What lenses would you recommend for a Nikon D7000?
 

I'm exchanging my Olympus gear for a Nikon D7000, but I struggling to narrow down what lenses to choose. I need lenses for photographing firstly my kitchen designs, landscapes, wildlife and I do the occasional family/friend portraits at events/parties or get togethers.

Therefore, I think I'll need a wide angle lens, a telephoto lens and possibly a general everyday walkaround lens.

Anyone got any suggestions, as to what I should choose for reasonably good quality optics offering the very best value for money that would be ideal when paired with the D7000?

Thanks in advance, :)

Wow!
You've just about covered it all.
Yes you will need a wide angle. Nothing less than 10mm because the distortion becomes unmanageable below that. The Sigma 10-20 gets very good reviews, so might be worth considering.
For wildlife you need the other end of the scale and it will depend on the sort of wildlife you're thinking about. If it's a visit to Longleat or your local Zoo then a 150mm will probably be enough, and you can cover that in your walkabout lens. If it's Kenyan safari stuff, you need to be thinking about big lenses, at least 300mm and probably a lot more. To go with that you'll need a camera bracket to fix to the vehicle.
Finally, your walkabout. This will depend on what sort of thing you're looking to photograph but the 18-200mm gives a very good range. It's relatively small, light, inexpensive (for what you get) and fairly fast. It suffers from the most appalling zoom-creep, but that aside it's a pretty good all-rounder. I don't know how the Sigma equivalent stacks up, but might be worth thinking about.

[quote=jet_kit;70193]Wow!
You've just about covered it all.
Yes you will need a wide angle. Nothing less than 10mm because the distortion becomes unmanageable below that. The Sigma 10-20 gets very good reviews, so might be worth considering.
For wildlife you need the other end of the scale and it will depend on the sort of wildlife you're thinking about. If it's a visit to Longleat or your local Zoo then a 150mm will probably be enough, and you can cover that in your walkabout lens. If it's Kenyan safari stuff, you need to be thinking about big lenses, at least 300mm and probably a lot more. To go with that you'll need a camera bracket to fix to the vehicle.
Finally, your walkabout. This will depend on what sort of thing you're looking to photograph but the 18-200mm gives a very good range. It's relatively small, light, inexpensive (for what you get) and fairly fast. It suffers from the most appalling zoom-creep, but that aside it's a pretty good all-rounder. I don't know how the Sigma equivalent stacks up, but might be worth thinking about.[/quote]

Chris,

Thank you for your reply. I'm looking at the Sigma or the award winning Tokina w/a lenses but I'm unsure which is best for the money. I'm considering the Tamron 18-270 (latest version) as my walkaround lens and if I need it, either the Sigma 150-500 or a 105mm Macro? What are your thoughts on any of these?

While the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 gives excellent results it does need bright sunshine to get the best from it. In low light it struggles to focus, but that is the same for most lenses at the 6.3 end. I have the Tokina 28-70mm F2.8 ATX-Pro and it's a heavy but well made lens. Don't use it much now as I have the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8. The Sigma 105mm Macro is also a cracking lens and gives great results. :D

Hi Ian,
You say you're considering the 150-500mm or the 105mm Micro and which would I prefer? That's a bit like saying do you prefer eating or drinking, they're two different lenses for entirely different purposes.
If you're doing the Safari thing then there's no contest - it has to be the big zoom. But, if you want to shoot little bugs on leaves the 105 Macro is the lens of choice.
Once again, only you can decide what you want to do and then pick your lenses to suit. I'm sure Nikon (or Sigma or Tamron) would be delighted to relieve you of loads of cash and equip you with every lens necessary to meet every photographic need, but I fear you could be in debt for some while.
Have a little sit down and ask yourself what sort of photography you want to do and take it up from there. It's perfectly OK to say you want to do Landscapes and Macro work, or Portraiture and Wildlife. But, it's unlikely you'll really want to cover the whole spectrum.

