Help with a kit for a Nikon D7000

Pupator

I just switched to Nikon from Sony and am having a hard time figuring out what lenses to get for my D7000. On the Sony I used a CZ 16-80 (90% of the time), the Minolta 70-210 (3% of the time), and the Minolta 35mm f/1.8 (7% of the time). The only thing I felt I was missing from my kit was the wide range (10-20mm), which I think I would use but I've never had it to try.

I have read every thread I could find about the lenses I'm considering. I've read the reviews on dpreview, amazon, BH, nikoncafe, and FM. I'm interested in hearing what you guys think about my options, especially if you've used any of these on a D7000 or have compared the lenses directly. I do have an 18-105 and a 35mm f/1.8 that I could either keep or (most likely) sell.

Normal zoom (most used lens):
Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR ($489) (8.5 on FM)
or
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 ($449) (9.0 on FM)

Tele zoom (least used lens):
Nikon 55-200 ($109)
or
Nikon 55-200 VR ($195) (8.8 on FM)
or
Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6 D ($varies) (8.9 on FM)

Wide (To fish or not to fish?):
Tamron 10-24mm ($449)
or
Tokina 12-24 ($399) (9 on FM)
or
Tokina 10-17 fisheye ($589) (9.6 on FM)
or
Nikon 10.5mm fisheye ($679) (9.7 on FM)

MomaZunk

What do you use your camera for?

I have the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 that I use as my default lens. I had this as my only lens for 3 years before investing in some fast glass. It is a great all round lens.

With the 18-200, you could then get the fisheye and pretty much have your bases covered.

Mav

MomaZunk wrote: »

What do you use your camera for?

I have the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 that I use as my default lens. I had this as my only lens for 3 years before investing in some fast glass. It is a great all round lens.

With the 18-200, you could then get the fisheye and pretty much have your bases covered.

I started with this lens too and think it's a great, really versatile lens. I then added a fast prime - Nikon do a 35mm and 50mm for around a 100 pounds which is fantastic value

Harryb

I would go with the Nikon 16-85, the 55-200 VR, and the Tokina 12-24.

You can get excellent reiews on these lenses here.

Pupator

Harry - thanks for the suggestions. I'm leaning toward exactly those three.

Dee and Mav - thanks for the suggestion, but the 18-200 is not something I'm after.

Other thoughts?

ziggy53

It would help to know how you intend to use the lenses, or how you used your old lenses.

Pupator

Ziggy,

I apologize, I thought the percentages reflecting the amount of time each lens spent on the camera gave sufficient information in that regard. But, you're right...

At home:
I use the normal zoom when I take my son (and soon daughter also) out to the playground or on vacations. I'm very comfortable with fill flash and I don't want the weight of a "fast" lens - thus I was quite pleased with the CZ's f/3.5-4.5 and fantastic optics. I had the Tamron 17-50 for a long time and really liked it, but the optics of the CZ were better and the extra reach was essential.

Indoors at home I use the 35mm f/1.8 with bounce flash.

Only if we go somewhere with animals (zoo, out on the boat, etc.) do I put a tele zoom on the camera. Again, I don't like heavy lenses, so the Minolta 70-210 was a nice compromise of size, reach, and quality.

Special events
Four times a year I travel with a bus of men and boys to multiple battlefields which we use as a backdrop for teaching leadership, character, and Biblical manhood. I take lots and lots of candids over the 12 days (3 days each trip). I also have to take pictures of the battlefields, monuments, and other scenery. This is almost always outdoors, in good light, and I use fill-flash when needed for portraits.

We're going to try and particularly emphasize good photography this year because we want to provide post-trip photo books that offer a good way to remember the weekend. This is going to require a more photo-journalistic approach on my part and I'm looking forward to the challenge. It's this new aspect (taking pictures on the bus, of the entire group on the battlefields, more emphasis on monument shots, etc.) that has made me want to consider adding a wide-angle to the bag. I think the unique perspective it offers could be useful.

Pupator

Well, I had to make a decision today because I need the things to arrive before next weekend (and didn't want to pay extra for shipping!). In the end, I made a rather odd choice.

