is a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8G ED + D7000 a waste?

[J.davis]

I use the Sigma 2.8 24-70 as my walkaround lens on the D7000 and am quiet happy.
When travelling OS it stays on the camera and works very well.

[danny]

Wow! What a difference a day makes. I just got to a computer to discover this thread going..... Well just going!

I suppose I could have asked... is the D7000 good enough for the lens mentioned? The initial question was asked to make sure that I wasn't going overboard buying a lens of that calibre with an "enthusiasts" camera. judging by all your wonderful responses the answer is that it is a great combination. But a D700 would be better .

So once again thank you for all answering and taking the time to respond. All going well I will order D7000 and lens mentioned ASAP.

[zollo]

http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/nikon-d7000-vs-nikon-d700-high-iso.html[/url]

Nice links jm. If you Took the time to read them yourself you would be suprised at the conclusion to them. I'll quote it so you can keep enjoying your popcorn

"That said, if I didn't already own a D700, I'd have a tough time deciding whether to buy two Nikon D7000 bodies, or to go with a D700 / D7000 combination. I suspect I might just end up with two D7000's."

[jamesridley]

would a 120mm - 400mm sigma lens be sufficient on a d7000 , i have a d5000 thought of up grading 2 either the d7000 or wait for the d400 if it ever comes out to improve on light gathering whats your opinion on this

[JM Tran]

Nice links jm. If you Took the time to read them yourself you would be suprised at the conclusion to them. I'll quote it so you can keep enjoying your popcorn

"That said, if I didn't already own a D700, I'd have a tough time deciding whether to buy two Nikon D7000 bodies, or to go with a D700 / D7000 combination. I suspect I might just end up with two D7000's."

Obviously I had read that article ages ago, I was highlighting the fact about the difference in detail retention and less aggressive NR of the D700 - in which the poster has, and in which I once had. Thank you for bringing this up again? Or not. How is your D7000 going? I couldnt care less if that poster bought 20 D7000s later on to decorate his house - its not the point I was highlighting, which was - The Nikon D7000 also appears to be applying more aggresive noise reduction at the higher ISO settings compared to the D700. Specifically look at the detail in the tiger's nose fur at the higher ISO settings. You can see the D700 is doing better than the D7000. Again, I imagine this is Nikon's approach to maximizing image quality and minimizing noise.

Over-all, the Nikon D7000 fairs very well against the Nikon D700, especially up to ISO 6,400. At ISO 12,800 and 25,600, the D700 does noticably better than the D7000 at resolving detail with less noise.

Now please, this thread has already been hijacked enough and the facts has already been mentioned. Lets all move on.

[swifty]

Well that escalated quickly

Not wishing to dwell on the subject but hopefully I can provide some perspective.
There's a lot of info/evidence presented and they aren't necessarily contradictory.
Where reach is an issue, pixel density matters and Lance has shown some excellent examples. And in this scenario a D7k should be compared to the DX crop of a D700. D7000 will definitely be the winner here at pretty much all ISO's cos we're comparing equal sensor areas and the D7000 has a newer, more efficient Sony Exmor sensor. And by extension if you still need to crop heavily on DX, you may be better with a Nikon V1 or D3200.
Where you can utilize the entire frame, which is a scenario common to Jackie's line of shooting, FX will have a little more than double the sensor area than DX equating to roughly 1 stop which is what we see in the real world. The newer Sony design is slightly more efficient so the difference is a little less than 1 stop but what happens when you use the same technology and expand to FX, you get a D800 and the 1 stop difference is restored.

Coming back to the original question. The 24-70 is absolutely not a waste on DX provided you're comfortable with the effective FL.
One scenario you haven't contemplated and will give you very similar results as a D7000 and 24-70 is any FX camera with a 24-120/f4. Except you don't get the wide end limitations.

[Lance B]

Well that escalated quickly

Not wishing to dwell on the subject but hopefully I can provide some perspective.
There's a lot of info/evidence presented and they aren't necessarily contradictory.
Where reach is an issue, pixel density matters and Lance has shown some excellent examples. And in this scenario a D7k should be compared to the DX crop of a D700. D7000 will definitely be the winner here at pretty much all ISO's cos we're comparing equal sensor areas and the D7000 has a newer, more efficient Sony Exmor sensor. And by extension if you still need to crop heavily on DX, you may be better with a Nikon V1 or D3200.
Where you can utilize the entire frame, which is a scenario common to Jackie's line of shooting, FX will have a little more than double the sensor area than DX equating to roughly 1 stop which is what we see in the real world. The newer Sony design is slightly more efficient so the difference is a little less than 1 stop but what happens when you use the same technology and expand to FX, you get a D800 and the 1 stop difference is restored.

Coming back to the original question. The 24-70 is absolutely not a waste on DX provided you're comfortable with the effective FL.
One scenario you haven't contemplated and will give you very similar results as a D7000 and 24-70 is any FX camera with a 24-120/f4. Except you don't get the wide end limitations.

I think you have summed it up very well, Swifty.

[Goatch]

You won't go wrong with the 24-70 , as everyone says good glass means everything , here's 1 more from the same combination , I too have the D700 and the more I use the D7000 I'm realising that it's not too far off the pace .

