p.2 #3 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Apocballer wrote:
I'm liking the replies here! So far some good difference in opinions. To Steve Perry and others asking about what I shoot, that's not exactly the point I was trying to get at. I would like to know what you all view as the most valuable lenses within this budget, either for your specific purposes or what you would do in this circumstance. This is why it would be beneficial if people mentioned their main fields of interest when posting, though not necessary.
I usually shoot cars at shows, rolling shots on the road, and some individual car photoshoots. Other stuff here and there, but cars are my favorite subject. For my selections (quoted below), if I had an extended budget, I'd easily get both the pro lenses (17-55 & 80-200). Once you see the images one of these (or any top notch Nikon lens) can produce, you'll never want to go back to consumer stuff, with a few exceptions.
If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the 17-55. I'd sacrifice reach over versatility. I use the 17-55 more than I'd like to, just for the fact that there's usually not enough room to back up in many cases to use the 80-200 (bokeh fiend here , plus I like the flatter perspective). The longer lens is usually brought out for racing (sometimes with a TC) and for photoshoots. An 85mm 1.4 would probably suit me best, except in the pricing department.
The other choice, the Tamron 70-300 VC, is fine outdoors during the day. A notch or two down in color/contrast/sharpness from the 80-200, and considerably slower at the long end, but the AF is still great, and the VC needs to be seen to be believed! Great for panning. Works well with a Kenko Pro TC, too (VC still functions).
I rarely go wider than 50mm unless I have to; the 50mm can be used when more speed is needed or flare prone situations where the 35-70 is horrible. 80-200 would be a workhouse tele lens for just about everything bar wedding groups and candids.
p.2 #8 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Most of what I do these days is portrait, with some documentary/weddings.
So I'd buy:
Sigma 85/1.4
Nikon 50/1.8G
Anything left over would go into my savings account until I could afford a 35/1.4G
And strangely enough, that looks exactly the kit that's in my bag right now. (along with a Cosina Voigtlander 20/3.5). Haven't found anything I want to do right now that these four lenses won't handle.
p.2 #9 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Steve Perry wrote:
What do you like to photograph?
+1.
For $1,500, my choice would be an 1850s vintage Petzval lens from Ross or Voigtlander. maybe Jamin Darlot. Any Nikon lens I would want costs a helluva lot more than $1,500.
p.2 #11 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
I'll take a different approach...If your a hobbyist, and want to explore photography...The D7000 is excellent at high-ISO; so save a few bucks and go with slower lenses:
p.2 #12 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Tamron 17-50 and Nikon/Tamron 70-300 VR/VC. Takes care of everything for starting out. Maybe a 10-17 MM fisheye, or a Feisol/Benro tripod with Photoclam ballhead. Speed would come later.
p.2 #14 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
used 35 f/1.8 $200
used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (non-BIM) $350
used 80-200 ED f/2.8 $800
Save the remaining $150 for a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
The above is my kit and what I'm saving for, except I have an 18-200 VRII, which I haven't used much since acquiring the Tammy and the 80-200. I'll be doing a fair bit of traveling to some cool places in my new job, so the 18-200 will probably replace the 80-200 on the road for many trips for both weight and versatility.
p.2 #15 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Two23 wrote:
For $1,500, my choice would be an 1850s vintage Petzval lens from Ross or Voigtlander. maybe Jamin Darlot. Any Nikon lens I would want costs a helluva lot more than $1,500.
Kent in SD
Regardless of what he shoots, a vintage Petzval lens won't do him much good on a D7000. The OP is actually seeking useful advice on lenses to buy within his budget for a D7000.
p.2 #16 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Well that's partially the point, but I think this thread could be useful to many people shooting on a limited budget, not just myself, as I am surely neither the first nor last to ask this question.
p.2 #17 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
passthegravy wrote:
Regardless of what he shoots, a vintage Petzval lens won't do him much good on a D7000. The OP is actually seeking useful advice on lenses to buy within his budget for a D7000.
I disagree. Without stating what one photos, their goals, or their style, there is no way to give useful advice. You pick the gear to match what you do with it. If I could buy any one piece of Nikon for $1,500, I'd start looking for a used 24mm PCE lens. Is knowing that useful to anyone? No, it's not. And yes, you can mount an 1855 vintage Petzval on a D7000, and it would make one helluva great portrait set up. Use some creativity here.
p.2 #18 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
Apocballer wrote:
I'm liking the replies here! So far some good difference in opinions. To Steve Perry and others asking about what I shoot, that's not exactly the point I was trying to get at. I would like to know what you all view as the most valuable lenses within this budget, either for your specific purposes or what you would do in this circumstance. This is why it would be beneficial if people mentioned their main fields of interest when posting, though not necessary.
personally as a sports photog id get something long, but that doesn't fit every one
p.2 #19 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
I don't shoot much that moves, so going with strictly manual focus lenses hasn't been a problem. For about $1500, I've picked up (used, but in mint condition):
If I knew then what I know now, I'd swap the 28mm f/2.8 AI-s for a 20mm f/2.8 AI-s, and then I think I'd feel pretty content with my kit. Price difference between those two lenses is negligible. To go longer also wouldn't be tricky, there's the lovely 180mm f/2.8 AI-s, as well as the well regarded 200mm f/4 AI-s, 300mm f/4.5 AI-s, etc...
p.2 #20 · You have $1,500.00, what lens(es) do you buy?
$1500 to cover a DX kit, with no more to spend ever.
17-50 Tamron used NonBIM. $300
70-300VR used $400
That leaves $800
You could pick up a 35/1.8 for $200 to cover the compact/low light needs.
With the last $600, I would shop for a solid macro lens, and there are many choices at this price range, leaving you with a bit of change. I would probably nab the 60 AF-s.
, plus I like the flatter perspective). The longer lens is usually brought out for racing (sometimes with a TC) and for photoshoots. An 85mm 1.4 would probably suit me best, except in the pricing department. 
Great for panning. Works well with a Kenko Pro TC, too (VC still functions). 