jpelizza said:
thanks for all the replies. one mentioned flashes, i did forget to mention in have sb-400 that i use all the time to bounce light off ceiling indoors for less shadows and it works great. i'm going to play around with the 18mm on my 18-200 and see how some shots come out for landscape and see if for now i can get by with that. but after reading some posts and other forums it seems on the d7000 people seem to like the 24-70mm a lot. i do like the suggestion that if i buy more dx lenses i may end up keeping a dx as back up if i do go to fx someday. but for now i'm leaning toward getting the 24-70mm2.8. any thoughts on flashes other than what i have. i don't have any complaints except if i turn camera vertical i can't do that with the flash to keep it bouncing off ceiling.

thanks again for all the replies. hope most of you enjoyed the giants game i know i did!!!!!

For flash upgrade, the sb-700 is pretty decent and considerably lighter than the older brothers.

To be honest, I like the 24-70 2.8 mainly for the focal length in FX body in door (the amazing fast AF and sharpness are just bonuses). The bokeh wise, i wish it is better. The 70-200 however, the most used lens for me for outdoor and even in door whenever possible. The bokeh is just amazing.

thanks for all the replies. one mentioned flashes, i did forget to mention in have sb-400 that i use all the time to bounce light off ceiling indoors for less shadows and it works great. i'm going to play around with the 18mm on my 18-200 and see how some shots come out for landscape and see if for now i can get by with that. but after reading some posts and other forums it seems on the d7000 people seem to like the 24-70mm a lot. i do like the suggestion that if i buy more dx lenses i may end up keeping a dx as back up if i do go to fx someday. but for now i'm leaning toward getting the 24-70mm2.8. any thoughts on flashes other than what i have. i don't have any complaints except if i turn camera vertical i can't do that with the flash to keep it bouncing off ceiling.

thanks again for all the replies. hope most of you enjoyed the giants game i know i did!!!!!

There isn't any downside to getting FX as it can be used on both, but that being said and I think others have mentioned it the ranges required on FX are different than those on DX. I have a mismash of both kinds and really I just get whatever I feel I need to shoot what I want now. I haven't looked that far into the future and I don't think I would ever regret getting a DX lens that I have now. I could always use them on a backup DX body if I decided to switch, but that is far down the road.

The obvious benefit of FX glass is being able to use them either way. If you really felt like you at some point might feel bad because you purchased a DX lens and are switching to FX and might lose some money selling them...then FX would be the way to go. I have found there are some unique DX lenses that aren't available in FX. There isn't really an walk around lens like the 18-200...that if you purchased the FX equivalent like the 28-300 would be as useful. The 35 F1.8 is a gem and DX. I love my Tokina 12-24 F4 that is DX.

Also initial price is a huge difference. All the FX glass is more expensive.

The second FX lens I purchased was the 70-200 VRII. I'd been using an 18-200 VRII until then, and for me, the difference in quality and versatility was enough to push me solidly into the FX camp.

I'd made a relatively significant investment in DX glass, and I've been able to salvage that investment because my girlfriend shoots DX, but in hindsight I'd have been better off buying FX glass from the start.

So my advice - try the lenses. Borrow them, rent them, shoot them and compare the photos side by side. Decide if FX is where you want to be now, and start down a path of least financial regret.

You should develop a purpose in your mind for each lens that you buy. Otherwise you'll end up buying a lens and then not using it for what you thought you got it for.

The 35mm f/1.8 prime offers excellent lightweight portability. It's liberating in that you don't have to think about zooming with that lens. Just compose, focus, shoot.

The 50mm f/1.4 prime offers the same qualities as the above but I'd personally reserve it for portrait type work and inanimate objects where I wanted the background out of focus - the bokeh. Open the aperture and create some beautiful, frame-able photos of your spouse, kids and pets if you have any.

The next time you go out to shoot landscapes and/or interiors see if the 18mm end of that 18-200 is wide enough and also see if it gathers enough light for your liking. If not, then I'd get the Tokina. Also if you want those artsy, distorted, low angle shots then the Tokina is also really good at that at the 11mm end.

Just think, if you do eventually go full frame in the next 1-3 years nothing would be sweeter than to keep your D7000 with the 18-200mm lens instead of selling them off. That would serve as your spur of the moment - grab and go kit.

