lens redundancy suggestions

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I just purchased a D7000 in kit form with the 18-105 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you didn't want the 18-105 DX, why did you buy the kit instead of body only?</p>

<p>Definitely sell the older version of the 24-120. It is certainly not one of Nikon's better lenses and should you get into FX some day, you'll want better lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>So the 12-24 is truly a better 'only' ultra-wide than an 11-16? Is the Tokina 12-24 as sharp as the 11-16? It's certainly cheaper in the old version than the 11-16 is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 11-16 is WONDERFUL, and I love it... but... for most everybody the 12-24 is a WAY better choice. It is true that it is at its "best" at both f5.6 and f8, and the 12-24 probably is not nearly as good at f5.6, but the extra range from 16-24, for most users, is way more useful than the extra stop of light and extra sharpness. If I were buying today instead of when I did, I very likely might look very carefully at the Sigma 10-20 f3.5, too. I've handled and checked out the Tamron, though... Yech. They may make a great lens at 17-50, but that ultra-wide feels like a Fisher Price toy.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Shun, the reason for buying the D7000 in kit form had to do with local financing options with Best Buy. I reasoned that I would probably keep the 18-105 and sell both of my older lenses. The 18-70 came with my D70. It was my first and only lens for a while. I then bought a 70-300 to go with it but the lens was so soft I returned it. My local camera shop didn't have a lot of options in my price range to replace the 70-300 (might have been a 75-300, but this was years ago) but the 24-120 with VR seemed like an attractive option because of the extra reach over the 18-70. So I exchanged the XX-300 for the 24-120 and paid the difference. Frankly, at the time I didn't know or notice it was an inferior lens but used it mostly when I was outside. The 18-105 is a newer design and by buying the kit, I thought I could streamline my camera bag. After getting it home, I discovered that it did not feel as 'rugged' as my other two lenses. I don't really care about that <em>if</em> the function and performance is the same, hence the question posted to the forum.</p>

<p>Regarding the 11-16 vs 12-24 discussion... price is a bit of a factor and I am a bit of a sharpness freak. My buddy's Nikon 12-24 was a little soft for my liking and the price is too high for me to consider. And the discussions regarding the 12-24 invariably mentions the Tokina 11-16. I found I was using my friend's 12-24 on the wide side 90% of the time I was using it so I didn't think the relatively narrow zoom range of the Tokina was going to be an issue. In this case, I only need one UWA and want whatever I buy to be as sharp as reasonably possible on my new D7000. <br>

Thanks again for all the suggestions and advice.</p>

<p>Tom</p>