I'd sure take the 70-300VR which is awesome on my D90 which I have had for over a year. The D7000 I may pass on as the video seems less appealing right now to me but I would like sharper video when I use it and maybe the D7000 is. The 70-300VR is super sharp all the way to 300 and is every bit as much long lens as I ever want. For the shorter lens though the 18-105VR seems less sharp than a friends more pro glass. But he's a pro and I am a amateur. I don't know what I could afford for a general walkabout lens. The 18-105VR is OK. for that I guess.

Hi DaveyJ,

What I meant to write is that the 60mm is for other tools, such as the bellows and slide copier. That outfit use to do a fair amount of composite work, now done in Photoshop. But I'm still sifting through slides and duping them over to digital files. The 60mm is a terrific lens and would be a good if not terrific portrait lens in itself, something one might consider for double duty, Macro work and portraits from a really good lens.

The 105mm can step in for a portrait lens, too, but its reach is a bit more daunting. But I generally like the bokeh from it.

Even though the OP wasn't shooting for financial gain, I will say that there are a few thing that tend to come up when I think of kits and what kind of kind of general shooting one does that will bring home the bacon. Taking really good pictures of people, near and far, large groups and small (portrait and slightly wide or zoom lens), taking pictures of places, both large details and close details (wide or wide zoom - a Micro), something the eye would have trouble seeing but would understand as a photo of 'something they would understand' - such as a long exposure, multiple exposure, (higher synch speed, speedlights, fisheye, long telephotot).

A well-rounded kit would have just about have access to that.

My best,

Mike

My two lens recommended combo for the D7000 was 16-85mm and the 70-300VR. I mentioned the 18-200VR only as a tool. I use the 18-200VR a lot but if you want the quality edge the two above are the ones I found by trial and error and examining data and then using them in the field. If I shoot macro I usually do it with 60 Micro Nikkor although I have the 105mm Nikkor Micro as well. Mike Guntar prefers the 105mm Micro and again has the 60mm which he refers to as a tool. I often use the 60mm for product shoots close up where I still need some scene around. Mike obviously is shooting for the object and still not trying to give the object a place which is more of a studio requirement. The reason I use the 60 is that often when I am doing a produce shot I am finding the 60 on DX too long and my 105mm would be even worse at 1.5X 105mm etc. and at some point I can't back up further. Both those micro lens have superb ratings. But as most people shoot non-macro more then the 16-85mm Nikkor and 70-300VR Nikkor would be my go to lens. Sometimes I have had to try to re do shots as they were not just sharp enough. Often it seems to come back to the lens. Same problem in wide and I find my 12-24mm Nikkor is sharper than the 18-200 in the ranges the two lens do that overlaps, or even the same scene just looks better wider. I use a bigger heavier Nikkor for scene wide on FX than the 12-24 which is pretty much a no go on D700. The two lens I like best for my incoming D7000 will be those first two as I will keep them until I no longer photograph. Some lens are just less sharp but with a useful range for less than critical work. Catch all lens do a good job for me compared to primes and one reason is I often am in wild or field spots where moving backward or forward will get you stranded at rising tide or I am at the edge of a cliff, or a spray booth where one more step is dangerous to me or the lens or both. Add too the factor that money wasted on the wrong lens is just plain expensive to the buyer and the environment. I have used a lot of other manufacturer lens on Nikon cameras and between mounting difficulties and less than stellar performance and or longevity I just stick with Nikon. The lens are one of the greatest reasons I shoot with Nikon. I have rarely owned a Nikon that was a poor investment. The colors of the resultant photos is also nicely consistent between lens in a slideshow. I did own a Nikkor shift lens that I parted company with though just because it had a very different color signature in slideshows that also mixed in other lens work. I see other expert NR folks on these posts have noted the same problem with non Nikkor lens. There I refer to quality and all that and not our specific use patterns which does tend to vary from photographer to photographer quite a lot. I will be looking at Chuck Jarvis's favorite lens mentions again. If I were to pick a lens for a Nikon camera I would first try to see what Thom Hogan recommended for a given camera as he has shot them all. Then you have to consider that all important part of the equation: What can you afford? I do find saving money in the short run costs money for me in the long run. A good Nikkor lens will stand the test of time.

mark95841 said:
tcole1983 define kit lens? I don't think the 16-85 is a kit lens. I have never seen it shipped as a kit with any Nikon bodies and has a better reputation than a kit lens.

