What ever lens you deside to get I suggest you consider Nikon VR as this clip demonstrates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLQuXfXJFJ8
But what ever you do don't rely on VR for every thing, and remember VR only works up to 500th of a second. It's a great tool but needs to be used correctly.

I have the D7000 and both of those lenses and I would not hesitate to say 18-105VR. If you then decide to buy a fast lens, you need to say what you will use it for as you have another choice to make between 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f1.8's.

Ionutt3 said:
Hey Guys!
This week i will upgrade from the d3000 to the d7000 and I was wondering what lens should i get for the camera?
I only have the 18-55 VR and i was wondering to buy the 35mm 1.8 G or 18-105 mm ?
What do you guys think?

Convenience = 18-105mm

Better Quality = 35mm

Ionutt3 said:
Well between those two lenses because the other are kinda out of my budget heh :D

Hard to say, what do you want? What do you expect? What do you need? More range? Portraits, landscapes, macro? Zoom, prime? Need more info ;)

Well between those two lenses because the other are kinda out of my budget heh :D

Ionutt3 said:
Hey Guys!
This week i will upgrade from the d3000 to the d7000 and I was wondering what lens should i get for the camera?
I only have the 18-55 VR and i was wondering to buy the 35mm 1.8 G or 18-105 mm ?
What do you guys think?

And other threads covering the D7000 plus ??? Lens/es

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2500

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2557

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2813

Oh BTW I would think 85mm f/1.8G OR the AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED if you want big zoom.... but let those with more knowledge jump in here.... I guess you want to spend less than $500 USD?

24-85 has mediocre reviews on sharpness, 28-70 doesn't allow you to get very wide.

Would not recommend either. A cheap option but slightly wider is the 18-70/3.5-4.5 which I believe has good sharpness and I believe also good bokeh and can be found used for $200 but buying used when you're new to photography is not probably smart idea. The next most similar cheap lens in Nikon-land to that is the 18-105 that TTJ is suggesting but doesn't go very wide.

Again, you need to figure out what you want/need and bear in mind if you keep good care of your equipment you can always resell lenses on eBay or Craigs List to buy something else, losing relatively little $ in the process.

Another thing you may want to do is try lenses at a camera shop, bringing a friend to "model" for you as you play with different subject distances, different apertures and get a sense of what is useful to you in focal length and aperture. Also, some online photo servers have focal length, aperture, camera, lens attached to the images so you can look at that and see what types of shots you like and are likely to take.

That sigma is pretty ok, judging by the samples, but all 3 sigma lenses I've tried exhibited some quality control issues and as a total beginner pinpointing those might be hard, especially if you buy second hand and selling a lens that is faulty even in a minor way can be extremely hard ... Not to mention Sigma's hsm what I saw of it on two copies of the 17-70 macro is anything but accurate. Even the 18-55vr is a great lens for a beginner and they are almost giving them away for free.

I would suggest drop the idea of a F2.8 when you are starting out. Both of what you put are inside the 18-105 which doesn't make much since to get next.

When you are comfortable with the 18-105, look at your images to see what focal range you mostly shoot at to tell you where your next direction should be.
-If you are always at the long end and cropping, a tele zoom would be next.
-If you are always around either 35, 50, or 85 (50equiv, 75equiv, 128equiv) and need more light shooting indoors, then one of those primes would be good.
-If you are on the wide end, getting a 12-24mm would be an option.

Really no since in guessing yourself before you even own the camera. Once you get use to the system, you will learn what you need.

How's the following lens as my first lens?

(A) Tamron SP 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

(B) Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF AF Zoom-Nikkor Lens

TaoTeJared said:
I would go for the body and the 18-105vr - average to good price on that. If you have the cash left over, adding the 55-300 wouldn't be a bad deal. You would have a great range and a good beginner kit.

It seems you are moving away from the 18-105 - any reason?

I would add a 35mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.8 after you have the full range you want to shoot. If you are not going to be doing long outdoor shots much, skip the 55-300 for now and go the 35mm (which is a 50 equiv. for DX.)

Overlap in lenses in the mid range on dx (50mm-100mm) is actually helpful since that is your more ideal portrait length. Who wants to change lenses that much.

You're right that for my usage, I would be better of with short range lens than 55-200. I can start with good short range lens and build system from there.

Parapoon,

I too would suggest you look at Sigma if you are looking at 17-50 though that's a stretch for your budget. Their build is better, some have commented optics are similar quality; still check the lens thoroughly before using.

