7000 months ago and have been using my kit lenses from my D40 Nikon package. Know I need some better glass to let the cameras full potential out so wanting to upgrade glass now. I'm finding the 18-55mm lens I have really useful so thinking something along this line but better. I don't mind if it's another manufacture other than Nikon. One thing that is always in the back of my mind is maybe going FX in the future so if there is a lens that would work well with both that would be great.

Any suggestions would be great. Thanks!

ziggy53

Your 18-55mm kit zoom is a "standard" or "normal" zoom range lens. If you really plan to also purchase a FF (Nikon "FX") body soon then the Nikkor 17-35mm, f2.8D IF-ED AF-S will get you a much improved image quality, but it lacks at the long end. (It would be a wide-angle to normal FOV on a Nikon DX body.) This lens is really designed to be a wide-angle zoom on an FX body.

The (arguably) best option for your Nikon D7000 is the

Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX.

This lens is designed specifically for the DX series cameras, it does not cover a Nikon FX imager, but it is an amazing standard zoom for your camera.

On a budget, the:

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) (BIM)

... is an excellent value with very good quality. It is not as sharp wide open and at the edges and corners as the Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8DX, but it is much improved over the kit lens you have and very usable wide open for many subjects. It too is a DX coverage lens.

http://www.adorama.com/TM1750NKAF.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html

There is also a stabilized "VC" version for around $150USD more.

endurodog

Thx ziggy. Sounds like go with good glass now and when I get a chance for an FX system buy some specific glass then.

endurodog

One question on the Tamron is the VC worth the extra $$$?

lifeinfocus

endurodog wrote: »

Thx ziggy. Sounds like go with good glass now and when I get a chance for an FX system buy some specific glass then.

Depends on how much want to spend and what you are going to use it?

Family photos, sports, portraits, low light situations, scenery, etc.?

You can use an Nikon FX lens on your camera you just need to multiply 1.5 times the focal length of the lens because of the crop factor on the DX body. So a 70-300mm lens would function as a 105 to 450mm lens.

A quick list of Nikon lenses can be found at http://nikonrumors.com/prices/
You may want to start with fixed focal length (prime lens).

ziggy53

endurodog wrote: »

One question on the Tamron is the VC worth the extra $$$?

By most accounts the VC degrades the image slightly, vs the non-VC version. In low light without flash, and for non-moving subjects, it may be worth the minor loss in image quality. Most folks who have the VC version seem to like it a lot.

I would suggest that a properly used, non-stabilized lens, with a properly used electronic flash and flash modifier, is a more appropriate solution in most cases. Most event photography qualifies in this regard.

The very best FF/FX standard zooms are not generally stabilized, and neither is the Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX. A lot of professionals use non-stabilized standard zooms to great success.

endurodog

Ziggy you've helped me decide on the Tamron non VC model. Thanks again!

Matthew Saville

Honestly I've used the Nikon 17-55 DX and I'm not quite a fan of it's hefty balance. (Or lack therof. Balance, that is, NOT heft, it sure has plenty of heft!!)

My 17-55 DX was stolen a while ago, and I just never got around to replacing it. Nor did I buy a 24-70 when I upgraded to full-frame, either, I've mostly been shooting on primes these days. Oh, and a word on the Tamron- unless I am mistaken, they still don't have an equivalent to Nikon's SWM, or Sigma's HSM type autofocus. This might be considered a luxury for some, but personally I can't live without it now. If I WERE going to get a mid-range f/2.8 zoom for a crop sensor, it would be the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM, or at least just one of the newer ones that has HSM...

But I digress. In my opinion, the best "walk-around" setup would NOT be an f/2.8 zoom at all, plain and simple. I would go for the fantastic Nikon 16-85 DX, which is amazingly sharp for tripoded nature photos, and then I'd get the new Nikon 50 f/1.8 AFS-G for low light.

