Replacement of lens need help: I have heard that the kit lenses that come with the camera are inferior. I had purchased a d60 and the 18-55 came with the camera. I have purchased a...

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I have heard that the kit lenses that come with the camera are inferior. I had purchased a d60 and the 18-55 came with the camera. I have purchased a d7000 and would like to replace the 18-55 with better glass. What would you replace it with or should I just use the the 18-55?

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

D0r1neK wrote:

I have heard that the kit lenses that come with the camera are inferior. I had purchased a d60 and the 18-55 came with the camera. I have purchased a d7000 and would like to replace the 18-55 with better glass. What would you replace it with or should I just use the the 18-55?

Hey Doc ..... what angle of view are you considering and I'm assuming you talking zoom ..... I have a AF-S Nikkor 16-85mm 1:3.5-5.6GED and recommend it highly.

I have the 18-55 and it works well, I just wanted a wider view.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I have a 55-300 and 35 1.8

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

D0r1neK wrote:

I have a 55-300 and 35 1.8

Your 35 1.8 will let you focus moving subjects better than your 18-55 and your 55-300. It will also allow you to take pictures in low light that you can't do with your 18-55 and 55-300. So you already have the ability to appreciate faster glass.

These two characteristics should be the main reason to buy more expensive lenses.

Do you want another prime, maybe one for portraits where you can control the bokeh or are you thinking about another zoom for fast moving subjects and lower light control.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I wanted it for landscape .

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

Gotta love the faster glass . I wish I could afford it.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

D0r1neK wrote:

Gotta love the faster glass . I wish I could afford it.

The advantage of primes is that you can buy your "faster glass" a bit at a time.

Example:

A big 2.8 zoom might be 1200.00.

But....primes are faster and cheaper at each stage:

A 24mm f/2.8 ($275.00)

A 50mm f/1.8 (considerably faster than the zoom) = $100.00.
(the excellent 1.4 version is only $350.00)

An 85mm f/1.8 (considerably faster than the zoom) = $350.00

So you can do it a bit at a time and get something that's much faster than a zoom that you could have afforded.

And bonus, generally speaking primes are sharper/higher image quality producing than zooms of the same "caliber."

It's another way to go....one that I chose.

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

I and many others here use a 18-270 as a walk around lens. It runs about 650 (not including rebates if any). Do look into that!

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

I thought about that. What would you start with for landscape .

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

D0r1neK wrote:

I thought about that. What would you start with for landscape .

Who are you addressing?

it's probably good to get in the habit of using the quote function for all your posts.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

rpavich wrote:

D0r1neK wrote:

I thought about that. What would you start with for landscape .

Who are you addressing?

it's probably good to get in the habit of using the quote function for all your posts.

I was addressing you. (rpavich)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

D0r1neK wrote:

rpavich wrote:

D0r1neK wrote:

I thought about that. What would you start with for landscape .

Who are you addressing?

it's probably good to get in the habit of using the quote function for all your posts.

I was addressing you. (rpavich)

OH..ok..
Well....if it were me, and I'm assuming that you want to save some cash, I'd choose the 50mm f/1.8 (very cheap and plastic-like but takes fantastic shots) OR the 50mm f/1.4. (very very nice lens and pretty inexpensive as lenses go.)

That is a good "all around lens" that will do landscapes, street, parties, portraits, just about anything.

If you have a crop sensor camera (not full frame) then I'd still go with that lens or possibly the 35mm f/2; another great sharp inexpensive lens.

You will learn what "sneaker zoom" or "foot zoom" is but it's a very satisfying way of shooting. You are forced to position yourself and think about your shots more than if you just used a long zoom.

And if you find that you want a zoom too...then just having a 50mm is not a disaster and you can keep it or sell it for almost what you paid for it.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

[quote=rpavich]

D0r1neK wrote:

rpavich wrote:

D0r1neK wrote:

I thought about that. What would you start with for landscape .

Who are you addressing?

it's probably good to get in the habit of using the quote function for all your posts.

I was addressing you. (rpavich)

OH..ok..
Well....if it were me, and I'm assuming that you want to save some cash, I'd choose the 50mm f/1.8 (very cheap and plastic-like but takes fantastic shots) OR the 50mm f/1.4. (very very nice lens and pretty inexpensive as lenses go.)

That is a good "all around lens" that will do landscapes, street, parties, portraits, just about anything.

If you have a crop sensor camera (not full frame) then I'd still go with that lens or possibly the 35mm f/2; another great sharp inexpensive lens.

You will learn what "sneaker zoom" or "foot zoom" is but it's a very satisfying way of shooting. You are forced to position yourself and think about your shots more than if you just used a long zoom.

And if you find that you want a zoom too...then just having a 50mm is not a disaster and you can keep it or sell it for almost what you paid for it.[/quote

I have a d7000 . I have the 35mm 1.8.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

rpavich wrote:

quote=D0r1neK quote=rpavich quote=D0r1neK I tho... (show quote)

Hey Doc ..... she's has the 35 1.8 already ..... most talk about landscape means talk about wide

A 16-85mm at 16 makes quite a difference compared to a 18-55 at 18mm which she also has.

2mm at the wide end makes a drastic difference vs. 2mm at a long zoom

I suggest you bring your camera with you to a Camera shop and mount one on your camera so you can see the difference.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Wabbit wrote:

Hey Doc ..... she's has the 35 1.8 already ..... most talk about landscape means talk about wide

I didn't see that.

I kept away from wide lenses because i'm assuming that she's not going to buy all her lenses at once and will buy one that will do a lot to start with and wide lenses are trad for landscape but not always...the 50mm will do it; just differently, that's all.