Re: 17-50 vs. 18-105, if you don't want wide aperture for subject isolation, the 18-105 is a better fit--> Optically very good lens though build quality is not rugged.

Notice that while TTJ says the 17-50 was too short for him for portraits, he's still suggesting you get a cheap 50/1.8 for portraits so while longer is beneficial (I typically use 60-70 indoors and longer outside) 50 does get you a USEABLE portrait-taking focal length, and 17 gets you wide enough for most tourism. On film I pretty much used my 28-70/2.8 (which is similar focal length to 17-50DX) for 90% of my shots for 13 years, adding a $400 telephoto (70-300) after a couple years that also allowed 1/4 macro. Between these 2 lenses, I was set for many years, only occassionally wanting something a little wider.

For me, wide aperture, subject isolation, and bokeh is not specific to portraiture and not an on-off knob so I have found it useful to go up to 2.8 even at 16-24mm.

When you get to longer focal length, the distance between objects is usually more so you get telephoto effect that typically helps with subject isolation so I find I don't usually NEED a 2.8 for longer telephoto. Telephotos are great for cropping interesting things out from the distance (animals, candid shots of people, distant landscape items that will show up as specs otherwise...). Macros are great for bugs, flowers, things like that. Again, if you are building a system, you would probably have to compromise and lose some shots in your 1st trip, but the 17-50/2.8 is NOT a bad place to start.

The only reason I belabor this though you say is not important for you is because most people I know who just started in photography ask how to get subject isolation after a few months of owning 4-5.6 zooms so I do think it is something useful to think about up front.

For the 55-200 or 55-300, I'd rather you buy a 18-200mm. It's the same quality as 18-55mm 55-200mm it with the flexibility.

I would go for the body and the 18-105vr - average to good price on that. If you have the cash left over, adding the 55-300 wouldn't be a bad deal. You would have a great range and a good beginner kit.

It seems you are moving away from the 18-105 - any reason?

I would add a 35mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.8 after you have the full range you want to shoot. If you are not going to be doing long outdoor shots much, skip the 55-300 for now and go the 35mm (which is a 50 equiv. for DX.)

Overlap in lenses in the mid range on dx (50mm-100mm) is actually helpful since that is your more ideal portrait length. Who wants to change lenses that much.

I just saw today and amazon.com has deal today

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-2MP-DX-Format-Digital-3-0-Inch/dp/B0042X9LC4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337266051&sr=8-1#productPromotions

D7000 - $1199
Save $100 on the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR Nikkor zoom lens. > $149 after rebate
Save $150 on the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor zoom lens. > $299 after rebate

Is any of above lens worth buying?
Is any of above lens help me shoot the photos that I want?
How about I pair with 50mm/1.8 lens?

Thank you in advance. I learned a lot from all you guys.

TaoTeJared said:
Thank god! (Well not really) but I was starting to think I was going mad with that.

I wouldn't consider a D90 at this point unless you are fine upgrading again in a year. I haven't seen many on ebay go for less than $650 and the tech is 6 years old.
Tamron has some good Super zoom lenses you may want to consider as well. It seems you were focused on f2.8 glass, but 60% of your shooting will be done at f/8 or higher.

You could go with any decent super-zoom or the 18-105 and pick up a older 50mm 1.8 for portraits when you want bokeh.

Just a note on the "4-year extended warranty" - if you are buying new, I personally wouldn't bother. Nikon will cover everything for a few years, and the D7000 is built very well. It is rare that anything goes bad past the first year and honestly in 4 years, you will probably be looking to upgrade. Heavy use can add to the chance, but you don't sound like you will be doing 100k+ photos a year. That might save you some $$ for a lens or adding a 50mm as well.

As well as the wacky overexposures, I seem to have quite a few shots where the exposure is a little higher than it should be. And the image quality certainly doesn't compare well to my Nikon 18-105.

Nor am I impressed by the long zoom available on the lens; applying search filters in Apple Aperture shows that only 1 in 7 of my holiday piccies take advantage of the extended zoom.

I've been an amateur photographer for 45 years. I've never bought an extended warranty. I've never regretted not buying one!

The Tamron 17-50 non VC is acceptable, I had that lens for 2 days before returning it (had some deal breaker, non qc issues with it). I would much rather use a 18-x5vr kit lens instead, those are a lot more reliable, even if not fixed f-stop.

I'd recommend the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, slightly over your budget though.

It is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with the speed between shots in the way you described it. I'm assuming you are referring to how digi-cams have a lot of lag between shots. DSLRs do not have this same issue.

