Newfie's list is a good one, but I would seriously consider the 80-200 2.8 over the uber expensive 70-200 VRII. You would save almost $1500 and loose nothing but VR, which wont help you with freezing action. The 80-200 is just as sharp and has amazing contrast. I'm not saying the 70-200 VRII isnt amazing, because it is. I'm just saying, the same image quality can be had at a fraction of the cost. Not-tp-mention, the 80-200 2.8 is built like a tank and will last a lifetime. It doesn't have any AF-S or VR electronics that can easily be damaged or wear-out. There is a reason the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED professional telephoto is still in Nikon's lineup, since 1996(there have been several revisions). It's an amazing lens that will last practically forever.

Also, keep in mind that any shutter speed over 1/500th sec, VR won't help you either. VR is only good for stopping camera shake at low shutter speeds. You'll still need fast shutter speeds to freeze motion. Luckily, your D7000 is capable of clean high-ISO performance. This will really come in handy in low-light.

Hi all,

@jerl, I have the 10-24, and while it's pretty good, I'm going to get the 12-24. It seems a tad sharper, but it could be the copies used. But it is a DX lens, too, and that might not set well with the intent of the OP. Dunno.

@barnesbrigade, if you are set on going back to FX after a while, Newfie's list seems spot on, with the addition of a TC.

It doesn't seem that $5K doesn't buy much anymore. ;-0

My best,

Mike

Wow, SB-700 is down to $280 now? I might need to pick that up.

Newfie said:
Planning for the future and FX format I would buy:

Nikon D7000 $1,200
Nikkor 35mm f./1.8 $280
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 $2,500
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 $1,700
Nikon SB-700 $280
Total $5,960

I would go with Newfie's list. The 70-200 and 14-24 should do fine with the 35mm picking up the middle ground (50mm equiv.) if you need it. I have pretty much that list with the 24-70 instead of the 35mm, and the SB-800 for the flash. They are a powerful combination.

I also own the D700 and will say that the for a lot of things the D7000 will match up pretty well, especially if you are going to be shooting outside. The video is a real plus as well if you want it, but as a still camera the D7K rocks.

Don't forget also a small "Giotto Rocket Blower" for the case some dust goes into your sensor while you exchange lenses... (~10$). Also I would add some filters for the lenses.. a CP is also a must for outdoor photography...

Given my experience, I would say that a lot of what you need depends on what pictures you will be taking and what vantage points you get. For longer-ish range photos in bright daylight outdoors, I'd say the 70-300VR since it has good reach, fast autofocus and has good VR. You'll stop down anyway in bright daylight, so most lenses will perform similarly optically, and the range of reach you get can be very useful. It's not that great at 250-300, but you get it if you really need it and somehow I doubt you should be shooting golf at that range anyway. If you know you can get much closer, you'd probably want the 70-200 VR2- the closer range means you don't need the 300, but it performs well under more miserable conditions (and indoors too if you need it).

I'd skip out on the normal zooms take a 50/1.8 or a 35/1.8 for a fast prime. I avoid normal zooms in general because I find they don't contribute that much, but you may be comfortable with one- in that case I'd take the 17-55 if you really need one. The gaps you get for not having a normal zoom is not really a problem with me, but may be for you. The 24-70 is another possibility- if is FX compatible, but will be less flexible on DX since 24 is not really wide.

I'd also suggest a wide zoom- surprisingly enough, they are all good enough (yes even the third party ones), but with a big budget, I'd suggest the 10-24. Th fast 10-20, 11-16 and 8-16 all have their own advantages, but if I was spending that much for a pro shoot, I'd prefer to stick with first party lenses.

So if you stick with the D7000, 70-300VR, 50/1.8 and 10-24, you've spend just under $3000, so you're way under budget- you could get a second D7000 and some lights. Or you could upgrade the 70-300 to the 70-200, but I think that still gives you about $1000 flexibility for other stuff.

But that's just my opinion, and that's based on my experience and on what I'd do- take that with a large grain of salt.

barnesbrigade said:
Thanks Cary! I agree with all of your points. The battery grip is a must, of course. Considering shooting a golf event, what do you think are appropriate lenses?

I agree with most recommendations on lenses, so far. Get as many FX lenses, you can.

14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
35mm 1.8G DX
50mm 1.8D(or pre-ordered the new 50mm 1.8G)
80-200 2.8 (save some money over the 70-200VRII. The 80-200 2.8 performs just as well as the much more expensive 70-200 VRII. It just doesn't have VR, and if you're shooting action, VR wont help you anyway.)

Most of what I listed is part of my own kit. I just don't have the 14-24 2.8. I do have other lenses that I wouldn't recommend in your budget, but this would get you close, no matter what you're shooting.

Nikon d7000
70-200mm
Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Nikon teleconverter
Nikon sb900

Still plenty of money to spend on accessories such as cards, monopods, radio triggers etc.

If you are going to stay with dx then these lenses will do great

Btw if you need to specify more what kind of shooting you maily do.

