Ok that's great advice - thanks guys.

spraynpray said:
Interesting Gabbb. I'm thinking of the metal mount 16-85 to go between my 11-16 and 70-300 as it would make more sense than my 18-105. I do find myself frustrated though when using zooms with a smaller range than 18-105, so perhaps the 18-200 is the ideal walk around lens (for me) as it is similar speed to the 18-105. For me the 16-35 would be like my 11-16 as too limited in its range (not to mention the slow max aperture).

@Bairdy: If you are going FX in two years, get FX lenses now? It makes more sense.

The 16-85 is the same as the 18-105 image quality wise, work against the bright light may be worse. I greatly disliked that lens, when I had it. I do have an 50mm for generic portraiture, but I do like the wide to normal zoom range on dx. I like it so much I might end up selling my 35mm 1.8g. :)

I'm using a 16-35vr fx zoom on my d7000, after being disappointed by the majority of nikon dx zooms, it's a really refreshing experience.

Interesting Gabbb. I'm thinking of the metal mount 16-85 to go between my 11-16 and 70-300 as it would make more sense than my 18-105. I do find myself frustrated though when using zooms with a smaller range than 18-105, so perhaps the 18-200 is the ideal walk around lens (for me) as it is similar speed to the 18-105. For me the 16-35 would be like my 11-16 as too limited in its range (not to mention the slow max aperture).

@Bairdy: If you are going FX in two years, get FX lenses now? It makes more sense.

ericbowles said:
I think the real question is whether the quality and flexibility of the 18-105 is enough better than your 18-55 to justify the added cost.

The image quality is about the same. It's only the flexibility and maybe the focus ring. However you may sell it for more then what you would pay for it now, they sell used like hot cookies. I'm using a 16-35vr fx zoom on my d7000, after being disappointed by the majority of nikon dx zooms, it's a really refreshing experience.

I think the real question is whether the quality and flexibility of the 18-105 is enough better than your 18-55 to justify the added cost.

There are multiple versions of these lenses. VR is an important feature and you probably want to have the VR version of the 18-55 or replace it with the 18-105 VR. The optics are close enough that quality would not be a big driver of change. The flexibility of a zoom is nice, but most of us find that we never have a long enough lens, so alternatives like the 55-200 and 70-300 would make sense.

FX lenses tend to be expensive since they have to cover a much larger sensor. Many are fast lenses - f/2.8 or f/4 which also costs more. Probably the best addition to your kit in an FX lens would be the 70-300 VR. It's long enough to add some nice reach, and can make a good lens for a DX or FX kit. With extension tubes or a close up diopter it can be used for close ups and near macro.

The other option would be to add an ultrawide lens to your DX kit. The ultrawides from Tokina and Sigma are good cheaper alternatives to the Nikon models. Of course, they would not work on FX.

Hello, and welcome to NRF. Here are several threads which discuss this issue in some respects, but new opinions are interesting and some new stuff is on the horizon so we will continue unless another mod thinks this is to redundant.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3285

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=148

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1194

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3285

A whole different discussion has gone on in my head over the whole Full frame/crop thing which Im sure has been asked a million times. What I have agreed with myself is to upgrade from my d60 to a d7000 and then move to full frame after a couple more years. I guess Id like to move towards selling images but my skill level in composition and post processing just is not there yet.

The d7000 kit bundle is £980. This has left me wondering whether its worth the extra £110 for the 18-105 as part of a kit bundle when I already have a 18-55mm. How do the two compare? The obvious focal length differences apart (which I can probably cover elsewhere. The problem is that I need to be flogging one piece of kit to fund the other.

Anyway - should I just flog my d60 and lens or should I keep the lens and buy body only d7000 to save a few quid.