105mm f/2.8G AF-S is longer but not better then new 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S, costs more and is much bigger, but if you need one it is probably a better value.
New 35 f/1.8 is very good lens but I am not excited enough by it to buy it, but that is just me if you need it is a great value.
And it seams to me that this is just a point, your choice of lenses should really depend on what you want to do and why you need a new lens for, unless you consider lenses a collectable items that you never actually use.

Yeah, I mean it is small and dinky, but it gets the job done. Obviously the 50mm 1.8 can probably do the same work, so getting the 35mm 1.8 won't be all that special if you already have the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4.

But for someone with a 50mm lens that doesn't autofocus and going to about the same focal length with autofocus, it's freaking amazing.

I spend the whole day today with the 35mm in NYC. It's so light and handles so well on a D40 it almost feels like it's nothing. My friend has a Nikon P80, and honestly, the two were about the same size. Obviously the D40 does a lot better in low light situations though. And even at ISO 1600, it made mincemeat of photos I took in a dark restaurant.

I'm very happy with my purchase of the 35mm 1.8, because I would never have been able to take those photos with my other lens, the 18-135.

I also find the 35/1.8 to be a great lens on a D90, fast focusing, sharp and perfect to hold with the hood on. Very light weight to, a factor that contributes to its use - I don't much mind carrying it.

Yeah, I'd differ on the 35mm 1.8. I think it's an awesome lens. Of course, you guys are entitled to your opinions. :D

Sorry, have to differ on the value of the 60/2.8 micro. It's an good portrait lens (albeit brutal on subjects), small and easy handling and very sharp, but the 105 micro is so much better for most macro work that my 60 is rarely used.

alphanikonrex - indeed $500 is a lot, last time I've seen both of them at the shelf the difference was smaller

as for 70-200 with TC17 it's an excellent combo

#Henry Nikon Fan
For 600 Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G is an excellent value no matter what those snobs are saying, it is very sharp from 70 to 200, not as sharp above 200 but usable and it is even sharper on a full frame, 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR AF-S is better but costs 3 times more and has smaller range.
#RobertD is quite right, Tokina 12-24 is currently probably the best value for the money, so I would skip useless 35 and too expensive 17-55 and go for this one instead.
And for the money you saved you could get very fine and extremely sharp 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro, lens of choice for most of today’s professional photographers.
I would also skip 18-200, but if you already have one it would be a shame to loose all that money by selling it.
Anyways my choice for a basic DX lens setup at a moment would be:
Tokina 12-24 DX II
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR + TC-17E II Teleconverter if you could afford it, otherwise 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR would do a very good job.

I would definitely throw something on the wider end. If you are going to go with the 17-55, than I think the Tokina 11-16 is a no brainier. Its faster & cheaper than the Nikon 10-24, and just as sharp. My only gripe is that it won't auto-focus on my D40, but that's not as big an issue on the D300.

I'd ignore the 18-200 and use the savings to upgrade the 70-300 to a 70-200 f2.8. I expect there will be some deals on the current model once the new model goes on sale sometime between now and November. If you've really got your heart set on the 300mm range stick a teleconverter on the 70-200. It will still be faster than the 70-300 (somebody fact check me here... I don't know much about teleconverters) and probably sharper too.

If you do this, then you've got the spectrum from 11-200 covered at f2.8, with an option to hit 300+ at a little bit slower speed.

"Just another FYI, the 70-300 starts to get soft once you pass 200."

It does. I have this lens and it's why I ended up with my prime. Not that a prime is needed here. Having it wide open also softens it a bit. Basically, as I've said before, consumer lenses don't like being pushed to their limits. Having said that, it's a good lens within it's limits. Many of my people shots from last year, both indoors and outdoors were shot with this lens. Here's what it can do:

http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/112885206

http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/112885259

http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/114755577

http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/112885254

As you can see, for indoors or in poor light (like the second shot), it's fine as long as the subject isn't moving. If you're shooting sports at night, it may give you issues. By the way, those shots were also done on a D300 so this should give you some idea of what this kit combo can do.

