Rx4Photo said:
Thanks Drab. I've read that but was wondering though, does the 1.5 crop on the DX sensor give me any extra space or will I still be practically on top of every macro shot?

No. It is a crop (as you said) factor. Nothing else. The physics of the lens are not changed, only the portion of the image circle you use.

Drab said:
Only thing bad about the 60 is that it has zero working distance for macro.

Thanks Drab. I've read that but was wondering though, does the 1.5 crop on the DX sensor give me any extra space or will I still be practically on top of every macro shot?

Only thing bad about the 60 is that it has zero working distance for macro.

Just to revisit the thread.. I've had more time than expected to think about this. I've decided to get the following lenses first. I'll give my reasons as everybody's reasons are different for getting the lenses they get.

1. Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX: Most likely to use this for shooting around the house, kids, low light/available light/no flash, and video.

2. Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR: Decided to get this instead of the 18-105mm as I stated in my last post. I've read too many reviews where people state the extra 2mm on the wide end is a tremendous benefit, the lens overall is sharper than the 18-105, and many people wind up setting the 18-105 aside once they discover the 16-85mm.

3. Nikon 60mm f/2.8 ED AF-S Micro : Will eventually get this for its versatility - portraits with nice bokeh, close-ups/macro shots whenever I'd like to do that, and general fixed focal length walk around. I've read that this is possibly Nikons sharpest lens. I know someone might recommend the 105mm f/2.8 micro but it's $350.00 more. The 60mm keeps my budget in tact.

I'll wait till later to get the SB-700 and maybe a zoom (70-300mm) but I think those 3 lenses will provide a lot of fun and versatility for a 1st lens set for my D7000.

Regards.

Drab said:
Yes, all three are compatible with the D7000.

SHARPNESS at what f-stop? I've used both the first two, and at f/4 and tighter (maybe even 3.3) I don't think you'll find one sharper than the next.

The 35 f/2.8 is going to have out-of-focus areas in significantly less situations than the 50 f/1.4.

The 35 f/2.8 is also only 1 1/3 stops faster than your 18-105. I just don't see that as compelling when the 35 f/1.8 is so cheap. So strike that off your list.

Now we're down to the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4.
Longer and faster = more opportunities for bokeh, so the 50 wins here. I've already dismissed sharpness, as the differences between them in this regard @ 1.8 - 3.3 are insignificant, and non-existent beyond there.

So you're left with a decision of the more expensive and less useful for groups of people indoors (on DX) 50 vs the 35. You gain 2/3rds a stop of maximum speed with the 50, and more bokeh potential.

I'd get the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8 ($100) and get the best of both worlds for less than the cost of the 50 1.4. For if you really wanted the razor-thin focus of the 50 f/1.4 you wouldn't be attempting to compare it to a 35 f/1.8 and 35 f/2.8

Thanks Drab, makes a lot of sense!!!

Yes, all three are compatible with the D7000.

SHARPNESS at what f-stop? I've used both the first two, and at f/4 and tighter (maybe even 3.3) I don't think you'll find one sharper than the next.

The 35 f/2.8 is going to have out-of-focus areas in significantly less situations than the 50 f/1.4.

The 35 f/2.8 is also only 1 1/3 stops faster than your 18-105. I just don't see that as compelling when the 35 f/1.8 is so cheap. So strike that off your list.

Now we're down to the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4.
Longer and faster = more opportunities for bokeh, so the 50 wins here. I've already dismissed sharpness, as the differences between them in this regard @ 1.8 - 3.3 are insignificant, and non-existent beyond there.

So you're left with a decision of the more expensive and less useful for groups of people indoors (on DX) 50 vs the 35. You gain 2/3rds a stop of maximum speed with the 50, and more bokeh potential.

I'd get the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8 ($100) and get the best of both worlds for less than the cost of the 50 1.4. For if you really wanted the razor-thin focus of the 50 f/1.4 you wouldn't be attempting to compare it to a 35 f/1.8 and 35 f/2.8

I have a similar situation as the OP. I'm in the market for the Prime Lens and looking at the following lens as I'm fairly new to the DSLR world.Just bought the D7000 kit.

