IQ-appropriate lens for D7000

[Paul Stalker]

Appreciative of any opinions...
I'm buying a D7000 and need to pick a first lens for near-to-far landscape photography. I'm a fairly fussy hobbiest and looking forward to seeing prints from it out of my 3800 via Lightroom. I don't think I can be too concerned with speed. My biggest concern is to get an IQ-appropriate lens which matches the camera quality IQ. Lots of lens-only reviews out there but I have found very little info in searching on this aspect of lens choice...matching specific camera model IQ. I have at most $1k available for the initial lens. Is the more flexible DX 16-85mm good enough for the D7000??? Otherwise I think I'm looking at 1 or 2 low/mid-level primes since I can't afford a pro zoom...yet, if ever. Thanks.

[langier]

Rent one and see if it will work for you!

I'd try Lensrentals.com and perhaps, rent a couple of the lenses I'd be interested in and give them a whirl under the normal conditions I shoot under for a week or so. It would be money well spent and give you a chance for some hands-on playing without putting out a lot of money guessing what would work best.

[JBerardi]

Is the more flexible DX 16-85mm good enough for the D7000???

Well, a zoom is not going to be as sharp or as fast as the primes would be, I can tell you that. Is that good enough? That's your call. Renting is a good idea.

As far as matching specific optics to specific cameras, I'm not sure how much there is too that (DxOMark seems to put a lot of emphasis on it, but I think their lens rating system is pretty goofy). A good lens is a good lens for the most part. What can be said is that at 16mp, the D7000 is not going to be hiding any of your lens' limitations.

What focal lengths do you see yourself needing?

[stever]

only the best primes will realize the potential of the D7000 (or anything else with such small pixels).  i'd forget about zooms for landscape

photozone.de has some tests of Nikon primes on DX cameras which may be useful for comparative purposes.  dpreview has a couple tests of Nikon primes

lensrentals.com is very easy to deal with and they've got just about evrything

how about a zeiss 35?

[Michael LS]

I've been shooting a D7000 now for a few weeks, and quickly learned the consumer zoom I was using on a D80 wouldn't work on the D7000, unless I was happy with two D80's  (Except one of the D80's being waay faster and sweeter!)

Most of the time a Nikon 50mm 1.8 has been on the camera. The D7000 is now able to show the tack-sharp detail and clarity it's capable of. You can find this lens at Adorama or B&H for around $125 (!), so you might want to start there. Of course, on APS-C it's approx 75mm, but you may find that useful. Just try to shoot it at f/5.6 thru f/8, if you get one. Btw, all these people complaining on forums that they can't get a sharp picture from their D7000's...most gotta be doing something wrong. Nikon couldn't have let that many bad cameras slip through quality control.

As for zooms, I'm in the same position as you. The Nikon 16-85 zoom has a reputation for being one of the sharpest DX zooms, and the price is not too terrible. But once you see what a prime can do for this camera, you'll want to put the best glass on it, which is why I'm also considering the Nikon 24-70. That lens has near-prime resolution, and is much less expensive than buying the several Nikon or Zeiss primes you'd need to cover the same range. Plus, if you ever go full-frame, well, there ya go.

You could get a Nikon 35mm dx prime, plus a Sigma 105mm macro or 150mm macro prime that would be within your $1000 budget. They are supposed to be sharp, according to many users and reviews. Good luck and good shooting!

[LKaven]

The 24-70, while outside the OP's budget, measures as sharp as any wide prime in the Nikon catalog.  At 24, it is as sharp as the 24/1.4 even when stopped down.

[NashvilleMike]

I picked up a D7000 to see what all the fuss is about; a surprisingly nice camera and I think it will fit in the small corners of my backpack and serve as a spare camera quite nicely. (I shoot mostly with a D700, so I need a spare that isn't too big).

I agree with the other folks who have responded about renting to see what works best. In my experience with lenses, and I am very very picky, it likes the pro primes and the 70-200/2.8 VR2 zoom the best. However, there is one lens that very few folks in the land of Nikon ever talk about that positively rocks, just truly works in synergy with this camera, and that is the 60/2.8G AFS Micro. I honestly don't know of a lens under a grand that would get even close to the image quality of this particular combination. The 50/1.4G AFS isn't bad either, nor is the 50/1.8, but neither gets my heart pumping like the D7000 & 60/2.8G AFS combination. A truly excellent synergy that I can't recommend highly enough.

