Which lenses for D7500?

[Fishrrman]

Hello all -

I'm currently using a SONY a58, a decent mirrorless camera which I got for a good price a few years ago.
However, I'm thinking of buying the Nikon D7500 when it's released next month. Both are APS-c type formats. Last Nikon I owned was an FTn in 1971 -- so I've been "out of the Nikon world" for a long time!

I'm wondering which DX format lenses I ought to be considering?

One of my main interests will be concert photography at -small- outdoor venues (bluegrass festivals, an entirely different world apart from rock bands in big venues, bar music, etc.).
During the day these are "natural light" (no stage lighting).
At dusk into the evening there is lighting, but generally not of the quality as one would see at a "large, high-priced" venue.

I've found that using a 70-300 Tamron with the SONY gives a pretty good range, which allows me to keep "back in the audience" slightly, but still able to get tight closeups because the crop factor results in the "300" actually producing an image equivalent to about 450 (in "35mm").

I see that Nikon offers a DX 16-300 with vibration reduction. Expensive but could serve as a "one-lens" solution, at least with which to get started.
Has anyone used this? Could you comment?

If not that, I was thinking:
1. Nikkor DX 18-140 VR (can be bought bundled with camera)
2. Nikkor DX 70-300 VR
These two might be "all I need".
BUT -- I've read that the 70-300 loses sharpness above, say, 220mm or so.
Does anyone own this lens? Could you comment?

Are there 3rd-party lenses that are as good, or better?
If so, which ones?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Hello all -

I'm currently using a SONY a58, a decent mirrorless camera which I got for a good price a few years ago.
However, I'm thinking of buying the Nikon D7500 when it's released next month. Both are APS-c type formats. Last Nikon I owned was an FTn in 1971 -- so I've been "out of the Nikon world" for a long time!

I'm wondering which DX format lenses I ought to be considering?

One of my main interests will be concert photography at -small- outdoor venues (bluegrass festivals, an entirely different world apart from rock bands in big venues, bar music, etc.).
During the day these are "natural light" (no stage lighting).
At dusk into the evening there is lighting, but generally not of the quality as one would see at a "large, high-priced" venue.

I've found that using a 70-300 Tamron with the SONY gives a pretty good range, which allows me to keep "back in the audience" slightly, but still able to get tight closeups because the crop factor results in the "300" actually producing an image equivalent to about 450 (in "35mm").

I see that Nikon offers a DX 16-300 with vibration reduction. Expensive but could serve as a "one-lens" solution, at least with which to get started.
Has anyone used this? Could you comment?

If not that, I was thinking:
1. Nikkor DX 18-140 VR (can be bought bundled with camera)
2. Nikkor DX 70-300 VR
These two might be "all I need".
BUT -- I've read that the 70-300 loses sharpness above, say, 220mm or so.
Does anyone own this lens? Could you comment?

Are there 3rd-party lenses that are as good, or better?
If so, which ones?

I own the 70-300mm. I don't use it much as I have the 200-500, but I'll dig out some images when I'm on my Mac.

 

[mollyc]

Personally I hate the idea of crop lenses because if ever you upgrade to full frame you need all new lenses.

I admit I don't know the DX lens lineup as I do shoot full frame but just something to keep in mind.

 

[Stefan johansson]

For small concerts outdoor,I use a 70-210 lens for my nex-7,should work well with similar lens for Nikon.
Too long telephoto lenses usually demand a tripod,but the 70-210 can easily be used handheld with a little practice.

 

[Fishrrman]

I doubt I'll ever move to a Nikon FX format.
If anything, I -might- consider a Nikon mirrorless in the future (when they finally get released).

 

[simonsi]

The 70-300 isn't a crop lens anyway. The sharpness is very good but as with all non-Pro quality and price the sharpness does fall off a bit when at full zoom and wider than f/8.

I would have thought lighting and consequent shutter speed would be your issue given there is the likelyhood of some subject movement but I shoot with a D300s and the high ISO performance is the limiting factor in poor light.

Maybe try and rent a lens before you buy especially if looking at expensive glass, it can make the difference in confidence that it IS the right lens for you when you buy...

 

[mofunk]

If you are going to shoot concerts and other stuff you might need two lenses (zoom and prime). You would need a lens that shoots at f/2.8 or lower, like a 50mm f/1.8 or 24-70mm f/2.8. Rarely you would need a 70-200mm which would get you closer to the drummer or tight portraits. If you feel you need the 70-200mm, the 70-200mm f/4 would work well since you would be shooting with stage lights.


Depending on your budget... another option is to get a used 35-70mm f/2.8 which is great for shooting concerts and will give you a zoom lens. Pair that with a 50mm or 35mm lens prime lens.

I want to mention the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 which is great lens. I found that the Nikkor 24-70mm was a little bit faster than the 17-55mm. Again, not knowing you budget you can buy the new D7500 and pair it with a prime lens and one of the zoom lenses mentioned. But make sure it shoots at an Aperture f/2.8 or lower.

 

[spacedcadet]

Check out bythom.com / dslrbodies.com for all your Nikon lens review needs. http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html

 

[admwright]

I was thinking:
1. Nikkor DX 18-140 VR (can be bought bundled with camera)
2. Nikkor DX 70-300 VR
These two might be "all I need".
BUT -- I've read that the 70-300 loses sharpness above, say, 220mm or so.
Does anyone own this lens? Could you comment?

Are there 3rd-party lenses that are as good, or better?
If so, which ones?

For option 2 are you meaning the new AF-P lens? If so then it seems to get good reviews even up to 300mm. Where I have seen comments about poorer performance from 200-300 is on the old AF-S FX VR lens not the new AF-P DX VR.

If you find the 70-300 range works for you on the Sony, then this would be the same on a Nikon DX.

 

[rayriceroni00]

Have been in to DSLRs for about a decade now. Started with the D90. Now own the D7200.

Kit lenses are typically frustrating (you listed all kit lenses basically). Their image quality isn't great. They are slow to focus. Their aperture is terrible and variable. When you're wide open at 5.6 and have to tighten to f/8 to get a somewhat sharp image, that's not fun.

I'd suggest starting with the 18-140 maybe to get used to the camera. You're probably better off with the 35 1.8 or 50 1.8. Significantly sharper. For long range, you'll eventually want something sharp like a 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8. I adore the 85 1.8, but that may a bit short for your usage. It's insanely sharp though. Would work at concerts if you're close.
[doublepost=1495585770][/doublepost]

Personally I hate the idea of crop lenses because if ever you upgrade to full frame you need all new lenses.

I admit I don't know the DX lens lineup as I do shoot full frame but just something to keep in mind.

It depends. Half my lenses are FX already.