1.) Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
2.) Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
3.) Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO DX Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

I have reviewed all of the above and not able to decide on which one of them is best exclusively for the Purpose of "SHARPNESS" and experiment with bokeh and I already have the 18-105mm lens

And also would like to know if all of the above are compatible with the D7000???

Thanks and much appreciated...

You'll shoot your eye out, funduro.

@Rx4Photo: That's a good set of lenses there(18-105/70-300). Didn't think of buying past 200mm, oh well. If both have the same filter size that would be icing on the cake for you. I don't play the lottery but hopefully my lenses do and they win the manufacturing/assembly lottery. I read about the "sharpness" issues of the 18-200 and that did not stop me from buying it. So it might have less then 100% sharpness at this or that setting, instead it has 95 or 90 BFD. I think it's way better then a PnS thingamajigs. I should get rather nice photos to print at home. Plus half the fun of taking pictures is taking pictures and hoping to get "the shot". The day the UPS driver delivers my D7K, I'll be like the kid in A Christmas Story getting his Red Rider air rifle :-).

Thanks Jonnyapple and Funduro for your thoughts. Funduro, I like your reason for getting the 18-200. I've seen reviews that say it's tack sharp from end to end and other reviews that are slightly less flattering - but most people like it. I guess a lot depends on the copy you actually get. I'm also thinking if I get the 18-105 then I can justify getting the 70-300 in the future without feeling like I'm duplicating a focal length I already have.

You're right, jonnyapple, about the price of the Tokina lens -I was typing from memory. Also thanks for the link to your photo examples. To be honest, I'm very impressed by the IQ as I have only used that Canon Powershot Pro (glorified point and shoot) for the last several years. Those images are light-years ahead of the ones I've gotten used to. This DSLR will open up a whole new set of doors for me photographically and I'm getting pretty pumped just thinking about it.

I'm likely to wait til B&H emails me about shipment of the D7K to make a purchase. Thanks to NR and everyone for your information. Since I found this site I read this stuff every day. It's my latest obsession.

@Rx4Photo: No I haven't used it, awaiting the D7K. The primary reason for buying the 18-200(27-300) is that it will allow my to minimize lens changes while shooting landscapes and wildlife in Florida, which has sand that has a nasty habit of getting on/in everything, specially when windy. At some beaches the "sand" is microscopic crushed seashells. I think of Florida as a whopper sandbar. More reasons: it's a Nikkor lens, it's got 11X mag, got good reviews by everyday hobby photographers, it's slow but Florida is bright, (got a 50mm(75)1.4 Nikkor,not AF), one filter size. I can bring that one combo and not feel guilty I was not prepared, built-in flash if needed for fill. Fast primes/zoom are the way to go if budget not an issue.

The Tokina 11-16(16.5-24) wide zoom will meet my other digital photography needs. This lens also got good reviews. Fast VR super telephotos are way too expensive, cropping will be "cheap" substitute. I'll also be buying the SB-700. I nearly bought the D90/Canon T2i myself, before I found this website and the D90 replacement rumors (thanks NR) :-). Glad I waited, even though the D7K is about $400 dollars more expensive, it's got plenty of improvements over the D90(weather proofing, magnesium, mirror lockup, FPS, MP...)

Rx4Photo said:
@jonnyapple - You called the 18-105 "awesome" and I respect your opinion as you're one of the many experienced posters on this forum. This has caused me to rethink my initial selection. I like the idea of extra reach and being able to get the SB-700 as well but I've also started to reconsider getting the 18-200.

Well, I wouldn't put my trust in whether someone has posted a lot to NR. That would make NikoDoby the expert on everything like he thinks he is. (j/k Niko)

I posted some samples from the 18-105 in a previous thread: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2400#post-40539

I think you'll have trouble finding the Tokina at $500 (probably more like $600), but I still think that first setup is a better way to go for most of what I do (if I were into wildlife photography, even the 70-200 I have would probably feel limited). It sounds like you have enough experience to know if you'll feel limited with a total range of 16mm-158mm (35mm-sensor equivalent field of view of the lenses you listed).

