D5000 vs D7000

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by ian clark

You dont say which 300 lens was offered often those that are being pushed on packages tend to be the lower end of quality or stock that has been superceded.
I was duped into the Tamron NEVER AGAIN stuck it in the cupboard within a month and bought Nikon

Fair point but a free lens is still a free lens, and it's better than no lens.

Before you right off all Tamron equipment, the new 70-300mm VC is better than the current Nikon 70-300mm VR. Of course, you're relatively unlikely to get that one free with a camera but you never know.

[johnboy125]

I got a free tamron 70-300 the cheap one and hated it, but i love my tamron 17-50 2.8.
Its not tamron that suck just cheap glass does.

[wotcars]

Matt what verion of lightroom you using?
as http://www.photoradar.com/techniques...od-photography mentions lightroom and tathering

[MattUK]

Version 3.3 - it doesn't support the D7000

[k28slm]

Originally Posted by chris-p

Fair point but a free lens is still a free lens, and it's better than no lens.

Before you right off all Tamron equipment, the new 70-300mm VC is better than the current Nikon 70-300mm VR. Of course, you're relatively unlikely to get that one free with a camera but you never know.

Ok this is the deal we are looking at.
D5000 with 18-55 kit and nikon 55-200 vr lenses, Jessops 360 AFD Digital flash guns, 4gb SD card, 2x52mm UV filters and Trek2 gadget bag. Total £600.
And.
All the above but upgrade the 55-200 vr lens for the Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD macro (Nikon AF). Total £720.
Add a couple of Giottos 9351 pro tripods.Total £1500.

This will give us all we need to start with and build on later. Cheers Keith.

[chris-p]

Thats not a bad deal, all round. I don't think it's worth the extra for the 70-300mm lenses though. it's not a particularly good model anyway, and you loose the image stabilisation as well.

The Giottos tripods are good value for their quality - the 9351 with a pan and tilt head should be £100-£120 at the most.

[k28slm]

The reason I am going for the 70-300 is because it has Macro capability and cant really stretch to a dedicated Macro lens at the moment.

[greenwing]

So, you're swapping a lens that retails at £240 for one that retails at £140, and paying £120 for the priviledge? The 55-200 VR is a cracking little lens, I don't think any of the cheap 70-300s are in its league for image quality. Consider a macro filter if you need to get closer.

Chris

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by k28slm

The reason I am going for the 70-300 is because it has Macro capability and cant really stretch to a dedicated Macro lens at the moment.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is, in any way, a macro lens. I wish lens makers wouldn't call things like this "macro" - it's just not anywhere near true.
The close focus distances of the two lenses are almost identical (1.1m and 1m) so you gain nothing there.

The Nikon also has a ring type AF-S focus motor while the Tamron has a rather old style micro motor. The chromatic aberration in these Tamron lenses is another reason why I'd avoid it, along with the lack of stabilisation.

Of course, its your money, but I would steer clear of the Tamron lens. The extra 100mm on of range on the Tamron is completely outweighed by the poor optical quality above about 140-160mm, the lack of stabilsation and the far superior AF system in the Nikon lens.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by greenwing

So, you're swapping a lens that retails at £240 for one that retails at £140, and paying £120 for the priviledge?

I'd not spotted that! I presume this is Jessops (given the flash that comes with the package). What a complete con! I can see where they make their money now!