Zoom for Nikon D7000

[DavidLapin]

So I have just invested in a D7000 and:

Nikon 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens AF-S Nikkor
Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR Zoom Lens and
Nikon - AF-S 105/2.8G ED IF VR Vibration Reduction Micro Lens

The one I am least sure about is the 24-120...it feels like a "neither here nor there" lens. Would I be better off with say, a 70mm-200mm or more for real telephoto, and a separate wide lens?

I am brand new to this wonderful art and would value whatever guidance I can get.

[DavidLapin]

Any thoughts on comparison between Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 VR AND
18-200 1:3.5-5.6GII ED?

[MiniChris]

I got the Nikkor 55-300 and couldn't be more pleased with it. It works quite well as a "macro" and nicely as a long lens.

This is a semi macro - closeup shot I made with this lens from about 4 feet away, slightly overcast day.



And this one from about 100 feet at the 55mm end

[Shadowman]

It would depend on what setting you use the lens and what it is you feel is lacking at that setting. How well does the lens perform at f/4 versus f/5.6?

[John Varndell]

The 70-200mm f2.8 is a wonderful lens and by adding a 2X Teleconverter you will get exceptional zoom qualities. Obviously the TC slows the lens from f2.8 to f5.6, but in good light it remains a fast lens.
John (just joined the group today!!)

[Black Pearl]

The 24-120mm is a FX lens that is meant to go on the D700 not the D7000 - though it will fit and work before anyone starts.

The equivalent DX lens is the 16-85mm (24-127.5mm with the crop factor added) which while it's not a f4 is a very sharp lens and a better around solution. Your other option would be a Nikon 10-24mm to go with what you have. Lots of swapping lenses but they fit nicely together focal length wise.

[MiniChris]

The 70-200mm f2.8 is a wonderful lens and by adding a 2X Teleconverter you will get exceptional zoom qualities. Obviously the TC slows the lens from f2.8 to f5.6, but in good light it remains a fast lens.
John (just joined the group today!!)

Nice, very expensive lens..maybe someday.

[tclune]

Any thoughts on comparison between Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4 VR AND
18-200 1:3.5-5.6GII ED?

In terms if IQ, there is no comparison -- the 24-120 is much better. The 18-200 is generally viewed as the best of the travel lenses available for Nikon, which is a bit like saying that it is the least smelly pig in the sty.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

You haven't really mentioned what sort of shots you are focussing on taking the most of.

The 24-120mm is a FX lens that is meant to go on the D700 not the D7000 - though it will fit and work before anyone starts.

... on the D7000 this is an equivalent of a 36-180mm. You might be finding it is as a neither here nor there lens because it's probably a bit too narrow for landscape shots and just a touch to short as a zoom. It may not be a tremendously fast lens but it might suit you if you enjoy taking a lot of portrait shots.

The equivalent DX lens is the 16-85mm (24-127.5mm with the crop factor added) which while it's not a f4 is a very sharp lens and a better around solution.

I have something similar - a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 lens which is what's on my D7000 as my "walk-around" lens. I've not delved into landscapes or architecture shots yet but in terms of a general purpose lens, I find it's wide enough for tight spaces and long enough for portrait shots.

For a zoom I have an old Tokina 28-200mm which might be on the camera 5% of the time. It only sees use when I'm shooting photos of my kids playing sports where I can't get close to them. I rarely use the wide aspect of this lens.

In terms if IQ, there is no comparison -- the 24-120 is much better. The 18-200 is generally viewed as the best of the travel lenses available for Nikon, which is a bit like saying that it is the least smelly pig in the sty.

I agree with Tom here. Great for convenience, not great for high quality shots if you believe the reviews. Given that you've also purchased a 50mm and the 105 micro I would assume that you're not averse to swapping lenses so you can probably rule out the 18-200mm.

I think the question you need to answer first is what style of photo you want to focus taking. That might point you in the direction of what lens you need to fill a gap - if you indeed have one. Everyone's different so it's best to be specific about what you think your missing.

[krispix]

Hi David,
The 24-120mm is probably not the best choice for the D7000 as it's a FX lens and you're carrying a lot of extra weight that you're not benefiting from. The DX version of this lens (f3.5-5.6) is half the price and probably half the weight. Also, on a DX camera like the D7000 it's only giving you a slightly wide-angle and not a very powerful telephoto at the other end. The 18-200mm would have been a better choice, pitched at a midway price between the two lenses.
As others have opined, the important thing is to decide what you want to do. You've got a nifty-fifty which is a great lens especially for out-and-about shooting. You've got the 105 Macro, which many would gladly give up their left leg for, which is a terrific lens for close-up work. Then you've got a 'walk-about' zoom which will cover most everyday needs.
If your thing is landscapes, you will find a good wide angle useful. Say, 10mm or thereabouts.
If you're into portraiture you'll find your 50mm is a great choice.
If you want to do sport (motor racing, tennis, football etc), you'll probably want something around the 200mm mark
Finally, if you want to do wildlife you'll probably want a 300 or 400mm, and the fastest you can afford (and carry!).
My immediate advice would be to try to return the 24-120 to the dealer (he's mis-sold it, so you shouldn't have a problem) and replace it with something that better fits what you want to do.