[quote=OldBoy;70200]While the Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 gives excellent results it does need bright sunshine to get the best from it. In low light it struggles to focus, but that is the same for most lenses at the 6.3 end. I have the Tokina 28-70mm F2.8 ATX-Pro and it's a heavy but well made lens. Don't use it much now as I have the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8. The Sigma 105mm Macro is also a cracking lens and gives great results. :D[/quote]

Do you think I'm made of money, Oldboy? I'm really stretching my budget if I go for the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, so that might have to wait for the time being. What I'm trying to weigh up is whether I'll need a longer telephoto lens than the 270mm the Tamron will give me and if not should I get the Macro lens for doing portraits and macro work.

Chris, I do cover a wide spectrum of photography work, as for my hobby I do landscapes predominantly, the occasional family party and a bit of macro work on the flowers and bugs in the garden. For work, I photograph the kitchens that both I and my fellow designers do once they've been fitted and I photograph items of furniture for our company's website and some adverts.

I'm going to Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Bryce Canyon, Arches Parkland, Zion Canyon, Antelope Canyon and Lake Powell next year on a photography holiday, so I just want to make sure I've got all the right kit for that.

Hi Ian,
OK, we've got a better picture of what you're up to now. For your work, your landscapes and your impending trip to Nevada I think the Sigma 10-20 will be a great choice. I've no experience of the Tamron 18-270, but it looks like a winner and a great walk-about lens. I would cautiously suggest that these two may suffice until your finances recover.
You could also consider a 'Nifty-Fifty'. A 50mm prime or either f1.4 or f1.8. This is a fantastic lens (I'm more than happy with my f1.8) and very inexpensive. It works well for portraits and if you want to do some macro with it, look at close-up lenses or extension tubes, then graduate to a 105mm macro later. I guarantee that even if you change all your other lenses in the future, you'll always keep your nifty-fifty.

Hi Ian, long time no see...

So you've moved to the dark side? Welcome...

You can't go wrong with the Sigma 10-20mm. You know my feelings on the f/3.5 vs the f/4-5.6 models so unless you [I]really really[/I] need that extra stop it's not worth the extra money.

The Tamron is a decent all-rounder. I'd be tempted to stick to a smaller focal length and go with something like the Sigma 18-125mm OS which is the direct competitor to the Nikon 18-105mm VR and is optically almost identical. That really depends on how long a focal length you want though.

With regards to macro lenses, or long(ish) primes, I'd avoid the Sigma 105mm. The Nikon 105mm is lovely but very pricey. Consider the Tamron 90mm - it's sharper, better built, easier to use and has a less clunky manual focus override than the Sigma. If you can afford the Nikon though...

The only thing I would add to the comments above is about 50mm primes. My advice is to avoid them like the plague. 50mm on an APS-C sensored camera is a really awkward field of view. It's always a bit too long or a bit too short and it's never a happy medium. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is the ideal normal prime lens for and APS-C camera as it's pretty close to both definitions of "normal" (geometric and angular) and it's a much more comfortable angle of view.

If you want a longer prime, the older AF-D model 85mm f/1.8 is a nice lens too - very sharp and pretty cheap second hand.

[QUOTE=chris-p;70724]The only thing I would add to the comments above is about 50mm primes. My advice is to avoid them like the plague. 50mm on an APS-C sensored camera is a really awkward field of view. It's always a bit too long or a bit too short and it's never a happy medium. The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is the ideal normal prime lens for and APS-C camera as it's pretty close to both definitions of "normal" (geometric and angular) and it's a much more comfortable angle of view.[/QUOTE]

You're right about the 'normal' focal length being closer to the 35mm, but the 50 nowhere near as restrictive as you imply. It is also so much cheaper and I absolutely love mine. So, I'm keeping it!:D

Of course, it's personal preference. I'm not a fan of the field of view but I like a "slightly wider than normal" view anyway.

You're right about 50mm being the cheaper option.