Yes, those two lenses will set you back quite a bit more than a single Tamron lens, but they'll be SUCH a pleasure to use in everyday hobbyist and even crazy adventurous situations. Heck, I could get most any professional job done with just those two lenses, if I had to. But anyways, my point is that on a crop sensor for casual shooting, I'd rather keep things as light and small as possible, and yet without sacrificing focal range if I can help it.

Good luck deciding!

MGRPhoto

The 17-55 is a brick. It's well balanced on a 300s w/grip.

I agree that the 16-85 is better choice than the Tamron though. The 16-85 is a great lens. I'm not sure what Nikon requires in order for a lens to earn it's gold stripe but I always thought the IQ and focal length range of this lens should earn a gold stripe.

ThatCanonGuy

I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 non-VC as well. You mention that you want to get the full potential out of your D7000; that requires good glass and a good photographer. The second half is just as important

Matt, Tamron does have USD (UltraSonic Drive, I think), their SWM/USM/HSM equivalent. But it's pretty new, and only found in the new 70-300 AFAIK. I know what you mean about needing HSM... I need USM. Some people talk of L fever... I have USM fever!

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 non-VC as well. You mention that you want to get the full potential out of your D7000; that requires good glass and a good photographer. The second half is just as important

Matt, Tamron does have USD (UltraSonic Drive, I think), their SWM/USM/HSM equivalent. But it's pretty new, and only found in the new 70-300 AFAIK. I know what you mean about needing HSM... I need USM. Some people talk of L fever... I have USM fever!

Yeah, I heard they had developed it in ONE or two lenses thus far. If you ask me, that's a show-stopper for any lens longer than ~24mm on a crop sensor. I just can't live with the lower accuracy, or the jitter you get when using AF-C (AI-Servo) on a relatively still object.

=Matt=

lifeinfocus

Matthew Saville wrote: »

and then I'd get the new Nikon 50 f/1.8 AFS-G for low light.

Good luck deciding!

Matt,

Is the Nikon 50 f/1.8 AFS-G really a good a lens for only $240? Can it be used on a DX camera for full body portraiture or is a more expensive lens the answer?

Thanks,
Phil

ziggy53

lifeinfocus wrote: »

Matt,

Is the Nikon 50 f/1.8 AFS-G really a good a lens for only $240? Can it be used on a DX camera for full body portraiture or is a more expensive lens the answer?

Thanks,
Phil

You can trust Thom Hogan:

http://bythom.com/nikkor-50mm-f18-lens-review.htm

He summarizes:

"... which 50mm should I get? We've got multiple answers, unfortunately:

• If you're going for absolute optical quality, the answer is none of the Nikkors. A few of the "normal" lenses from third parties, including Voigtlander and Zeiss, have better absolute performance. But, of course, they're manual focus lenses, and usually much more expensive.
• DX users looking for the best autofocus solution Nikon has to offer can kind of go either way (f/1.4G or f/1.8G), as the difference isn't enough to really justify one over the other, so it's going to come down to "small corner gain at wide apertures" versus "lower price."
• FX users have a clear winner, especially if they use the lens at the fast apertures much: they should get the more expensive 50mm f/1.4G, especially if they're shooting with a D3x. The f/1.4G hits excellent edge-to-edge at f/2.8, the f/1.8G doesn't get there until somewhere around f/5.6. (Please read that carefully. I'm not saying that f/1.4 gets you all that much compared to f/1.8, I'm saying that in the f/2 to f/4 range, the f/1.4G is the better lens for FX users. Too many people get caught up on absolute aperture, as in f/1.4 is two-thirds of a stop faster than f/1.8.)
• If you're just looking for a dirt-cheap fast 50mm prime to use on occasion and have a body with a screw-drive focus ability, the 50mm f/1.8D is a reasonable choice if corners aren't overly important (as they often aren't when you use this for portraits on DX).

"

Also look at the Photozone review "verdict":

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff?start=2

"Compared to its predecessor (the Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.8) the new AF-S lens delivers better border resolution and improved bokeh, but has gained some weight and especially size."

