New to DSLR

[Davimin]

Hi all

This is my first post, so please be kind to me.

I'm looking at getting a Nikon D7000 as my first DSLR, I also have a Nikon 90X film SLR. So I've done alot of research, played with alot of SLR and have come up with the D7000.

OK the D7000 wasn't my first choice, it was the Canon 7D and at $1,899 from *removed - members with under 30 days membership and 50 posts are not allowed to promote commercial sites: Admin* I thought why not, I won't have to upgrade the body for a long time. Then my wife had a play and said no way, camera is too heavy and big for her hands. Anyway, the 7D was too complex in the menu department.

Looking at pairing the Nikon D7000 with the 18-105mm kit. I'm also looking at the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD lens which is cheaper than the same Nikon lens. I will be mainly shooting travel portraits with children (under 5) and some family photos (purely amateur stuff liking going to the zoo) but would like to get into DSLR photography as an enthusiast. Also want reasonably good bokeh.

Looking at getting the Nikon D7000 as I want to claim back the GST when going on our cruise soon. So is the Tamron fast in AF and quality (having read the image quality is good but can't find anything about how fast AF is), or wait till I can afford the Nikon 70-300mm lens or buy a grey import. I'm on a budget too but I've read the 55-300mm isn't fast for AF.

Sorry, I don't ask for much. Your comments will be appreciated.

Cheers
Daniel

[ricktas]

Welcome to AP, enjoy the site

[kiwi]

D7000 is a really good choice. I'd actually just get the nikon 18-200 vr rather than the two lenses you mention. Range is fine, better iq, vr. Not the fastest lens in the world but faster than the two you've mentioned

[Davimin]

Thanks Rick. Great forum with lots of info.

D7000 is a really good choice. I'd actually just get the nikon 18-200 vr rather than the two lenses you mention. Range is fine, better iq, vr. Not the fastest lens in the world but faster than the two you've mentioned

Thanks for the response kiwi. I thought that, optically, it is better to get at least 2 lenses rather than a superzoom to cover the focal lengths required. Would the 18-200 vr be sharper and give reasonable bokeh than 2 lenses. Yes I did mention that the camera would be used for travel portraits but I would be using the 18-105 for general purpose as various websites have the lens better than the 18-55 lens. Have I been mis-reading something?

[kiwi]

18-200 better than 18-105 which is better again than the 18-55

[Davimin]

Pardon my ignorance, but how is the 18-200 better?

[kiwi]

just better overall quality and focus speed in my opinion from what Ive read and seen. You can look at DPReview for reviews of each lens

[raccoon]

I have to 18-200 and i am very happy with it, auto focus is quite quick.

i nearly bought the Tamron 70-300 but when i tested it it was heavy and clunky in the zoom movement, so i ended up with the Nikon 70-300..very happy with that.

But buy the 18-200 first. Then if you want to look at a super zoom look at the Sigma 150-500 ( i am looking at this at the moment and may get rid of the Nikon 70-300 in the long run to by the Sigma)

good luck and let us know what you end up buying

[Davimin]

....so i ended up with the Nikon 70-300..very happy with that.

Thanks for the info, but what do you use the Nikon 70-300 that the 18-200 wouldn't do?

[raccoon]

to answer your question.. not much, that is why i am looking at the Sigma 150-500. I am still evaluating where my interests lie ie nature or landscapes etc

[kiwi]

There's 50% more reach with the 75-300 but yes, between 75-200 they will be very similar

I think you should buy one good lens and see after awhile where else you heed to go, eg wider, further, closer or faster

[Davimin]

Happy new year and thanks to the very useful advice. One last question, do you recommend sticking with Nikon for the 18-200 or look at a third party? Nikon 18-200 has some good reviews but I thought I'd just throw in a curve ball.

[ricktas]

Happy new year and thanks to the very useful advice. One last question, do you recommend sticking with Nikon for the 18-200 or look at a third party? Nikon 18-200 has some good reviews but I thought I'd just throw in a curve ball.

The Nikon 18-200 is a good all round, general purpose lens, it isnt in the league of the Pro series lenses, but it is quite capable of providing you with a good zoom that will serve you well. The only thing I would suggest you watch is lens creep, basically if you zoom the lens to 200 and point it up at the sky, it can 'creep' back down from 200mm, same if you have it at 18mm and point it down at the ground, it can creep back towards 200mm. Otherwise it is a good lens and in the right hands can produce some stunning photography.

[kiwi]

Lens creep was fixed in the latest version I think Rick, otherwise excellent review

[RRRoger]

If I could only have one lens for my DX camera, it would be the Nikkor 18-200.
None of the similar 3rd party lens are equal to the Nikon.

I also carry a 10-24, 35 f/1.8, and 28-300 in that bag.
If you want more than one lens, these three would cover the range very well.
The FX 28-300 is superior to the DX 18-200 but also cost more.
The 35 f/1.8 is exceptional sharp and works well in low light and for video.
The 10-24 is about as wide as you can go without a FishEye effect.

The 80-400 works very well with the D7000 as does the 70-200 and other lens that each cost more than the camera.

Something to think about. DSLR cameras are like computers. There will always be better ones so they will not hold their value.
However, that does not make them less useful. And, they may be good enough for many years.
Lens can be an investment. Most of my best Nikkors could be sold for more than I paid for them.

[Davimin]

Thanks, I've gone back to considering the Canon 7D. My wife is fine with that now. You are right lens are the investment and bodies come and go. Have to consider the advantages of one over the other.