Hi Ovidiu,

Good to see you bought the D7000, fantastic camera! As for wedding lenses, I've used the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 Di SP lens (very good for the money) but I have recently upgraded to the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 lens, which should arrive by the end of the week - fingers crossed!

I also use a 50mm 1.8D and 85mm 1.8D, and a Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro lens. I had the Tammy attached to my D7000 + SB-900 with BFT, and the 85mm attached to my D90 for a tele (or the macro etc).

I'll let you know how I find the 24-70 on the D7000. I was going to purchase the 17-55mm, but I do plan on going FF in the new year, as well as purchasing the Nikon 70-200mm.

I have had experience with the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm 2.8 on the D90 before, lovely lens with lovely bokeh. I didn't have any problems with focal range etc. Hope this helps.

My 1st choice for a Nikon DX lens for an all-purpose lens, would be the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8

But if you plan a future upgrade, it has to be the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8
No other mid-range zoom can touch it for image quality. (Canon included.)

Alternately, a used 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S ... a full-frame lens,
that effectively becomes a 24-53mm lens on a DX camera ... and still remains a useful range on a full-frame camera.

Hi Neil just need to clarify, when a dx lense attached to a dx body does the focal length change? or just its angle of view and the focal length remain. Also is 17-55mm focal length useful for portrait?

Thanks,
Erwin

@Sanele and Neil:
Thanks for the useful advice. I'll have a look at the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm 2.8 XR Di II VC LD Asp IF für Nikon (B005N) which seems to be very reasonable priced and let you know what I bought when it happens (which might be within the next few months...)

Please let me know about experiences with the 24-70 on the D7000 as I was doubting that combination would be useful to me due to it actually being a 38-112mm on a DX camera...

@Ovidiu Have had the Nikon 24-70mm on my D7000 for almost a week, and I must say that I'm very happy with it's range. It's 'just' wide enough for me. If I do need to go wider, I think a separate lens might be in order, otherwise very happy with the range on my D7000. Buy it, you wont' regret it :P

given the crop factor on a DX body, wouldnt a 35mm be more useful than a 50mm? I used to own a tamron 28-75 but sold it for nikon 24-70mm. has changed how my images look.

Ovidiu ... on a crop-sensor camera, the 24-70mm becomes a more effective portrait lens. As you noted, the range is close to the traditional 35-105mm lens. And 100 / 105mm is the classic portrait lens on a 35mm film camera.

As an aside, you multiplied by 1.6x which is the Canon crop. Nikon is 1.5x
There's a slight difference then in effective range.

for weddings i use the mostly Nikon 18-200 vr2

I have 2 D90s that I use for events. Lenses are Nikon 70-200m VR1 and Nikon 17-55mm attached to each D90. In my bag you can find 50mm 1.8, Toki 11-16mm wide and Sigma 105mm. I find these combo of lens and camera really shoulder breaking because of its weight but its worth the reason for getting a new shoulder (kidding). I also use a battery grip where the long lens is attached.

I shot a wedding with a DX camera and 17-55 and was very comfortable with the range. I currently shoot both a FX and a DX, and on the DX I'm fond of the 16-85 because it is small and light compared to the full frame 24-70. It's quite a nice lens.

ovidiu im kinda in the same situation i use a D7000 and i have been using the 18-200 but thinking about getting 24-120 f4 not sure its really gonna be a quality difference

@Naftoli: not sure you'll gain much since the 18-200 is (as far as I remember 5.6 at the long end and 3.5 at the short end) so getting f4 instead of f5.6 wouldn't be worth it in my opinion.
As to quality I don't know the 24-120 lens so I can't say anything about quality...

Hi, I noticed in Neil's photo images on his book that most shots were done at ISO1600, with a D90 the best I can get this camera is at ISO800. May I ask how to compute for a setting using this ISO values lets say setting used at plate 11-3 in the book on camera flash taken at 1/100 sec f/2 1600ISO, FEC +0.7EV. If I move the ISO back to 800 how many stops would be my adjustment?

If you lower ISO 800 from 1600, I believe that is one stop. So, for the equivalent exposure, you could do these:

1/50 s, f2, ISO 800
1/100 s, f1.4, ISO 800

stephen thats correct, ovidiu not so happy with the sharpness on my 18-200 i dont shoot it at anything below F8, the 24-120 is supposed to be much sharper, plus twice as fast

Thanks Stephen, I have a 17-55dx lens and 70-200mm f2.8. so that will be 1/30s, f2.8, ISO800? or can I increase the FEC +1EV instead to retain my shutter speed at 1/60s at least to get the same setting? now I am confused. damn numbers! :)
Rams

Rams, the difference between f2.8 and f2 is about a half-stop. So, with your camera, you would get close to the same ambient exposure at

1/25s, f2.8, ISO 800

Unfortunately, I have always treated FEC as adjusting the exposure on my subject, not my background exposure, so I'm not sure what the calculation needs to be here.

If you are doing a lot more wedding photography, you probably should upgrade to a D300s, which is better at ISO 1600.

that is true, I am seriously thinking about that (D300s). I am still saving enuff mojo perhaps after the wedding in Feb. Thanks Stephen.

but what is keeping me from jumping into d300s is that I believed that d300 & d90 are very similar in image quality and at over ISO 800 both camera starts getting too much noise. though sometimes there are images that looks to have high noise level in my pc monitor (ISO 1600) but when i got it printed the image looked much better actually. so I figure to wait for some time then upgrade to d700 next year and my PC monitor too :) or if business is good get a D3 full frame.

or d7000

I have a D7000 and a 24-70/2.8 which is a great combo and the camera handles low light very well.
I recently hired the D700 and the 24-70 performs better. There will always be the debate of FF/DX . You cant go wrong with the D700.

Truemoments,
Are you sure you are not thinking of the D300? I thought the D300s would be better than the D90. I owned a D300 (not D300s) for over a year, and the images were not terrible at ISO 1600. There was a little noise, but Adobe Lightroom was able to smooth it out without washing the detail out.

Otherwise, you should go with the D7000 as Vaenka suggested.

The d7000 has better image quality higher resolution and better high iso low noise performance than the d300s, the only reason one would buy a d300s over the d7000 is if there photographing a war! the d300s is built like a tank, u can use it as a weapon!