It was just a quick list. It would pretty much cover any need I ever had with those 5 lenses, but it is $15,000-$20,000 worth of lenses. I also wouldn't shoot half those lenses on my D5000...would be silly to have a $10,000 lens on a $500 body. On my budget though I have the 18-200, 35 f1.8 and next I hope to get the 105 f2.8 micro and very distance future the 12-24. That will probably be all I have for a while. I can't really afford any of the super telephoto range lenses. I really like to shoot wildlife and wildlife is either relatively close where the 70-200 would be great or really far away and then the 600 f4 would be great. Next I probably shoot landscapes. Bugs and flowers are next, and then everything else after that.

@ Super Shooter: I got to be a scientist by doing a lot of study of other work than just my own. I take buying lens and cameras pretty cautiously anymore. I am not a fool. I also pay attention to what other serious photographers get each day in the field in the rare event I am around others. I work outdoors. Photography is a tool to me and a passion. Despite my experience in wild places I pay attention to the results and findings of others. When a novice asks me what they should buy I would never just go with my personal experience. I do like the fact that tcole1983 gave me his choice of lens and his concluding statement that he couldn't afford half of what he wanted was well taken. Personally I think that the ability of some to spend lots of money does NOT make them a better person. I would donate money now to the National Park System than buy another fleet of lens. Besides my income has become reduced in retirement and change in lifestyle. I also agree with tcole1983 that me picking just two would be rough as i use Micro Nikkor and do not even think of that as one of the two field lens. So to Super Shooter: I am not try to boost my ego or ruffle your feathers. I just would like your thoughts on two appropriate lens for a D7000 or a D300s. I did try to start a thread or topic on that before even putting the lens post on. I also note that tcole1983 leans towards 2.8s more than I have since I went to 35mm DSLR. His 12-24 f4 and 600f4 are also noted. Hmmm....interesting!! I have 1 12-24 not that one.....I need to try one of those! As to 600f4 that lens is too big for my field use. Once it is set up for a pic though.......that would work!!

Super Shooter said:
Davey how can you say you have, or rather once had, the largest lens collection in your state, or at least in this forum, and then ask what two lenses would be best for use on the D7000? If you have such a vast knowledge of and experience with Nikon lenses then you should already know the answer to that. What could anyone of us with just three or four lenses in our collection offer you? Your statement makes no sense.

This is a good point :) It would be hard to be limited to 2 lenses, but I would pick the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8. It wouldn't cover everything and ideally I could think of 2-3 more lenses I would want...like the 12-24 f4, 105 f2.8 and the 600 f4. Too bad I will never in my life be able to afford half of that.

Davey how can you say you have, or rather once had, the largest lens collection in your state, or at least in this forum, and then ask what two lenses would be best for use on the D7000? If you have such a vast knowledge of and experience with Nikon lenses then you should already know the answer to that. What could anyone of us with just three or four lenses in our collection offer you? Your statement makes no sense.

OK! I give up on the biggest lens collection statement as that was made about then......and this is now. I sold many of the lens I did have and I am glad I did. I do hope you all don't think I believe owning a huge fleet of lens is cool as that is the furthest from my point. Buying another lens will not make me a better photographer just poorer. The big outfit that bought them said it was more gear than anybody they knew of but that of course does not mean it was the largest lens arsenal maybe even in my state. I am going to repeat what I have posted before on NR. The reason I frequent this site is to buy tested gear by people with the knowledge and experience to make those tests before I buy them with my funds. I spent way more than I should have and I am certain of at least that much. I for one propose a new thread to ask if one was to buy a new TWO lens outfit what do NR photo enthusiasts think would work best on say a D7000 or a D300s replacement?

LOL.. Time for a "mine is bigger than yours" thread! I dont think we have had one of those yet.. :-)

Yes DaveyJ thats a big statement on this forum believe me. I wouldn't even claim that and I live right in one of the biggest camera districts in the world here in Seoul.

DaveyJ said:
No one on this entire website has ever owned a bigger assortment of lens than I or had more invested in them. That much I am certain of.

Don't be so sure of yourself.

