Best lens combo for D7000 and D7100

<p>I've been researching lots of feedback on this and other sites regarding the pros and cons of a variety of Nikon DX lenses, specifically the 16-85, 18-105, 18-200, 18-300, and 70-300--all VR and newer. I have a D7000 and recently added a D7100 body to my collection. I currently have too many lenses and not necessarily the right combination (80-400VR, 18-105VR Kit, 50mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.8, a Tokina 11-16mm wide, and a Tamron 90mm macro. I shoot landscapes, sometimes events (like parades, festivals), and family activities. I also shoot a little wildlife here and there. I will use both bodies when I want to do some sort of event and wish to avoid changing lenses. However, much of the time I'll be packing the 7100 alone. Money is an object--not ready to by a pile of f2.8 lenses (maybe someday). Right now, I'd like a great walk-about lens that is not as heavy as my 80-400 monster, and still gives me that nice reach between 18-200 or 300. I'm picky about sharpness, but also careful in my use of lenses and avoid the fall offs at each end of the spectrum. My two modes of operation where I'm looking for suggestions are (1), when I am packing both bodies and want good quality and a solid coverage of wide to zoom focal lengths, and (2) when I'm just packing the D7100 and wish to avoid changing lenses. Sorry if this is too generic but any recommendations from you would be appreciated. There is a wealth of experience on this forum and would love to have some personal recommendations. My plan is to keep my primes and the fisheye (love them), and narrow down my collection of zooms, and over time build on good glass inventory.</p>

<p>David.</p>

<p>I own the 16-85 and I love it as a walk around lens. It is very sharp at almost all focal lengths and its clarity is wonderful. The VR works very well and the focus is fast enough for either studio or street work. I like the weight of this lens. I also own the 17-55 2.8 which is a great lens but a tank by comparison. I might also add that it is quite sharp even wide open</p>

<p>It is a bit pricy but worth it. </p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>My current DX "grab bag" contains one D300, a 10.5mm fisheye, Tokina 11-16, 16-85 VR, 35/1.8, and either the 70-200/2.8 VR or the AF-D 80-400 VR. The last two are the heavy items and sometimes I wish I had the 70-200/4 instead of the f/2.8 one. Might all go away though depending on what Nikon comes up with next - I might end up with Nikon's latest high-end DX body and the AF-S 80-400 , 11-16 and possibly Sigma 18-35/1.8. And a "snapshot bag" with a lower-end DX body and the 16-85 and 35/1.8. </p>

<p>Except for air show and bird photography with the AF-S 80-400, I might ditch DX altogether and rely on FX with a 16-35 and a bunch of primes for my other needs.</p>

<p>For what you are wanting to photo, and desire to keep expense reasonable, I suggest a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and a Nikon 70-300mm VR. It's a good compromise. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>A single walkaround lens type 18-200 or 18-300 will optically not match what you already have; from your 18-105 it will be a side-grade for substantial money. I would forget about those, if I were you. It does make operational mode (2) a bit impossible, but a lens change doesn't need a lot of time and dust can creep in perfectly fine via a single zoom lens that you do not change as well. The benefits aren't that substantial, in my view.<br>

For events, I wouldn't want any of the lenses mentioned anyway - a 17-50 f/2.8 as the one Kent suggested would be my choice if I would shoot events regularly. If it's just an occassional event (for fun basically), any of the lenses you already own can do the trick.</p>

<p>Out of the lenses you mentioned, I think the 16-85VR is the best in quite a lot of ways, but it is a tad pricey for what it is, and compared to the 18-105 not a very substantial upgrade. So, basically, a lighter/smaller long lens - Nikon 70-300VR or Tamron 70-300VC. And nothing else, unless you are willing to spend the money on f/2.8 lenses. If you want to build a good inventory, start right away and avoid buying temporary gap-stops, because they will end up being wasted money.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 as my main DSLR right now. I'll echo what others have said about the Nikon 16-85VR and Nikon 70-300VR combo. I own both. I picked them up used/mint for $300 ea. So far, I'm very impressed with both lenses. The 16-85 is a great range of coverage, well built, sharp, and the color rendition is wonderful. It is my main "walk-around lens." The 70-300VR is also a really good lens, it replaced my 70-200VRI which was a great lens, but too heavy and bulky for travel and frequent use.</p>

Thanks all. Great feedback and I think the advice on stepping up the glass is worth evaluating. Low light is something I

fight at outdoor evening concerts and certain events. Jacking ISO up and aperture just make for harsh grain. I did not

really consider how much a problem that has been until the comment from Wouter. I'll have a look at that 16-85mm

range..the 17-50 might me an option. Cheers.

<p>If it were me, I'd get either the 16-85 Nikon and the 70-300 VR (or the Tamron equivalent).</p>

<p>I have an 18-70 on my old D90 and love that lens. SO small and compact and the images are really good.</p>

<p>I would avoid a superzoom on anything abvoe 6MP.</p>

<p>the rule of thumb is basically primes for IQ and zooms for convenience. i dont see a whole lot of need to get another slowish aperture standard zoom if you already have the 18-105.</p>

<p>since you have two bodies, the options are a little different. with your current kit, i'd add the 18-35/1.8 sigma (which is a lot like the 11-16 tokina as limited zoom range = more sharpness at each focal length), and maybe the nikon 85/1.8 G. that would give you substantially better low-light ability than what you have now. you could keep the zoom on one body and switch between 50 and 85 primes as necessary.</p>

<p>i have the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS, but if i was buying today,it would be the 18-35/1.8 for IQ, low-light, and better subject iso (although at current sale price of $450, the 17-50 is a good deal).</p>

<p>a stabilized 70-300 might also make sense if you are trying to save weight; it depends on how much you need a longer tele range. the tamron version might be a little better than the nikon past 200mm. it's not really faster than your current 80-400, just lighter.</p>

<p>I would keep the 50 and 35mm 1.8's and add the 16-85 or 18-200, The 70-300vr is a very sharp lens for the money. I've had all these lenses in my arsenal, and have had real good success.</p>

Thanks Jim. I just picked up a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 in mint cond off of eBay. Looking at 70-200 f2.8 but will go play with a 70-

300 VR just for fun. I think the faster glass will please me.

Wow. Good advice on the lenses. Ended up with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Heavy, yes. But oh my goodness the sharpness

and fast autofocus. The build of this thing is like a tank. The IQ is worth the weight. I stuck with the VR version (not VRII)

as I intend to stick with DX for the foreseeable future. Shot with it for two days and am delighted with the low light

performance.

<p>If I were you, I would want a quality 200mm f/2.8. You can find a used 80-200mm f2.8 for an affordable price or the 180mm f/2.8 for less. I have the 80-4000mm, too, and would sell it to fund an 80-200mm f/2.8 if I didn't already have one. The 80-400mm is worth keeping for the 400mm end, but you probably already know its best performance is under 300mm.<br>

<br /> I think the 35mm and 50mm are keepers -- cheap light, sharp, and fast. There is no downside to keeping them and you won't get much selling them.<br>

<br /> I don't have the 18-105mm, but the 16-85mm is the only slow zoom I have. It's very good. With the high ISO capacity of the D7000, it gets the job done well inside or out.<br>

<br /> I heard good things about the Tokina 11-16mm. If it works for you, there is no reason to swap it for a Nikon.<br>

<br /> The Tamron 90mm macro is a great piece of glass. I pair mine with a Tamron SP 1.4X TC and love the macro results. It is not a bad portrait lens and low light telephoto either.</p>

<p>Note: Didn't read through until I posted. Good choices.</p>