Remember, Nikon never said the D4 is only for professionals...they're saying it's for perfectionists......with deep pockets.

When I moved to fx I had a few lenses and that made the transition easier. I love the look of a 1.4 lens on a fx camera. Once I saw that I was hooked. It would have been harder to make the switch from dx to fx if I would not have had at least a few lenses that were fx.
Like many are saying fx is not really suppose to be a step up just more of a step across depending on your shooting style and subject. That is what it is suppose to be at leasts. If you look at the current lineup nikon is put their "pro" cameras as fx right now. Now I know a lot of people say the d7000 is a pro camera and it does have some pretty amazing image quality but I just don't see nikon putting the work into dx as they do fx. d4, d800.....
My vote still says that if you believe that moving to fx is a move you are going to make then buying fx lenses that work for now is not a bad choice. Hope this helps you out a little.
~click click

jpelizza, I was and still in many ways, in a similar situation to you. I've always wanted to go FX at some point, and I was divided on whether to get cheaper DX lenses now or future-proof by going with FX lenses. I ended up buying the Tokina 11-16mm three years ago because I decided that the Tokina was a really great lens, and that even when I did go to FX, I would still probably keep a DX camera/lens set as well. As of today, I've purchased a few FX lenses, but have not bought a FX camera.

For a lot of the photography that I've done in those three years, I can't imagine not having had the Tokina. Having it in my bag has helped me practice how to best use ultra-wides, which I now believe was a great investment for myself. I've also become a lot less worried about DX vs FX issues. My D7000 takes great photos, and though FX offers conveniences and low-light advantages, the quality of my photos do not depend on it.

One note that some other members have mentioned: I do not think the 11-16mm is a good lens for portraits or for being the primary lens for photographing your kids. It has a lot more distortion compared to your 18-200 (which I also have), and you really have to be up close. If you do get it, keep the lens hood on when shooting outside, because I find it more prone to flare than the 18-200.

Another note is that while the 11-16mm is a great lens, I'm using it a lot less. I'm no longer the ultra-wide junkie I used to be. But there is no question that it was worth every penny in helping me become a better photographer.

Sometimes the most cost-effective solution is to take the widest lens you have and just take a few steps back!

You have a very good collection of lenses right now. They will cover everything you want to do in photographing kids, nature and landscapes.

I question some underlying assumptions in your post:

1. Why do you think you need to go wider than 18mm? Most people don't, just "zoom with your feet" and step back a step or two to get more subject into your viewfinder if you want more in the image. If you really do want to shoot room interiors or extreme depth of field images the Tokina 11-16 will be more than adequate.

2. Why do you think you will need to go to FX? Do you currently try to sell images and have them rejected because they are not FX? Do you print any photos at 20x30 inches? Remember two things: First, before the D3 all professionals were using the DX format since the D1 and D2 were DX. Second, wait for the D400 and D7100 which will be announced this year. They will be better than your D7000 and likely will offer all the "upgrade" path you need. Most people don't realize their computer monitor and printer are already "downgrading" the number of pixels in a DX D7000 image every time they view it because your monitor (even your 55 inch HDTV) can only display about a 2 megapixel image and your inkjet printer cannot print all the pixels your D7000 produces. So if you "upgrade" to FX and view the images on your monitor and print them on your injet printer you will just be "throwing away" more pixels then you do now.

There are specific reasons to go to FX for its specific advantages but most of those do not apply to most of us. I doubt they are going to apply to you in a year or two unless you become a professional sports photographer or a professional wedding photographer. Many wildlife photographers use DX because it allows them to get closer to the animal. Many professional wedding and portrait photographers run a business just fine with DX format cameras.

To Echo jerl - you need to focus on today +1-2 years and not what you may do in the far off future. DX is here for many more years so your DX glass will still have demand in the future. I would keep your 18-200vr - I kick myself more for not keeping mine. For kids and daily life, it is a great lens suited for that.

Personally I would suggest focusing on broadening your equipment's photographic abilities rather than FX/DX. Filling a good kit out, I would suggest looking at the Tokina 12-24 (much more useful for daily life), 70-300vr, 85mm 1.8, and a macro lens (60,85,105) and with what you already have, you could do almost anything. Next would be flashes.