I'd opt for 10-24, 16-85 and 70-300 for a total of about $2000 and 1850 grams, about the cost of the huge 70-200/2.8, which weighs 1470 grams by itself. Add the 35/1.8 for another couple of hundred and almost no weight (200 grams) and you are in business. Remember if you're using the 70-200, you have all the weight on the camera and around you neck all the time.

While I've used and appreciate fast glass, given the increase in cost and weight and the fact that I almost always stop down to f4-f8 for depth of field it never seemed a good trade-off.

"...instead of 17-55 I would go for 24-70 (pretty much the same price)..."

I agree with that completely, except the fact that the lenses are the same price. At B&H the DX lens is nearly $1,300 while the other is nearly $1,800. That's about a $500 dollar difference, which is pretty significant.

Niko "...300mm to 200 isn't all that big a difference..." - for me it's either to have the picture or not :), so I will disagree that's not a big difference

as for 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR AF-S - it's not a good lens, unless You gonna use it from 70-200, above that images are pretty soapy. I used this lens some time ago and sold it very quickly.

Henry - instead of 17-55 I would go for 24-70 (pretty much the same price) and it's gonna be usable on FX once You make the transition, also would add a wide angle lens, either Tokina (as Robert mentioned) or Sigma 10-20 - both great.

Just another FYI, the 70-300 starts to get soft once you pass 200.

It's sharpest around 70mm, still sharper than most by 200, but by 300... unless you are shooting up towards f/11 in broad daylight... you're going to have soft shots.

I think I've owned all of the 70-x00 lenses so far...
$150 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G AF
$300 70-300mm f/4-5.6 D ED AF
$600 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR AF-S
$1900 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR AF-S

Out of all, the 70-200 was probably my favorite, but it was big, heavy, and I really only used it outdoors in direct sunlight, so it didn't really offer me any advantages over the 70-300 ED VR...anything other than tighter DoF if I wanted it...

-- Dave

If you feel that it is a stupid question to ask, then why even bother to respond unless the purpose is to offend?

Also what lens would you recommend for a reach of 300mm? There is no DX zoom lens with this range.

Thank you Nau for not participating in this topic!

unless you are collector of some sort, its a stupid (no offense) question to ask.
get what you use

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G - for DX probly not the best gear for the money unless u planing to go FX later

Henry Nikon Fan:

I'm a Nikon fan but I bought the Tokina 12-24mm instead of the Nikon 12-24. It's a superb lens for half the money. Unless you're shooting test charts, I don't think you will notice any difference in quality. Photo below shot with the Tokina.

Henry if your planning to shoot lots of low light stuff then get the 35 f1.8 and the 17-55 f2.8. Faster glass is what you'll need. The 18-200 is a nice walk around lens, but it wont give you what you want indoors (assuming no flash like museums).

I'd save the money and get the cheaper 70-300 VR for your outdoor baseball shots. In this case longer zoom will get you the shot. 300mm to 200 isn't all that big a difference but since you've got the lower range covered with a 17-55 you'll be good. I'm assuming you included the 17-55 f2.8 because it's in your price range.

Alphanikonrex I'd go with the 10-24 for the interior architectural pictures, but don't forget about the distortion you'll have to correct for at the wide end or the tripod.

The 12-24mm or the 10-24mm lens would be nice, but I am trying to keep the cost down.

Sounds good, how about the 12-24 or the 10-24?

I'd wait for the rumored 17-60 2.8 VR...

Or get a Tamron 28-75 2.8 in the meantime...

Out of that list you will probably use the 35 the most.

The 70-300 is good, but won't get you much indoors.

-- Dave

Mainly family indoor pictures and backyard pictures, indoor museum type pictures in low light, some baseball game pictures and some interior Architectural pictures.

What kind of photography do you do, or plan to use them for?

I already have some of these lenses, but I am considering purchasing the ones that I do not have. I will be using these lenses on a Nikon D300

Here they are:

Nikon AF-S DX 35mm F/1.8G
Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm F/2.8G
Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G (This would be used primarily for all purpose travel lens.)
Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G

What are your thoughts on how useful and superior this set of lenses would be?