Kit lens in the fact that it is just as slow and in the same price range as any other kit lens. The same f3.5-... Off the top of my head I don't know this, but actually it seems that it reached f5.6 at 85 mm where the 18-200 is still around f4.8 or 5. I might be off on that (I don't have my camera with me now or I would check). Anyway it might not necessarily be offered as a kit lens, but it could be and I believe would provide about the same quality as any of the others.

Shivaswrath those are two numbers and a letter, not words man.

Actually, he's right. ;-)

On the topic however, I'd get a nice walkaround zoom and a prime.
Maybe try 18-105, or hunt for the older 18-135 (will work on d7k), and use the money for either Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Tokina you mentioned. Plus one prime (either 35mm, 50mm or 85mm 1.8 depending on what you shoot).

Super Shooter said:
Shivaswrath those are two numbers and a letter, not words man.

Now that was funny.
----------------------------
For the topic - I would look at getting some fast primes like Mike G stated. 35,50,85 -f1.8s and a sb-600. If you go for Nikon refurbished/used/on sale you can get all of that for the same price as another lens and you would get some great glass.

Just my 2-cents worth.

Hi Stereo,

If you're going to get the 18-200mm and be content with the f-stop it has (I understand it isn't a bad lens at all), then you might consider the 35mm f1.8, as previously recommended. It's normal perspective, or go somewhat telephoto with a 50mm f1.8 for portraits - something I would recommend, or 85mm f1.8mm even more telephoto, but that puts you a bit more 'out there'. I have all three of the primes and use the 50 and 85 the most.

You might consider either a Micro lens, a good 105mm f2.8 would be a good choice - I wouldn't go less than a 105mm, but it isn't real inexpensive, but it's useful. I have the 60mm and 105mm, but use the 105 nearly exclusively. The 60mm is other tools.

The Nikon 10-24mm zoom is terrific, too, and a nice compliment to the 18-200, again, not cheap.

My advice is to sort of take a step back and focus on what you want your kit to look like 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, etc., and what pictures you want to take. IOW, you might be very happy with the 18-200mm for quite a while, so you can save easily for the 10-24mm and add quality lens to your kit.

Also, you didn't mention a speedlight, and that would be on my list first before an additional lens, maybe even 2 lights. You'll end up using them to enhance your work with your lens you have. I have 6 lights in my kit, and I generally use 3-4 in most shots.

You'll want a good tripod and so on.

Personally, I've stuck with Nikon branding, but other brands are certainly decent. Nikon is consist in color, has a predictable focus pattern , and tends to just work pretty well.

Good luck on what direction you take and my best to you,

Mike

I needed to make basically this exact decision a few months ago when by 18-55 broke.

I was considering either the 16-85 or the Sigma 17-70.

I decided on the 17-70 and i LOVE it!

its a bag, helfty well made lens, and makes my D60 feel like a toy.

image quality is very good in my opinion, and online reviews suggest it has equivilent IQ to the Nikon 16-85.

in addition its much faster, the 2.8-4 REALLY makes a difference.

finally its cheaper than the 16-85, and all it gives up is a bit of reach on both ends.

I've had it for almost 6 months now, its really a great lens to use for its price.

Of course if the 17-55 is in your price range i'd go for it, otherwise i recommend the Sigma.

tcole1983 define kit lens? I don't think the 16-85 is a kit lens. I have never seen it shipped as a kit with any Nikon bodies and has a better reputation than a kit lens.

If you like a "one lens fits all" situation, you cannot beat the 18-200mm VR II. If you also want an everyday, sharp, f/2.8 lens (and you're OK with the limited focal length range), the Tamron 17-50mm XR (non VC version) is super sharp! Of course, the Nikon 16-85mm is a great lens, but it's tough to beat the Tamron's value.

Which 4 lenses did you have and which 2 stayed home ? every person is different. Try to look through your photos and see which focal lengths you used most.. I was surprised with what I found you might be too.