@SimoHDK: No one on this entire website has ever owned a bigger assortment of lens than I or had more invested in them. That much I am certain of. I no longer feel I need the latest Zeiss, Leica, Schneider, or Rodenstock or for that matter Nikkor. I shoot more with the Nikkor 18-200VR than any other lens. I do not rate it as my best lens. But it is versatile. I do agree with AslightofDay that it is not as good at 18 or at 200 but since the image is what counts not exactitudes of differences are subtle. In distinct disagreement with AsLightofDay the conversion of a Nikon DSLR to point and shoot quality is very poorly taken. I have owned one of the most expensive highly rated point and shoots ever made. The results were terrible. The results of a Nikon D90 (or a D300) with the 18-200VR are really very acceptable to me and that takes into account the 18 and the 200 end of that range. The 28-300 FF Nikkor just announced is also getting reviews from experts that will make people in my category buying one of those. Will that lens be perfect? NO! But it will be very good and from my standpoint probably good enough. Do get the II version of the 18-200 if you get it. The new 35 1.4 may be very worth buying. I will wait to see the price and the size. Look at the relatively small size of some of the Leica lens. They are small. They also are of excellent quality. On Nikon DSLR I use Nikkor lens. Results I have seen with other manufacturers on Nikon cameras leads me to steer away from them. I do know I tend to shoot narrower aperture than some pros so I lean towards a f 2 or 2.8 to pull down size. Some of the best glass though gets reserved for the wider aperture lens.

Hmm might pickup the 18-200 and the new 35mm that *might* be released....or the old one if there isn't THAT much diff.

spraynpray: It just clicked reading your post why the idea of the 18-200 has always vaguely bothered me. I get the convenience, but at the same time it seems to turn the camera into an oversized point-and-shoot.

For sure if you get the 18-200 and use it at 18 OR 200, you should have got two lenses instead, covering a wider focal length range. Once you have the 18-200 you may find you will need to buy a shorter and a longer lens making a total of three which is likely to be a shock to somebody who is trying to only buy one.....

If you only want one, don't get an SLR?

A simplified response, but it may provoke thought.

A flash will not work in outdoor photos i take usually in low light. Will a prime work? I have a 20mm, a 24mm, and a 35mm so I have used them all. Still........I use my 18-200VR most of all of the fleet of lens I own. I have not used the Sigma 18-250 lens JGM411 mentions. I do know that in the field juggling lens and swapping them in dust and low light is not very much fun.

SimoHDK said:
Hmmm well there will defiantly be times where I'll need to be shooting dark areas indoors and out, but I intend to get an SB-600 flash which will help....

Would the 35mm prime be good in those situations or something else that isn't a prime?

It isn't that you can't do it with the 18-200, but personally I didn't get great results with it. You can crank the ISO up some and use the right settings, but it just isn't the same. I don't have a hot shoe flash though so it would help. I actually just got the 35 f1.8 and I plan on using it for my low light situations and any time I need more DOF. The only thing is if you want a faster lens A. it will cost you more money (at least for a Nikon one) and B. there isn't one that covers the same range. So you would be sacrificing either range in the telephoto or wide angle area and spend at least $1000 for a faster Nikon lens. You have the same exact dilemma I came across. You could get the Sigma or Tamron 17-55 f2.8 lens (or similar) and then the Nikon 55-200 or 70-300 or something like that. You wouldn't lose any range and have a faster lens when you needed it....just a thought.

I recently bought a Sigma 18-250 lens. I considered the Nikon 18-200 lens but I couldn't bring my self to spend the extra $500 or just less than that for the Nikon.

Also, my thought is the Sigma has received good reviews and with the money I saved I bought a 60 mm Nikon lens.

as something to consider, you could do something similar and then buy one or a few fixed lenses (better quality) in a length you feel you will use most.

The one part I don't particularly like is the weight of a wide ranged zoom lens. Having shorter fixed lenses might help with the critical high quality shots vs more casual less critical image quality images.

joe

Hmmm well there will defiantly be times where I'll need to be shooting dark areas indoors and out, but I intend to get an SB-600 flash which will help....

Would the 35mm prime be good in those situations or something else that isn't a prime?