I got the 55-200 VR. It's cheap, light, and people rave about it. Since Tele is my least used lens, I didn't feel bad about its low cost.

I'm keeping the 35 f/1.8. That's my most-used indoor lens and is about to become my most-used lens period, I think.

I got the Tokina 12-24. Every review I found on it was extremely positive and I saw no reason to shell out more for the Nikon.

Now comes the weird part. For my standard zoom, which was my most used lens on Sony: I didn't get one. I got the 85mm f/1.8 instead. I'll use it outdoors for portraits and as a walk-around when I want more reach than the 35mm.

So I've got:
12-24, 35, and 55-200mm covered (with 85mm covered twice). I've got low light standard (35mm) and zoom (85mm), wide angle, and short-tele. This all came in right at about $900 which is what I was hoping to spend.

Thanks to everyone for their help.

ziggy53

Glad you got it sorted out. That should give you some versatility in various shooting scenarios.

jziegler

I think that you'll be happy with that combination. On my last big trip, I took my Sigma 10-20, 35 f/1.8 and 55-200 (non-VR). I did not miss the 18-55 VR that I also own. I hope that you got the 55-200 VR, not the older one like I have. The non-VR is not as good, but I bought it because it was cheap. The 85 f/1.8 is on the list of lenses that I'm watching on the used market, it (along with the Tamron 60 f/2) seem like good complements to the zooms.

Pupator wrote: »

Well, I had to make a decision today because I need the things to arrive before next weekend (and didn't want to pay extra for shipping!). In the end, I made a rather odd choice.

I got the 55-200. It's cheap, light, and people rave about it. Since Tele is my least used lens, I did feel bad about its low cost.

I'm keeping the 35 f/1.8. That's my most-used indoor lens and is about to become my most-used lens period, I think.

I got the Tokina 12-24. Every review I found on it was extremely positive and I saw no reason to shell out more for the Nikon.

Now comes the weird part. For my standard zoom, which was my most used lens on Sony: I didn't get one. I got the 85mm f/1.8 instead. I'll use it outdoors for portraits and as a walk-around when I want more reach than the 35mm.

So I've got:
12-24, 35, and 55-200mm covered (with 85mm covered twice). I've got low light standard (35mm) and zoom (85mm), wide angle, and short-tele. This all came in right at about $900 which is what I was hoping to spend.

Thanks to everyone for their help.

angevin1

Pupator wrote: »

Now comes the weird part. For my standard zoom, which was my most used lens on Sony: I didn't get one.

Paul. Looks like you did well! Not everyone feels they need the mid-zoom. I know I don't own one and haven't missed it.

Cheers,

cab.in.boston

I don't think that's an odd choice. I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it's great, but my eventual "carry around with me" kit will be WA zoom (probably Tokina 11-16 - I don't have this yet), 35 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 (which I also don't own yet, currently I have the 55-200 VR that you just got). I use the 17-50 only on weekends/evenings when I'm at home, as that lens stays home on my wife's camera 90% of the time. Since I don't yet own the lenses in my "dream kit," I currently just carry around the 35 f/1.8 and 55-200. I find those cover most of my wants when out and about, and while I'd love to have that WA zoom, I rarely find myself really hurting without it. (Doesn't mean I won't get it someday...)

I'm sure you'll be happy with your kit. You may find you want to add the 50 f/1.8, as 85 seems just a bit long on DX for a portrait lens, but it's good for tight headshots. Or maybe not. Obviously it's your call, but I like that little cheap 50 f/1.8 quite a bit.

Pupator

Interesting you bring that up. The lenses arrived today and I'm thinking about sending the 85 f/1.8 back and getting the 50 instead. The 85 is far heavier than I expected and is focusing rather slowly. Still, I've only tried it indoors and it's rare (never?) that I'll be using the 85 indoors. Tomorrow I'll take it out and see how it does.

I'm also excited that my Lens Align arrives tomorrow. This is my first camera with micro adjustment and I'm looking forward to seeing the difference it makes.