If 95% of your pictures are your kids, I would highly recommend 70-200 for outdoor. They move around like crazy, you won't need a fast prime either as getting the pictures of kids running around sharp at F/1.4 don't come easy. I tried wide (14-24), great lens but I have to get very close to my daughter which isn't easy. If i stand too far, the pictures are way too small to my liking. I won't bother with wide angle unless if you really want to do landscape. Regardless of you will ever upgrade to FX or no, 24-70 and 70-200 will serve you well. The aperture is fast enough, if you go with the nikkor version, the AF is amazing.

jpelizza said:
or should i just get the 11-16mm so i can do wide angle and just worry about fx when i actually upgrade.

I would get the 11-16mm

The equivalent in FX would be a 16-35 not much wider on an DX camera than your 18 -200

as jerl says, it is only worth thinking about FX lenes when you are looking at something like the 70-200 f 2.8

Get the 24-70 2.8 you will be extremely happy with it. 70% of all my shots are with that lens and I have the entire Trinity set...including the three you own. In fact, I use them all on my D7000.

Just to throw a different perspective in:

You seem to be thinking that the step from DX to FX is a part of a normal learning curve and it isn't - you don't have to 'progress' to FX at all. Nothing significant changes in photography between the different formats, so I don't see how you will be 'ready'.

I am quite happy with DX for instance and unless something completely unexpected happens to force me to change, I will stay with it. The latest D7000 sensor is better than my D90 sensor and by the time I change the D90 they will be better again.

Can you put into words why you foresee a change already when you admit you are new to photography?

That's very good advice jerl, plus one.

So it sounds to me like you are thinking about buying new equipment and are concerned about future proofing yourself. That's definitely a big concern, as you don't want to end up short changing yourself. Really, though, you shouldn't be buying lenses that you might use some time in the far future- you should be focusing on what would be useful to you right now. After all, you don't really know your needs in the future, and who knows, maybe you will end up staying with DX (or going to another system for your full frame needs).

That being said, almost every midrange prime and almost every long zoom and prime covers FX as well as DX, so if you end up buying a 70-200 or a 24/1.4 now for some purpose, you can be rest assured that it will work great on an FX camera if you end up getting one. Many midrange zooms work well too, but they tend not to have too good of a wide range (eg, 24 instead of 16 or 18), but maybe that doesn't matter to you. Wide FX zooms are almost invariably not that great of an idea on DX since you are invariably paying much more (in $$$, weight and size) for lens, only to use only a small portion of its coverage. If you want a wide zoom, you'll probably end up getting different ones for each system. Crop frame wide zooms are typically much better for crop sensors because they are specially designed for it. It's not like you are going to find a 11mm FX lens.

A more fundamental question, though, is what, if anything you should get. And for that, my advice would be to look at what you use now and what limits you. Do you really need a wide zoom? Well, if you constantly find that the 18 on your 18-200 is not wide enough, well the answer is probably yes. If its just to fill in a perceived gap, then maybe not.

ok don't know what to do with all these lense choices. i'm still fairly new to photography. i started with a d40 and upgraded to d7000 last year. 95% of my pictures right now are of the kids. i will be taking more pics of wildlife and some landscapes in the near future.

my lenses right now are: 18-200vr, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4

i'm thinking of getting a tokina 11-16mm for wide angle but i'm starting to think i should spend the money on fx lenses so that when i'm ready to do fx in 1-3 years i don't have to sell all my dx lenses and get new ones. so far the only fx lense i have is the 50mm 1.4. so if i did that it seems like the 16-35 2.8, 24-70mm2.8, 70-200mmvr would be my kit of choice. so with all that i'm thinking ok ditching the idea of 11-16mm tokina and put that money into the 24-70mm 2.8 as i would use that all the time in the home taking pics of the family. next year then maybe get the 16-35, and the year after 70-200 (sell my 18-200vr).

or should i just get the 11-16mm so i can do wide angle and just worry about fx when i actually upgrade.

right now i leave my 18-200 on most of time b/c of the range, the 35 and 50 are great but my kids are 5 and twin 2 y/o's so they are not the best about waiting for me to move closer or farther with with prime lense for the shot.

any thoughts???