I liked the results of the 16-85 on a D300, but I don't currently own the lens and haven't used it on a D7000 to have any opinion. It might be worth a shot, although I don't think it will be "excellent", but rather a "good enough until you can afford the fancy stuff" option. The D7000 really does like caviar and fine dining followed by a drive home to the summer cottage in the Ferrari Enzo, when it comes to lenses, so start saving!

-mike

[Michael LS]

The 24-70, while outside the OP's budget, measures as sharp as any wide prime in the Nikon catalog.  At 24, it is as sharp as the 24/1.4 even when stopped down.

Glad to hear that...another check mark in the 24-70's favor. Another lens I'm considering is the newer 24-120 VRII f/4.
Test show it to be much better than the prior 24-120. Just wondering if the VR will offset some of the 24-70's
goodness. Depends on style and subject matter, of course. I like to stay mobile- don't use a tripod unless forced to.
But, with the D7000, I can shoot at a higher iso to partially offset the VR advantage. I'll be glad when these decisions are
made so I can go back to photography 

Apologies, didn't wish to hijack the OP's thread with my own concerns. Hopefully, all input helps.

[Michael LS]

60/2.8G AFS Micro...ok! Thanks for that- was not aware of that lens. Looking into it...

[Graystar]

Lots of lens-only reviews out there but I have found very little info in searching on this aspect of lens choice...matching specific camera model IQ.

The reason is that this idea of matching lens IQ to the camera is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Considering a maximum print dimension of 22”, a viewing distance of only 50cm, and 20/20 vision, the diffraction calculator at Cambridge In Colour tells us that at f/5.6 you’re already diffraction limited for a 16 MP 1.5X crop sensor.  In fact, it’s diffraction limited at 12 MP...which is what my D90 is.  You have to go to f/4 for detail to be limited by pixel density at 16 MP (and at 12MP as well.)  But it takes a fairly expensive zoom lens to be at its best at f/4.  According to SLRGear.com, only the Nikon 70-200mm is at its sharpest at f/4.  The 16-85mm is at its sharpest at f/8. In fact, all of Nikon’s wide and standard zooms are sharpest at f/5.6 or smaller.

The truth is that there isn’t much difference between 16 MP and 12 MP in terms of the resolvability of detail.  We’re talkin’ pixel sizes of 5.6um vs. 4.8um.  That means for every 6 pixels on the 12MP sensor, you get 7 pixels on the 16MP sensor.  It’s more, but it’s not earth shattering.  That’s what the test images at Imaging Resource demonstrate...it takes a bit of pixel peeping to actually find an area where the 16MP image displays more detail than the 12MP image of the same scene.  So unless you’re going to spend 2 grand on a 14mm or 24mm prime, forget any concept of matching the lens IQ to your camera...your camera will always out-resolve the lens.  That’s why people complain about lack of sharpness with the D7000 (and to some extent, the D90) when pixel-peeping.  It’s not a lack of sharpness...they simply don’t understand that they’re looking at the diffraction limits of the lens.

And they really can’t seem to understand that it’s the printed output that matters most.  For any given print size, detail in prints is about equal between 12MP and 16MP for common lenses because, once again, the limit to detail is not the pixel density but the diffraction of the lens.  Only with an exceptional lens will you see a difference.

[Michael LS]

The reason is that this idea of matching lens IQ to the camera is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Considering a maximum print dimension of 22”, a viewing distance of only 50cm, and 20/20 vision, the diffraction calculator at Cambridge In Colour tells us that at f/5.6 you’re already diffraction limited for a 16 MP 1.5X crop sensor.  In fact, it’s diffraction limited at 12 MP...which is what my D90 is.  You have to go to f/4 for detail to be limited by pixel density at 16 MP (and at 12MP as well.)  But it takes a fairly expensive zoom lens to be at its best at f/4.  According to SLRGear.com, only the Nikon 70-200mm is at its sharpest at f/4.  The 16-85mm is at its sharpest at f/8. In fact, all of Nikon’s wide and standard zooms are sharpest at f/5.6 or smaller.

