Please do a forum search as these lenses have been discussed and compared endlessly.

Try this: Go to your local Nikon dealer and try on an AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0, and shoot some head-and-shoulders shots of people in the store at its maximum aperture of f/2.0. Then, slap on the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G lens, and do the same at the matching focal length of 105mm, at the zoom's maximum aperture of f/5.6. You'll notice two things:

1. With the zoom, you'll likely have to increase your ISO (although its VR capability will help) since the f/5.6 lens will need eight times the light the f/2.0 lens needs (a three-stop difference).
2. You'll see that the fixed-length, 105mm lens, irised at f/2.0, easily isolates your subjects by allowing your background to go nicely out of focus, due to its larger maximum aperture.

Creatively, your options are more limited with slower (e.g., f/5.6) zooms. Yes, you have more focal lengths available, but you sacrifice the ability to isolate your subjects by employing shallow depth-of-field technique. If you want to travel light, on vacation, for example, then a slower zoom may be more convenient; just be aware that you'll be trading convenience for a loss of certain creative options.

That said, the most "useful" lens of the three you mentioned, in my opinion, is the 70-300mm VR. It's long enough to be able to benefit from some subject isolation at its maximum focal length, as well as being fairly light and compact for its zoom range. My second choice would be the 18-200mm, which although has a nice range of focal lengths, it's still too slow for my tastes. My last choice would be the 18-105mm.

I think a much better two-lens, all-zoom, set-up would be the 70-300mm VR paired with the 18-55mm VR. The 18-55mm is very sharp, very compact, not too expensive, and still goes wide enough for most scenes. Also, having both lenses equipped with VR expands your shooting versatility across the board, allowing you to take more shots without a tripod (though, I still often use a monopod, even with VR lenses). I used to carry my 18-55mm VR everywhere just because it was so small, and for its VR capabilities. In fact, the 18-55mm VR is the only "kit lens" I've ever purchased (save for the 18-70mm lens, that I never use, that came with my D70). Unfortunately, the 18-55mm VR is a very plastic-ey lens, and very fragile (mine broke after a few weeks).

With both the 18-55mm VR and the 70-300mm VR, you have both "ends" covered. Later, you could supplement your set-up with an AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, a terrific portrait length for DX. For more low-light options, pick up a 35mm f/1.8 ("normal" lens on DX), or a 50mm f/1.4.

^^^ the 18-200 and 70-200 lenses are pretty different. I have thought the same thing, but say you go on vacation. One you probably wouldn't want to carry the weight of the 70-200 all the time and two you will be missing the 18-70 mm range with just the 70-200. See the 18-200 more as an everyday walk around lens. Your 70-200 will be more portraits and wildlife...obviously anything that needs a little telephoto the 70-200 will most likely perform better then the 18-200. Out of the need to not switch lenses all the time though the 18-200 is the lens everyone gravitates to.

Lol if Nikon was super cool they would make a 18-200 f2.8 and it would be the best lens ever if they could make it a little sharper then the 18-200 now.

Hope this is not too much of a hijack - but my question is too similar to start a new thread...

I've been using the Nikon 16-85mm lens with my D7000 for the last week and like it, but have just ordered the Nikon 18-200mm VR II to try it out. The plan is to return the 16-85mm if "I" see no major difference in the 18-200 while gaining zoom beyond 85mm.

Would it be considered seriously redundant to keep the Nikon 18-200mm VR II as a general all purpose lens and also get the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens to use for portrait, low light, macro usage? I'd already planned to get either a 85mm or 105mm Nikon micro lens anyway in the future for portrait/macro use but the cost of the Sigma is in the same ballpark. I will lose VR but I gain versatility in the zoom.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I own all of these lens. I would take the D7000 with a 18-200VR and the 70-300VR. That is how my use of these lens works out. The 18-105VR lens is a OK lens, but it is not as versatile as the 18-200VR. OK if I were saving money. I'd lean toward the 18-55 and a 70-300VR and some day get a prime lens in a 50mm f1.8 or f 2.0 (prime lens). The 18-55 is a beautiful little lens. The D7000 is an awesome camera. Two of these lens (the prime, and the 70-300VR can be used on a FF DSLR camera. I use them on my D700 and my F5 (film Nikon).

When I use a f3.5+ lens, I'm looking to go light-weight, small, less noticeable (I don't mind to shoot at a restaurant or party or somewhere with the 18-55). When I use a 2.8 zoom, it's large and heavy and awesome for indoors/night. So my 2 cents would be go with the smaller f3.5 lens now, and then you won't have two large heavy lenses later.

I won't answer the lens question since it is overly repetitive of all the other what lens/lenses should I get with my DXXXX body threads. Either lens setup is a decent choice IMO.

I believe the SB600 is actually more powerful then the SB700, but I am not sure if the SB700 has anything else that the SB600 doesn't. The SB900 is obviously the best flash, but if cost is a factor then the SB600 is still a perfectly good flash for even pros.

Which lenses should I get? D7000 Kit= 18-105mm & 70-300mm (OR) D7000 & 18-200mm

I am gonna get the new D7000 and was wondering if you think I should get:

Can you please give me your honest advice and suggestion of which of the following bundles is better to go with:

Bundle #1
-D7000 Kit w/ "AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR"
-AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Bundle #2
-D7000 BODY
-AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

*** The reason that I am asking you this is because someone mentioned the following to me:

"I would not recommend the 18-200 lens. The 18-200 (or any zoom that covers a 10x or greater range) is
like a Swiss Army Knife; a lot of tools in 1 package but none of the tools work really well. You would not fix
a car with a Swiss Army Knife, you would use separate tools like in a craftsman tool set.

When a lens tries to cover such a big range, it is generally mediocre through out the entire range. I know it means you
will not need to change lenses if you use the 18-200.

You will have better quality optics and a longer range if you were to get the D7000 with the 18-105vr and then get the 70-300vr ."
**********************

I was originally going to get the "D7000 BODY" and "18-200mm" but now I am not sure.

Also, would you suggest the "SB-700" or "SB-900" for the flash?

Can you please give me your thoughts?

Thanks again!