Ohh and in before the lock....

Rx4Photo said:
Hi barnesbrigage,
I curretly have the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens and do enjoy it for occasional long distance photography. I often zoom it out just to 200mm to see if it would suffice to get the shot that I'm looking for (sort of testing the warters of getting the 70-200mm lens) and I've realized that 200mm is not long enough sometimes. I recently shot my daughters playing soccer and know I'd love faster glass for that. So, my comments are based on my thought that you'd need faster glass for brighter images and a TC for those far off shots.

I've never photographed golf but even standing at the side of a soccer field shooting my kids with the setting at 200mm left me with images that needed cropping to get the picture that I really wanted. I'm sure the more experienced photogs will chime in here.

Great advice RX! Thanks.

barnesbrigade said:
Thanks Rx! Curious though, why the teleconverter?

Hi barnesbrigage,
I curretly have the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens and do enjoy it for occasional long distance photography. I often zoom it out just to 200mm to see if it would suffice to get the shot that I'm looking for (sort of testing the warters of getting the 70-200mm lens) and I've realized that 200mm is not long enough sometimes. I recently shot my daughters playing soccer and know I'd love faster glass for that. So, my comments are based on my thought that you'd need faster glass for brighter images and a TC for those far off shots.

I've never photographed golf but even standing at the side of a soccer field shooting my kids with the setting at 200mm left me with images that needed cropping to get the picture that I really wanted. I'm sure the more experienced photogs will chime in here.

Newfie said:
Planning for the future and FX format I would buy:

Nikon D7000 $1,200
Nikkor 35mm f./1.8 $280
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 $2,500
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 $1,700
Nikon SB-700 $280
Total $5,960

Thanks Newfie! This is very close to what I was thinking.

Rx4Photo said:
If I had $6000...and planning to shoot outside sports and still use the kit for hobby,

D7000: ~ $1200 - $1300
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8: $1900
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II: $2400
Nikon TC-17E teleconverter: $550

I'm not an expert, just considering what I'd do if starting over.

Edit: Add a good kit bag and for golf, maybe a monopod...

Thanks Rx! Curious though, why the teleconverter?

Planning for the future and FX format I would buy:

Nikon D7000 $1,200
Nikkor 35mm f./1.8 $280
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 $2,500
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 $1,700
Nikon SB-700 $280
Total $5,960

If I had $6000...and planning to shoot outside sports and still use the kit for hobby,

D7000: ~ $1200 - $1300
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8: $1900
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II: $2400
Nikon TC-17E teleconverter: $550

I'm not an expert, just considering what I'd do if starting over.

Edit: Add a good kit bag and for golf, maybe a monopod...

CaryTheLabelGuy said:
Well, the D7000 has the best sensor in the DX lineup. We own 2 of them and love them a lot. The Dynamic Range and high-ISO performance is amazing, especially for a APS-C dslr. I HIGHLY recommend the optional MB-D11 battery grip, for several reasons(better handling, battery options and better bracing on the bottom of the body).

Not only is the D7K the best DX sensor camera, it's the best APS-C camera out period(that and the Pentax K-5, which share the same Sony 16.3mp sensor). Some will argue that they still prefer the D300s to the D7K, because of the body and buffer, but I don't see things this way. I've shot with both and the D7K does just fine in the handling dept, not to mention has a much better sensor with the newest tech.

The D7K gent's my vote, by a good bit. Although, the D300s is still an amazing body.

Thanks Cary! I agree with all of your points. The battery grip is a must, of course. Considering shooting a golf event, what do you think are appropriate lenses?

Well, the D7000 has the best sensor in the DX lineup. We own 2 of them and love them a lot. The Dynamic Range and high-ISO performance is amazing, especially for a APS-C dslr. I HIGHLY recommend the optional MB-D11 battery grip, for several reasons(better handling, battery options and better bracing on the bottom of the body).

Not only is the D7K the best DX sensor camera, it's the best APS-C camera out period(that and the Pentax K-5, which share the same Sony 16.3mp sensor). Some will argue that they still prefer the D300s to the D7K, because of the body and buffer, but I don't see things this way. I've shot with both and the D7K does just fine in the handling dept, not to mention has a much better sensor with the newest tech.

The D7K gent's my vote, by a good bit. Although, the D300s is still an amazing body.

alchse said:
Isn't the 300 a medium format (DX) camera?

or am I confusing conventions?

DX yes, but medium format? No.

Isn't the 300 a medium format (DX) camera?

or am I confusing conventions?

alchse said:
you sold your lenses?

if so - why?

Was going medium format. Changed my mind. Back to square one.

you sold your lenses?

if so - why?

I've been through a D100, D200 and D300... Sold everything and starting over.

I'm going to start from scratch again. I have between $5,000 and $6,000 to spend. I consider myself a "pro-sumer". I understand the benefits of full-frame, but I really like the D7000.

I'll be shooting a major golf event soon and want to have the best possible kit for my budget.

Thoughts?

Thanks!