The truth is that Nikon doesn't really have a bad 50mm lens. If your camera has an AF screw-drive, the AF-D, f1.8 is still a solid performer. The AF-S/G is a little better in AF speed, a little sharper in the corners/edges and a little better bokeh. Those are the primary improvements.

If you need even better bokeh, but don't need as much AF speed, the f1.4G might be worth considering.

lifeinfocus

ziggy53 wrote: »

You can trust Thom Hogan:

http://bythom.com/nikkor-50mm-f18-lens-review.htm

He summarizes:

"... which 50mm should I get? We've got multiple answers, unfortunately:

• If you're going for absolute optical quality, the answer is none of the Nikkors. A few of the "normal" lenses from third parties, including Voigtlander and Zeiss, have better absolute performance. But, of course, they're manual focus lenses, and usually much more expensive.
• DX users looking for the best autofocus solution Nikon has to offer can kind of go either way (f/1.4G or f/1.8G), as the difference isn't enough to really justify one over the other, so it's going to come down to "small corner gain at wide apertures" versus "lower price."
• FX users have a clear winner, especially if they use the lens at the fast apertures much: they should get the more expensive 50mm f/1.4G, especially if they're shooting with a D3x. The f/1.4G hits excellent edge-to-edge at f/2.8, the f/1.8G doesn't get there until somewhere around f/5.6. (Please read that carefully. I'm not saying that f/1.4 gets you all that much compared to f/1.8, I'm saying that in the f/2 to f/4 range, the f/1.4G is the better lens for FX users. Too many people get caught up on absolute aperture, as in f/1.4 is two-thirds of a stop faster than f/1.8.)
• If you're just looking for a dirt-cheap fast 50mm prime to use on occasion and have a body with a screw-drive focus ability, the 50mm f/1.8D is a reasonable choice if corners aren't overly important (as they often aren't when you use this for portraits on DX).

"

Also look at the Photozone review "verdict":

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/631-nikkorafs5018ff?start=2

"Compared to its predecessor (the Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.8) the new AF-S lens delivers better border resolution and improved bokeh, but has gained some weight and especially size."

The truth is that Nikon doesn't really have a bad 50mm lens. If your camera has an AF screw-drive, the AF-D, f1.8 is still a solid performer. The AF-S/G is a little better in AF speed, a little sharper in the corners/edges and a little better bokeh. Those are the primary improvements.

If you need even better bokeh, but don't need as much AF speed, the f1.4G might be worth considering.

Thanks for such a complete answer.
Phil

Matthew Saville

lifeinfocus wrote: »

Matt,

Is the Nikon 50 f/1.8 AFS-G really a good a lens for only $240? Can it be used on a DX camera for full body portraiture or is a more expensive lens the answer?

Thanks,
Phil

I've found my own personal truth to be exactly the OPPOSITE of Thom Hogan's recommendation: When I bought mine and tested it, honestly the 50 f/1.8 AFS-G made the 50 f/1.4 AFS-G look like a waste of money to me! It's incredibly sharp, I dunno what everybody else is complaining about when they say you gotta hit f/5.6 to get the best sharpness. My copy of the lens is totally "professional grade sharpness" by f/2, and insanely sharp by f/2.8. Sure, I'm not inspecting the extreme corners, like a landscape photographer would. But for portraits and photojournalism, All I care about are the center and the general edges. In which, by the way, the 50 f/1.8 AFS-G SHAMES at least three or four copies of the Canon 50 f/1.4 that I've tested.

So, unless you REALLY need the f/1.4 versus the f/1.8, or if you're just totally in love with the 50mm focal length, then yeah get the f/1.4 AFS-G. But if you're like me and you're more of a 35 / 85 prime kinda guy, and only use 50mm when it is actually the required focal length, ...then you should just keep saving for those more expensive 35 / 85 primes, and be thrilled with the 50 1.8 AFS-G.

Good luck deciding,
=Matt=

ront

Another vote for the Nikon 16-85VR. I use it with my D7000 and I like it a lot! Included is a shot, using this combination, from a couple of mornings ago.

Ron



This is an HDR using the same combo.