I'm going to be picking up a D7000 and the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 next week. I'm also contemplating picking up a few primes as well. The 2 in particular I'm looking at are the 35 f/1.8 as well as the 85 f/1.8. I keep on reading how the 35 is a steal of a lens at under $199 but with an overlap of focal lengths, I'm wondering if it's really worth getting or if I should put the funds towards the 85 f/1.8 which I can see making more sense since it's a range that I won't be getting with the 17-55.
Or another though I had was whether I should just forgo the primes and just get either the 55-300 VR which would cover where the 17-55 leaves off. It would give me some flexibility.
Right now I have about $2,500 set aside for my budget for the time being.
D7000 - $1000 new
17-55 - $950 (going to buy a 2nd hand one on the B&S forums)
So either the 85 f/1.8 or the 55-300 ($400-500)
I'm set on the 17-55 Nikon as I got to shoot with it when I visited the camera store and the weight of the D7000 and the 17-55 just felt right. I know some of you may say to get the Tamron since it's cheaper then it would enable me to get both the prime and the telephoto.
Whichever lens I don't end up getting now I would most likely pick up around the holiday time. Thoughts?
The 35mm is a good lens for the money, but like you said, the overlap with the 17-55mm would keep me from it.
The D7000 will meter with manual focus lenses such as the 105mm f2.5 AI-s. These old lenses can be had for a LOT less then their new AF cousins, which makes them a great alternative if you don't mind focusing manually. Check this thread out: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565 You'll see that some of us are using the D7000 with these lenses and are quite happy.
A big advantage of the 35mm over the 17-55 is the seize and weight, ideal for a 'light' kit.
I have, next to me zooms, a 'light' kit with 24-2.8, 50-1.4, 85- 1.8, 135-2 and 2x times converter with the D700, it fits in the same bag as the D700 + grip + 28-70-2.8.
I've got a 35 1.8 to go with my 17-55, and i just picked up a 24mm f/2.8 as well.....some people will say it's stupid to have a 17-55 2.8 and a 24 2.8 prime, but the fact is the 24mm is still a FRACTION of the 17-55's size and weight...so in that aspect it makes the camera far more enjoyable to walk around with, and not seem totally conspicuous.....the 35 1.8 is nice, but i hate the 50mm focal length anyway...not wide enough...but i like wide...so to each their own....
Aug 31, 2012 at 07:51 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
For landscapes and mostly non-human things where you may want everything in focus, I’d go with the telephoto zoom. On the other hand, if you’re going to concentrate on portraiture, the 85mm will probably make you happier.
Also keep in mind that while the 17-55 is a superb lens, you may also want to think about a wide-angle zoom as some point because 17mm isn’t very wide on DX.
I have the D7000 and 17-55 and think you have chosen a great combo. Like you, I want a longer lens, but I think the 70-300 is the choice for me. It is said to be very sharp and you can buy used for $350ish. I will buy new because it's not that expensive.
I am not concerned about the small gap between 55 and 70 and when it's time to upgrade I will get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR !!.
The small gap between 55 and 70 is a step or two in real life. The 70-200 VR1 is a killer lens and a great fit for any DX Nikon. The VR2 is better in the corners, but more expensive.
Given the OP's needs and preferences, I'd suggest either the 70-300 VR for a long lens right now, or an 85/1.8 if he prefers portraiture. In the long term, I'd definitely suggest a Nikon 70-200. Nothing else like it.
DontShoot wrote:
Let me throw a different suggestion here and say go for the Nikon 10.5 fisheye. It gives you way wider view than 17mm, not to mention a very FUN lens!
Why in the world would he jump right to a special purpose lens when he's lookin to just start his line up?
What exactly do you photo? Why do you think you need a single focal lens--do you need the speed or what? It all comes down to matching the gear to what you will use it for. Buying gear without a solid established use for it is a plan to go broke in a hurry! If you really "needed" a lens, wouldn't you already know that? BTW, I've come to think of all single focal lenses as "special purpose." The f2.8 zooms are the general purpose lenses.
Two23 wrote:
What exactly do you photo? Why do you think you need a single focal lens--do you need the speed or what? It all comes down to matching the gear to what you will use it for. Buying gear without a solid established use for it is a plan to go broke in a hurry! If you really "needed" a lens, wouldn't you already know that? BTW, I've come to think of all single focal lenses as "special purpose." The f2.8 zooms are the general purpose lenses.
Kent in SD
exactly how i felt when i bought a 300 f/4....seriously i used it like 4 times in 6 months....wasn't worth it...great lens, but not worth having it...that's ALMOST how i feel about my D70s...i paid $160 for it....but at that price, and having it there JUST IN CASE, that's a little different though...
Can't go wrong with the 70-200vr1 and I like my Tamron 28-75 2.8 also if you don't need to go wider at first. A great almost all around combo whether on my D7000 or D700. You could probably get both lenses used and the body within your budget or very close.
i used it like 4 times in 6 months....wasn't worth it...great lens, but not worth having it...that's ALMOST how i feel about my D70s...i paid $160 for it....but at that price, and having it there JUST IN CASE, that's a little different though...