To those stating that if the guy wants a 18-200 thats what he should get is somewhat incorrect. He states what the budget is but is not sold on the 18-200. I think he should stick to a Nikkor rather than aftermarket based on the very bad results friends of mine have had with non Nikon lens. The other manufacturer lens I have bought have been quite mixed from superb to very poor in holding up despite what looked like good build quality. The primary value of the 18-200VR is simply the need not to change lens but within that range there are two Nikon lens sets that would come for at the same cost. I have found the 18-200VR really good, but it is by no means the only choice. It is not a low light special. Outdoor low lighting can be demanding and there are better lens for that case.
I do use the 18-200VR more than any other lens but it does have trade offs.

The only downside I can think of is the lens isn't fast. If you want people pictures indoors or really much shooting inside it doesn't work that well. If you shoot outside most of the time then you won't ever have a problem. If you find yourself wanting indoor pictures later on then you could move to one of the faster primes or f2.8 zooms. Anyway as everyone said...if you want a quality all in one lens that does everything pretty well then get the Nikon 18-200.

18-200 VR all the way! Love that lens. It also allows you to explore the focal lengths that you really feel comfortable with so you could say purchase a 35mm in the future. I have mentioned this before I know :) Of course keep in mind the 35mm length on DX is 52mm full frame equivalent if you ever want a FX sensor or film body...

NikoDoby said:
??? if that's the range he wants to use then why NOT get the 18-200VRII? I'm I missing something here?

I think the language barrier on this forum is catching up to us, I'm with you Niko, get the 18-200 VR2 OP!!

I think the 18-200VR or the 18-200VRII is the best and that is what I use for a general photographic DX lens. Only if that lens won't do a specific task do I switch, usually leaving that lens on the D90. I have most of the lens mentioned in these posts. The 16-85 is a very good lens and I recommend it once in a while. I also have the 12-24DX and it is worth owning if you shoot DX wide. I also have the older and very good 20-35 which I use a lot on FX. I've used the 18-55VR a lot and decided not to buy one. Within its range (18-55) it is superb and a great buy. I just often want a greater range. I also have the 18-105VR and rarely use it any more but when my next Nikon purchase comes in it will not be with a kit lens and the 18-105VR will go on one of my Nikon DX cameras.

I would say the Nikon 18-200 or maybe the new 28-300. I don't agree with the 17-55 especially if you want to shoot any wildlife or things like that. I find myself at the 200mm mark and wanting more all the time. I have the Nikon 18-200 and would recommend it. I just don't care for switching lenses. With one of the lenses xx-300 you might get better performance at the 200mm mark then the 18-200, but that is just my speculation and I haven't tried it. I find the performance at 200mm to be pretty good for the 18-200.

I've been stuck on deciding a lens around the standard zoom range for a long time too, but that's also the range I am least careful about what happens to it when I'm running around or hiking or whatever, so I flip between the kit and 35mm 1.8. If I become careful someday for not too much more than the thousand, I think the 17-55 f2.8 would be great, would love the constant aperture and little bit faster glass to justify getting off the kit. Well, that's the 2 cents for my situation.

My choice for this range and budget would be 16-85 + 55-300. The 16-85 is a little gem, light and compact, significantly wider than 18-200, modest distortion at the wide end, and a great performer by my experience, probably more suited to the higher resolution of the D90 replacement than the 18-200. 55-300 DX looks like a great performer by MTF curves - they've made it very strong at 300mm, which is important. The two can be had for around your budget.

OTOH, if you really expect to be needing to go from 18mm to 200mm instantly without a lens change, then the Nikon 18-200 is your lens, remarkably good for a lens with that range of focal length. My own shooting experience is that the extreme focal lengths of this lens involve shooting different things, and having either sorta-wide-to medium tele or medium-to-long on the camera works fine and involves less sharpness and distortion compromise.

I shoot a lot of wide, have the 12-24 on my camera probably 1/4 of the time and have the wide end well covered, and even so find the 16-85 a much better choice for me than any 18-xx lens.

Happy shooting!

sigma has several in that range I think one of them reviews well but the others not so good.. cant tell you which one though..(didnt have enough interest in that range to remember as I already have the 18-200vr)