[Polar01]

David: one thing to be aware of is the location of the writer, that is a person that shoots landscape in the UK would use a wider lens as you and I who live in North America our scale of distance is greater for landscape and as such a lens that is not as wide but has a greater reach is better. I use the Nikon 16-85, most of the time, Yellowstone, the Eastern Altantic, Iceland, it works well in all these areas. One for a longer reach is the 70-300 VR is an excellent choice, now you have 24-450mm covered with just 2 lens. If you are shooting landscapes you do not need as fast a lens as you will be set up on a tripod so what is the lost of 1-stop.

[DavidLapin]

Thank you Chris. Your pictures are magnificent. I thought about this lens, it seems almost ridiculously well priced for what it is, why is that? What are its drawbacks?

I got the Nikkor 55-300 and couldn't be more pleased with it. It works quite well as a "macro" and nicely as a long lens.

This is a semi macro - closeup shot I made with this lens from about 4 feet away, slightly overcast day.



And this one from about 100 feet at the 55mm end

[krispix]

David: one thing to be aware of is the location of the writer, that is a person that shoots landscape in the UK would use a wider lens as you and I who live in North America our scale of distance is greater for landscape and as such a lens that is not as wide but has a greater reach is better. I use the Nikon 16-85, most of the time, Yellowstone, the Eastern Altantic, Iceland, it works well in all these areas. One for a longer reach is the 70-300 VR is an excellent choice, now you have 24-450mm covered with just 2 lens. If you are shooting landscapes you do not need as fast a lens as you will be set up on a tripod so what is the lost of 1-stop.

Touche.

Sorry, I forget that the wide-open spaces are different from our cramped little island. Your point is well made Allan. Thanks for that.

[MiniChris]

Thank you Chris. Your pictures are magnificent. I thought about this lens, it seems almost ridiculously well priced for what it is, why is that? What are its drawbacks?

In lowered light conditions, it doesn't track focus as well as I would like on fast moving, relatively close subjects - like a flock of commorants or seagulls. It does fine for slow movers like pelicans. I find the manual focus lacking at the far end of your focal length, say 240-300mm but agreeably okay in the shorter ranges, 55-135. The 135-220 range, at least for my camera, f/11 or above to be its finest place. I mostly shoot this lens in shutter priority with moving objects and aperture priority for handheld, bright sunny day, regular everyday subjects. For precise work, I always use a tripod and manual exposure, spot meter.

[DavidLapin]

So far seems to work fine, I am just not sure that 24-120 is the most useful range for me.

It would depend on what setting you use the lens and what it is you feel is lacking at that setting. How well does the lens perform at f/4 versus f/5.6?

[DavidLapin]

In terms if IQ, there is no comparison -- the 24-120 is much better. The 18-200 is generally viewed as the best of the travel lenses available for Nikon, which is a bit like saying that it is the least smelly pig in the sty.

Thank you Tom, makes me feel better. It is wonderful and will probably become my "everyday" lens. I guess I'll just need to get a 10-24mm and maybe one day something that takes me into the 200-400mm range.

[DavidLapin]

You might be finding it is as a neither here nor there lens because it's probably a bit too narrow for landscape shots and just a touch to short as a zoom. It may not be a tremendously fast lens but it might suit you if you enjoy taking a lot of portrait shots.

Exactly right! This is my only concern about it.

[DavidLapin]

You haven't really mentioned what sort of shots you are focussing on taking the most of...I think the question you need to answer first is what style of photo you want to focus taking. That might point you in the direction of what lens you need to fill a gap - if you indeed have one. Everyone's different so it's best to be specific about what you think your missing.

Malcolm, I think the range is still wide and may narrow. Right now it's nature (both micro and landscape) and people. I wonder if an addition of a 10-24mm might give me what I need?

[DavidLapin]

Hi David,
My immediate advice would be to try to return the 24-120 to the dealer (he's mis-sold it, so you shouldn't have a problem) and replace it with something that better fits what you want to do.

Thank you, Chris. I am going to do just that and get a 10-24 and the 18-200 instead.

[thequacksoflife]

i'd agree that the 24-120 is not the right lens for a d7000 but...

the 18-200 is a travel lens (nowt wrong with that I own a travel lens ) and it suffers from focus breathing i.e. its only 200mm at infinity the closer you get it becomes more like a 135......

if it was me I'd get a 16-85 (well I do have one).

if you want more poke get either the 55-300 a dx lens or the 70-300 an fx lens that is perfectly fine on a dx camera (I use one).

consider a lens like the 10-24 later

lots of good nikon reviews here www.bythom.com