I don't really think you will gain much out of the sigma 2.8-4, but I did try the new Sigma 17-50 and thought it was much better then the tamron 17-50. The new sigma felt better, zoomed faster, quieter and is sharper then the tamron. There isn't much press about it yet because it is pretty new. The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM would get my vote, but the price is still kind of high right now. The Nikon 16-85 is a kit lens and expect similar performance to the 18-200 with the possibly of it being a little bit sharper.

or if you really want people pictures then just use the 18-200 and get a flash instead of another lens, or along with the 35 f1.8.

Alright, thanks for all the comments.
First of all I do not mean to have the 18-200mm as an alternative to the other. To me this lens is solely useful for travelling, which means that I will not even bring any other lens along. It is just very convenient to be equipped with a huge range even though you do not carry too much.
@krevlingoodspeed I thought about the Tokina set up but matched up with the Nikon 55-200VR it would mean that I have to carry them all the time on a trip.
@tcole1983 I completely agree on the 16-85 as being not as great in low light situations. However, I also never shot with one and as far as the discussions go it seems to be a pretty good lens for what it sells for. As you see from my first post I am quite focused on a 2.8 zoom which is fast, efficient in low light and allows me to take good portraits shots as well. It is just more flexible for me than a standard prime lens as I can not really say I only do one or the other type of picture.
I used to have four lenses and it turned out to be the case that two of them always stayed home. I just do not want to carry the stuff. I'd be really keen for something like a 2.8 18-70ish but it just doesn't exist. That's why I am asking myself if it makes sense to go for the Tamron or Tokina 16-50 with good light capabilities or the Nikon or Sigma which both offer a bit more range but are just not as fast. Both seem to be quite sharp as far as I know.
How would you rate the Tamron and Sigma at around 50mm? I mean in terms of speed and light?
@daveyJ so you're having the 70-300 and 16-85 but still using the 18-200 a lot? Don't wanna carry either or why?
@krevlingoodspeed yes the 18-200VRII is quite expensive but then again it will be available as a kit with the D7000, which makes it more affordable I reckon.
Any more suggestions and answers would be really nice.
Thanks a lot and keep it going...

Would you really gain anything by having the 18-200 and the 16-85? Seems like a waste to me. Get a faster lens in that range, but I wouldn't get one that is just as slow as the 18-200. What are you really looking for? You said one for everyday and one for travel, but that doesn't really express what you want. Low light situations, wildlife, landscapes?

IMO I wouldn't get any of the other lenses you listed if you are getting the 18-200. You would be better off getting a 17-50 f2.8 or similar and then say the Nikon 70-300 or similar.

Shivaswrath those are two numbers and a letter, not words man.

I'd get the 16-85mm Nikkor, one of Nikon's best lens. Then with a 70-300VR I'd be set. I use my 18-200VR almost everyday. It is very convenient. I have taken some good photos with it. But the 16-85mm is the edge I want.

three words:
35
f
1.8

I think it's fine to get a 18-200 for travel as long as you know what you are compromising. Since you owned one before, I assume you understand this.

For your second lens, why not go for a 35 f/1.8. It's a great lens and complements the 18-200 nicely, so you have a low-light capable lens.

For the price of the 18-200VRII you could get two Tokina lenses, the 16-50 f/2.8 which is awesome and the equally awesome 50-135 f/2.8.

Or the Tokina 16-50 matched up with the Nikon 55-200VR and the Nikon 35 f/1.8

Ok, hello everyone. I know there's heaps of other topics similar to mine but I really wish for some hints and recommendations from all of you here.

Well, I fortunately sold my D70s just on time before any new announcements were made this summer. I knew I'd not have much time left for photography anyway so I sold all equipment, too. I can start from scratch. I was planning to buy the D300s but now I have changed my mind and I will order the D7000 for sure.

Now my question is, what do you guys think about the these lenses?

1. I will buy the 18-200 VRII for travel reasons. I had an older 18-200 and it was nothing special but as I travel a lot and I do not like to carry much of a glass with me I reckon it is the best option for these days.
2. I want to invest in either a
tamron 2.8 17-50 XR or a
sigma 2.8-4 17-70mm or a
Nikon 3.5-5.6 16-85mm VR
which I will use most of the time if I am not on the go.
For me, this is all just fun and I do not sell or do any business with pictures. Moreover, I do not care about the budget so much but rather wanna have a descent set up with a focus on cost benefits. Hence, I do not care about a few bugs if I really believe it is a great deal.
Thanx for any comments...