Hi All,
I returned the Tamrom 17-50 VC. I don't know if my expectations were just unrealistic, but I was unhappy with it's performance (seemed soft, maybe more expensive that it's worth).
I'm thinking about getting the non-VC version.
Here's the issue: I have some fast primes (35 and 50) and I wonder if it really makes sense to get the Tamron 17-50 (2.8), since if I were shooting in low light I'd probably just go for one of the primes and make the most out of my kit. That said, I'd still like to have an "all-purpose" zoom. I wonder if the Nikon 16-85 may be a good option. I realize it only boasts kit lens speed, but, as I said above, I have that covered with those primes. 85% of my shooting is landscape, and a few portraits (I do have that wedding coming up).

I know "what to buy" posts can get kind of annoying, but this group is my only resource for these kinds of questions, others just don't understand :)

-NP

Yes agreed sounds like you are all set! Welcome to the forum and good call on the Sb-600 flash it's a real reliable workhorse. I bought mine used 3 years ago and it has never let me down ever. :)

Awesome, NP. Good luck with the wedding. I think you've got a good setup for it.

Thanks All. Picked up the SB-600 and 17-50 VC today. Very happy with them so far.

-NP

heartyfisher said:
I thought you said you had the 18-105? I would keep that as a go anywhere lens when you dont have a specific need. yes sell the other kits(18-55 and 55-200). For the wedding, the 17-50 VC should be excellent in combination with the 50 & 35 F1.8. and SB-600.

Thanks. I did have the 18-105 but s
old it to get funds for the SB-600.

I thought you said you had the 18-105? I would keep that as a go anywhere lens when you dont have a specific need. yes sell the other kits(18-55 and 55-200). For the wedding, the 17-50 VC should be excellent in combination with the 50 & 35 F1.8. and SB-600.

NeuroPhoto said:
OK, here's what I have to go with my D7000:
Tokina 11-16
Nikon 35 1.8 DX
Nikon 50 1.8
(Plus 18-55 and 55-200 (non VR for both) kit lenses from my D40, rarely use)

Here's what I'd like to get to complete the package:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (chosen over Nikon 16-88)
Nikon 70-300 VR
SB-600

Anybody think this is a bit much, maybe overkill? I shoot landscapes mostly, though I also try to zoom in on surfers, and I have an 8 week old at home.

Also, a friend of mine recently asked me to shoot her wedding (never done before, but they know that and are cool with it especially in lieu of no photographer). Would any of you prioritize any items on my wish list with that wedding in mind (outdoor).

Thanks,

NP

Sell off the 18-55/55-200.

If you really want the Tamron 17-50 so be it, but the Tokina 16-50 AT-X PRO f/2.8 is pretty awesome too. I haven't wished it had VR/OS/VC while using it.

Can't go wrong with the SB-600.

As for the 70-300VR, if you want it get it or save some cash and get the 80-200 AF-S and add a TC.

OK, here's what I have to go with my D7000:
Tokina 11-16
Nikon 35 1.8 DX
Nikon 50 1.8
(Plus 18-55 and 55-200 (non VR for both) kit lenses from my D40, rarely use)

Here's what I'd like to get to complete the package:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (chosen over Nikon 16-88)
Nikon 70-300 VR
SB-600

Anybody think this is a bit much, maybe overkill? I shoot landscapes mostly, though I also try to zoom in on surfers, and I have an 8 week old at home.

Also, a friend of mine recently asked me to shoot her wedding (never done before, but they know that and are cool with it especially in lieu of no photographer). Would any of you prioritize any items on my wish list with that wedding in mind (outdoor).

Thanks,

NP

stick with the 18-105 VR lens, yes getting all three lenses is overkill.

So do you own the 17-50 2.8, NP? I love mine, but it's not the VC version.

I've heard good things about the new tamron 70-300, plus it has a rebate right now. I'd like a faster lens than the kit lens, and the 17-50 2.8 VC fills this want nicely (nikkor is too $$ for me). Although, there do appear to be a few good N70-300 's on CL.

Thank you krev, I'm actually do have a buyer lined up for the 18-105, and I'll prob use that $$ to buy a sb-600.

skip tamron get N70-300vr

It's easier to sell off then trade but if you want to trade.

The SB-600 is an awesome flash so I'd go with that over lenses.

Also why go for Tamron lenses? At least get the 70-300VR Nikkor.

So I bought the D7000 kit and now I'm trying to unload the kit lens (i.e., 18-105). I plan on buying a couple tamrons (17-50 and 70-300) instead. What do you think a good asking price is for this lens? I think I could easily sell if for $200. With that money I'd probably by an SB-600. So, my other question to the group is: Would you trade a 18-105 VR for an SB-600?

Wait, how come you bought the 18-105 lens only without a body? It should come with a D90, no? I mean, I'd much rather have a D90 than a D3000.

In any case, like the others have said, I'd go with the 70-300 instead of the 18-55 and 55-200 combo. 18-105 is a good lens as it is (as are the 18-55 and 55-200), but the build quality is slightly lacking in the 18-55 and 55-200. For me, build quality matters. It's not like I'm bringing it into rain, but I considered that when I bought my D40 kit.

kent said:
The cost of the kit (including the 18-55 lens) is minimal. Is it worth paying about $250 more for the 55-200? Will it really give me that much better zoom than the 18-105?

I don't know where you live, but the 55-200 goes for <=$150 used in the USA. IMHO, if you don't have coverage in that range it is a no-brainer at that price.

I would not pay $250 for 55-200 vr, would prefer to add couple more $$ to get the 70-300/vr

as for seeing difference between 105 and 200, yes - You will be able to see the difference

Agree with alphakun.
D3000 body only & 70-300VR is a better option, but if too expensive get the double zoom kit and resell the 18-55 or the 18-105.

I would use Nikon's Lens Simulator to get an idea of the range of the lenses.

Thanks

No need to go repeating yourself :^)

The 55-200 will give you approximately a 2x advantage over the 18-105.

The cost of the kit (including the 18-55 lens) is minimal. Is it worth paying about $250 more for the 55-200? Will it really give me that much better zoom than the 18-105?

The cost of the kit (including the 18-55 lens) is minimal. Is it worth paying about $250 more for the 55-200? Will it really give me that much better zoom than the 18-105?

Hi Kent, Welcome to the forum! First off congrats on the D3000 purchase. I had the 18-105 and found it to be very very "plasticy". I was doing some hiking and one day the lens actually broke off my D80 body I had at the time. The mounting pins are plastic not medal and it cost me just $50 to fix but I was disappointed to say the least. The kit lens 18-55mm is wonderful you can even use it for macro as it focuses so close. I'd spring for the 70-300mm VR as alphanikonrex mentions its well made even though its still plastic. Bascially I found the plastic tighter on the 18-55, 18-200mm VR (wonderful lens), 55-200mmVR, and 70-300mm VR.

Of course you could settle this all right now and just get the 18-200 mm VR. If you do try it out, you'll wish you hadn't because the second you mount it you'll want to buy it and have it as your only lens for several months. Especially for learning your new camera ^_~

The cost of the kit (including the 18-55 lens) is minimal. Is it worth paying about $250 more for the 55-200? Will it really give me that much better zoom than the 18-105?