I would take the 35 1.8 and SB-700/SB-600 over the 18-200 but I know there are people here that would disagree and that's okay. The beauty of these modular camera systems is that everyone can get the kit that they need. When I suggested the SB-700 I thought it was coming out this month. Turns out it's probably more like December.

@Fundoro - As I'm still comtempating my lens selection let me ask you...Are you aready using your new 18-200 VRII on a current camera or are you going to wait to get the D7K to initially use it? If you're already using it what's your initial opinion on image quality and such?

@jonnyapple - You called the 18-105 "awesome" and I respect your opinion as you're one of the many experienced posters on this forum. This has caused me to rethink my initial selection. I like the idea of extra reach and being able to get the SB-700 as well but I've also started to reconsider getting the 18-200.

Given a $1500 budget I'm considering the following setups now:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.6 (about $500)
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (about @200)
Nikkor 18-105 f/3.5 (about $360 "USA")
SB-700 (about $320)
*Total $1380*

or

the same Tokina
the same Nikkor 35mm
Nikkor 18-200mm DX (about $800)
no SB-700
*Total $1500*

It's no doubt the best setup to me looks like the first, right?

Drab said:
Nikon's 14-24 and the Sigma 10-20s aren't playing the same ballgame.

The 14-24 is an ultra-wide for FX, weighing in at over two pounds, and does not accept (sane) filters. It is wide, but barely in the ultra-wide class on DX. It is f/2.8

The 10-20s are true ultra-wides for DX. They weigh half as much as the Nikon 14-24, and take standard filters.

The excellent Tokina 11-16 also is a true ultra-wide for DX, and has arguably better build quality and image quality, but does not go quite as wide nor as long. Think of it as a 11mm prime lens. It also takes standard filters. It is f/2.8.

The difference between 14 and 10mm on DX is massive. The difference between 10 and 11 is noticeable depending on how one shoots.

Excellent info, checked out the Tokina 11-16 reviews and comments, this lens is on my wish list now. Already received the 18-200 Nikkor VRII, awaiting the D7K. Got to order several filters and memory cards. So many toys so little time($)

I just bought the Tokina 11-16 2.8 this summer, and I love it. Just be prepared for it to not have the zoom range you'd expect from a zoom. Think of it as kind of a semi-zoom lens.

I'd suggest getting the 18-105 instead of the 16-85—with the difference you could buy an SB-700 if you don't have a speedlight. I haven't tried the 16-85 but if the metal mount isn't critical for you the 18-105 is such an awesome lens and you'll like the extra reach, too. The flash and 18-105 would give you a lot(!) more creative options than the 16-85. Just my two cents.

I looked at the reviews of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the B&H site and now I'm thoroughly intrigued with that lens. Seems people are overjoyed with the results. Thanks for pointing it out! It also falls in line with the Nikkor 16-85 which also has extremely good reviews vs. the other options in that same range. I will probably start with those 2 in addition to a 1.8 prime. Those will likely suck up most of my glass budget - luckly my wife has aggreed to pay for the body. I'm sure I'll have to return the favor at some point in the future.

Will likely hold off on the zoom until I learn more about the camera although I'm already peeking at the new 55-300 that Nikon is coming out with. That 70-200 f/2.8 looks great - will keep an eye on it as well. Can't wait to have some hands on fun my new expensive toys.

AVD4749 said:
I would suggest the following lenses If you want to cover a good range at a fixed aperture. Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8.

Zonkers Batman you're going to break the man's bank account! ;) Good lenses though!

Rx4Photo- you asked on cameras as well - the D7000 would be a model in between the 90 & 300s and sounds to be up your ally. Look for the Nikon lens rebates, that may also help your decision. They usually have the 18-200mm on those for a good price.