The truth is that there isn’t much difference between 16 MP and 12 MP in terms of the resolvability of detail.  We’re talkin’ pixel sizes of 5.6um vs. 4.8um.  That means for every 6 pixels on the 12MP sensor, you get 7 pixels on the 16MP sensor.  It’s more, but it’s not earth shattering.  That’s what the test images at Imaging Resource demonstrate...it takes a bit of pixel peeping to actually find an area where the 16MP image displays more detail than the 12MP image of the same scene.  So unless you’re going to spend 2 grand on a 14mm or 24mm prime, forget any concept of matching the lens IQ to your camera...your camera will always out-resolve the lens.  That’s why people complain about lack of sharpness with the D7000 (and to some extent, the D90) when pixel-peeping.  It’s not a lack of sharpness...they simply don’t understand that they’re looking at the diffraction limits of the lens.

And they really can’t seem to understand that it’s the printed output that matters most.  For any given print size, detail in prints is about equal between 12MP and 16MP for common lenses because, once again, the limit to detail is not the pixel density but the diffraction of the lens.  Only with an exceptional lens will you see a difference.

Your quite right. The reason to purchase a new camera these days should be based on what one was shooting before.
In my case, a D80 to a D7000 is a worthwhile jump. Better iso, resolution, focusing...you name it. If I owned a D90,
there would have been far less reason. Your diffraction info is excellent. Better lenses are necessary on high-res sensors, but
there is a law of diminishing returns in effect.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
                                        -Voltaire

[LesPalenik]

Without any reservations, I would recommend to start with Nikon 35mm DX 1.8 lens.
Inexpensive, very sharp, great colour rendering, even better than the 50mm lens.

But Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens is also good, and so cheap, I would add it, too.
 
For portraits and macro, you can't go wrong with Tamron 90mm Di 2.8 or Nikkor 105mm. 

[Paul Stalker]

Thanks to everyone for the really valuable and interesting input---that’s why I posted here, LuLa forums are great. After considering it all I got myself a D7000 and just the 35mm DX lens today, for now---although I could spend a lot more time and money on my first lens I want to get started now and spend my money wisely later.  I decided to get to know the camera first with a less costly general purpose lens before spending a lot more. After a while I’ll rent several before buying further---other/better primes or possibly the top zoom. Unfortunately lensrentals.com doesn’t ship to Canada but I’m sure there must be others. 
What I’ve learned here is that apparently there is no lens too good for this new camera. That’s great but expensive news.  I’ll be considering all the lenses everyone mentioned.
cheers
Paul

[Peter McLennan]

I recently re-discovered in my kit a Nikkor 55mm F3.5 macro.  It's available everywhere on eBay for less than $200. 
It is incredibly sharp, resolving details even better than my 70-200 at 70mm. Even though it's a fully manual lens, it's a good one to have, if only to demonstrate the outer edges of what your camera can do.

[Robin Casady]

60/2.8G AFS Micro...ok! Thanks for that- was not aware of that lens. Looking into it...

I think that would be an excellent choice for the D700. I have the older AF version, and it is about the sharpest Nikkor I have, even focused at infinity. Both versions are still available at B&H. The AF is about $90 less than the AF-S. Here is a pixel peeping comparison to the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED.

[SeanBK]

I have D7000 for a couple of months. I find Nikon 17-55 zoom w/D7000 along with 105 VR is a great combo.

[BernardLanguillier]

The 60 mm f2.8 AF-S is extremely sharp, but does exhibit some rather importsant light fall off in the corners even stopped down. Not a problem for most usage but I would not recommend it for pano work for instance.

Regards,
Bernard

[Bill Koenig]

The Nikkor DX 12mm to 24mm f4 zoom is great on my D200. Its been said that @ 24mm f5.6- f8 it doesn't get much better, but I can't say how well it would preform on the D7000.
You can't go wrong with the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 or the 85mm f 1.8 for the money, and then there's the new 35mm 1.8 DX.