Fast glass refers to how much light inters the camera for exposure so someone can take a photo at faster shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake.

I never do extended warranties as they usually just run for the same or even less duration of the manufacture's warranty. Rarely do they cover anything more either except cheap repairs.

TaoTeJared said:
Thank god! (Well not really) but I was starting to think I was going mad with that.

I wouldn't consider a D90 at this point unless you are fine upgrading again in a year. I haven't seen many on ebay go for less than $650 and the tech is 6 years old.
Tamron has some good Super zoom lenses you may want to consider as well. It seems you were focused on f2.8 glass, but 60% of your shooting will be done at f/8 or higher.

You could go with any decent super-zoom or the 18-105 and pick up a older 50mm 1.8 for portraits when you want bokeh.

Just a note on the "4-year extended warranty" - if you are buying new, I personally wouldn't bother. Nikon will cover everything for a few years, and the D7000 is built very well. It is rare that anything goes bad past the first year and honestly in 4 years, you will probably be looking to upgrade. Heavy use can add to the chance, but you don't sound like you will be doing 100k+ photos a year. That might save you some $$ for a lens or adding a 50mm as well.

That's a great input. I was focused on f2.8 and the reason was that I don't want to spend too much time from shot to shot. I am interested in taking shots quickly and especially without tripod on most of the occasions (depends on the situation). Let me know if my understanding of f stop is completely wrong or there are other factors. I liked your idea on converting warranty expense into lens.

Anaxagoras said:
And like TaoTeJared I had a few wacky overexposures - about 6 out of 750 shots.

Thank god! (Well not really) but I was starting to think I was going mad with that.

I wouldn't consider a D90 at this point unless you are fine upgrading again in a year. I haven't seen many on ebay go for less than $650 and the tech is 6 years old.
Tamron has some good Super zoom lenses you may want to consider as well. It seems you were focused on f2.8 glass, but 60% of your shooting will be done at f/8 or higher.

You could go with any decent super-zoom or the 18-105 and pick up a older 50mm 1.8 for portraits when you want bokeh.

Just a note on the "4-year extended warranty" - if you are buying new, I personally wouldn't bother. Nikon will cover everything for a few years, and the D7000 is built very well. It is rare that anything goes bad past the first year and honestly in 4 years, you will probably be looking to upgrade. Heavy use can add to the chance, but you don't sound like you will be doing 100k+ photos a year. That might save you some $$ for a lens or adding a 50mm as well.

TaoTeJared said:
None that you suggested, fit that price range. Honestly the 18-105vr seems to fit your needs and the only one that fits your desired price range. Your only other option in this price range is the pair of 18-55 vr & 55-200vr.

I just used/rented the Tamron 17-50VC for an event and it was good but I didn't like it for portraits as I found it too short. I also had my metering go wacky (over expose by 3-4 stops) where I had to turn the camera off and on again to fix it. That only happen about 1 out of every 200 shots. For 1/2 the price of the Nikon version and with VC, it wasn't a bad lens to use and it an option for sure.

I agree.

The Nikon 18-105 is impressive, both in terms of performance - and also price when purchased with the camera.

I've just bought a Tamron 18-270 and have used it purely and simply as a holiday snapshot lens. True, it is a great holiday snapper, but it is no way as good as the Nikon 18-105.

And like TaoTeJared I had a few wacky overexposures - about 6 out of 750 shots.

shawnino said:
Just another question to the OP:

You very clearly define:
I am planning to take portrait(40%), nature(20%), landscape (30%), other( 10%).

That's cool. How big are you going to print your finished images?

Thank you for the input :)
Frankly speaking, I would only pick 5-10% of my photos for printing between 8" × 10" and 12" × 18" (occasionally). However, I mostly use my photos for family shows projecting in the mini theater and things like that.

Just another question to the OP:

You very clearly define:
I am planning to take portrait(40%), nature(20%), landscape (30%), other (10%).

That's cool. How big are you going to print your finished images?

prapoon said:
, image quality is important to me.
1 - Tamron
2 - Tamron
3
4 - Tamron
I appreciate all your help.

This is a Nikon forum so dont be too surprised if , for mid range zooms, we recommend Nikon lenses

If you can afford it, the 24 -120 f4 if that is outside your budget the 18 - 105

both the 7000 and the 5100 are fine. Only you can decide if you need and can afford the extra features of the 7000. The D90 was a fine camera in its day and still represents value for money, but the image quality of a 5100 or 7000 is going to be noticeably better