[livio]

Wow what a thread, I have a D7000 and I have been buying AFS lenses 50mm-f/1.4, 14-24-f/2.8, 70-200-f/2.8 I also have a 16-85 DX f/3.5-5.6 I have been going this way because I have always had the belief that buying good glass is the way to go. The D7000 has been mixed bag for me I get really good results using the 70-200 lens, mediocre results on the 14-24 lens and crap results using the 50mm. I have tested this and it has to do with a back focus issue. I can get close to correcting it by cranking it to -20 using the AFT adjustment. The DX 16-85 lens handles great I get really good clean pictures. So where is this heading, bottom line is that you can't go wrong buying up good glass and be prepared that lens / body combinations do make a difference to sharpness. I have a new camera which is FX sensor but I'm not going to get rid of the D7000 any time real soon. It is a great camera and it is small and it is packed with features. As for High ISO photos it will depend on a number of factors I set mine to a maximum ISO of 3200 this is my preference only the camera will do better than that and depending on light will give you good results. In my opinion the 24-70 is a very worthwhile lens to have in your kit it is versatile and gives you choice. If I were you I would take the chance and go for it.

Kind Regards
Livio

[J.davis]

jamesridley


would a 120mm - 400mm sigma lens be sufficient on a d7000 , i have a d5000 thought of up grading 2 either the d7000 or wait for the d400 if it ever comes out to improve on light gathering whats your opinion on this

I use the Sigma 120-400 on my D7000 and am happy with the results - for a long lens. You don't get much in the frame at 120 and need to do a lot of walking to get anything wide out of it.
Used in conjunction with a 24-70 or 24-120, you have a good allround setup, in my opinion.

[enigmatic]

Wow, what are the chances! I currently have a d3000, and have been toying with the idea of a 24-70 for an upcoming overseas trip... as well as body upgrade (if the cash is there!)

Some great info, so thanks from another

[danny]

Just when I thought I had the answers.... Now the D600 has been released in all it's glory. A D600 with a cheaper lens is about the same price.

Now I think a D600 + tamron 28-75 2.8 is the way to go....

[WhoDo]

Just when I thought I had the answers.... Now the D600 has been released in all it's glory. A D600 with a cheaper lens is about the same price.

Now I think a D600 + tamron 28-75 2.8 is the way to go....

Just remember, camera bodies will come and go but the lens will last a lifetime ... even if you don't go for quality glass. IOW, if you buy cheap glass you'll be stuck with it forever. No-one ever buys cheap glass secondhand! Just a thought.

[I @ M]

Now I think a D600 + tamron 28-75 2.8 is the way to go....

Don't skimp on lenses. The Tamron 28-75 is a well regarded lens but it is probably a little dated and probably not up to the job on a high(er) resolution present day body.
Perhaps have a look at their new 24-70 lens.

[danny]

Andrew - was also looking at the AF-S 24-85mm kit lens that is being offered with the D600.

Danny

[I @ M]

Andrew - was also looking at the AF-S 24-85mm kit lens that is being offered with the D600.

Danny

Reviews of either the Nikon 24-85 or the Tamron 24-70 are a bit scarce at the moment but the pros and cons of them to me are out there on paper at least.

The Nikon has a street price of $665 and "kits" combined with the D600 seem to be typically $3,000.00 which seems to be about body + lens price.
The Tamron is listed at about $1200.00 so it is nearly 2x as expensive and nearly 2x times as heavy.
Both have VR which is a handy addition to a mid range zoom such as these.
The Tamron has a maximum aperture of F/2.8 throughout the focal length range whereas the Nikon is listed at F/3.5 to F/4.5, personally I would prefer the constant maximum aperture of the Tamron for the extra shallow depth of field available at all focal lengths.
The Nikon is in shops now, I think the Tamron is still in short supply at the moment.
Going from the limited number of images from either on the 'net at the moment, both appear to offer very good quality.

How deep are your pockets?

[WhoDo]

How deep are your pockets?

Must be pretty deep, Andrew, because the D7000 body is out there for around $800+[eGlobal site sponsor] at the moment and he's contemplating the D600 at $2300+ instead. Buy the D600 and the Nikon 24-85 locally and he would be up for over $3k - that's D800 territory as rich guys like you know only too well.

[danny]

Not crazy deep I assure you!! Hence the long discussion and thought process instead of just going out and buying. I am just trying to get the best value for money.

I started looking at the D7000 as it seemed the best upgrade to my D3000. This body combined with the 24-70 nikon seemed like a great combination. Now all of a sudden the D600 has arrived and I am trying to way up spending the extra $1K.

Grey market...
D7000 + 24-70 nikon = $2400
D600 + 24-70 tamron = $3100
D600 + "kit lens" = $2600


I actually think I am over thinking the hole thing... maybe I should just order something quickly before I change my mind again.

Danny

[Tommo1965]

out of those combos Id go for the D7000 and 24-70 Nikon

great glass that youll still have when you want to upgrade in two years from the D7000

or just buy the lens only and use it on the D3000

what are your other lenses you currently have ? and whats holding back your photography in the D3000 ?

[danny]

Steve -
The major reasons I am looking to upgrade are: lower noise at higher ISO, focus points and LV.

Danny

- - - Updated - - -

On of course the good old fashion reason of just wanting something better