I have the Tokina 11-16, 18-55 kit, 55-200 kit, 35 1.8 & 50 1.8 on a D60. I'll be getting the D7000. What I am looking most forward to is using the 50 1.8 ad the 11-16 as neither autofocus on the D60. The Tokina is SUPER sharp. For a moment, I thought I wanted wider so bought the Tamron 10-24 (better range too). I came home, popped it on a tripod in front of my house at f/8 and compared it to the Tokina and took it right back. Very soft compared to the Tokina in the center all the way out. I still want wider, but I'll go FX unless someone else comes out with a fast UW.

If I was to get rid of anything I have, it would be the 18-55 except it has a great close focus for a non-micro (macro) lens. I don't mind changing lenses though. I shoot because I like it, not as a profession. I just got back from the beach and wish I had 300mm for the birds - maybe more MP's will fix that, but I would still like to get the 300mm. If I do, it will be the 70-300 as it at least works on FX if I ever jump up.

If you go with the Tokina, think of it more of a prime than any zoom. 11-16 doesn't move that far.

Rx4Photo said:
@AVD4749 and Adamz I'll take a closer look at the Nikkor 14-24 and the Sigma 10-20 as I DO want at least one f/2.8 lens in addition to the 35 or 50mm f/1.8.

Nikon's 14-24 and the Sigma 10-20s aren't playing the same ballgame.

The 14-24 is an ultra-wide for FX, weighing in at over two pounds, and does not accept (sane) filters. It is wide, but barely in the ultra-wide class on DX. It is f/2.8

The 10-20s are true ultra-wides for DX. They weigh half as much as the Nikon 14-24, and take standard filters.

The excellent Tokina 11-16 also is a true ultra-wide for DX, and has arguably better build quality and image quality, but does not go quite as wide nor as long. Think of it as a 11mm prime lens. It also takes standard filters. It is f/2.8.

The difference between 14 and 10mm on DX is massive. The difference between 10 and 11 is noticeable depending on how one shoots.

Boy, people sure don't like your initial lens choices! lol! The 16-85mm and a 75-30mm lens combo would be an awesome way to start. Get those or an 18-200mm first, then consider your ULTRA wide options once you decide you want to go wider.

I would not consider the 28-300mm to start, you lose too much wide angle (it's about a 42-450mm equiv, and then you would need an ultra wide to compensate what you lose)

@NSXType-R, I was initially asking because I liked the range (28-300) and I'd seen several customer reviews where they had bought this lens for their DX cameras. Upon further research I realized that lens weighs 800grams which is pretty close to 2 pounds. Add that to the weight of the body and it might be miserable walking around with that.

I was also thinking that at some point in the future I'd upgrade to an FX body but that would be years from now.

@Drab, After looking back at many of the pics taken with my Powershot I'm starting to think more toward my first idea. I notice that most of my "people" pictures are portrait type from the neck up or torso up. Many are wider shots containing full body and a little surrounding scenery. Most landscape shots are wide. Less than 1% are close ups requiring strong zoom. So, I'm kind of getting rid of the 300mm idea. But zoom to 200mm seems more useable for me ( I do realize this is 300mm on DX). I've considered the 18-200mm but keep reading that it's good but a touch soft through the entire range and many people put it aside after getting better lenses.

@AVD4749 and Adamz I'll take a closer look at the Nikkor 14-24 and the Sigma 10-20 as I DO want at least one f/2.8 lens in addition to the 35 or 50mm f/1.8.

Thanks

Just curious, why did you combine DX lenses with FX lenses?

It would be understandable if you were transferring to FX eventually, but not if you're planning to stay on DX, which is what it seems for purchasing a D7000.

I like your initial setup, as for wide end You. Can try sigma 10-20, as it's really a nice lens for it's price. You can also swap the main lens for 18-105vr, ain't as good as 16-85 but still works nicely.

I would have to agree with Drab. Don't worry about the 10-300mm range. I would also like to agree that either a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 would fit perfectly with your plans.

I would suggest the following lenses If you want to cover a good range at a fixed aperture. Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8.

Keep in mind these lenses are more expensive, though as I like to think, camera bodies come an go, the glass can stay the same.

Just a few thoughts. Enjoy shooting!

Same as Drab for me.

Your initial plans for a Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR and Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF ED add to it a 1.8 - 50 or 35 will serve you well.