chris_brandt1

<p>I have the grip on my D7000 and I love it. I couldn't imagine not having it. I also bought one for my D600 when I bought that body. You can do anything with the grip you could do without it. Almost. You have to pay closer attention to the bags you buy to carry the camera with the grip. You want the ones that can handle the larger size. Other than that you'll get used to using the controls on the grip quickly.</p>

<p>I've been using the same Ml-L3 remote and battery for several years, and through several different bodies (D3000, D7000 and D600). The biggest problem with remote release that I've encountered has been with focusing (excluding bright sunlight). If your camera is set up to take an exposure only when it is in focus but focus is not achieved then it will not release the shutter. On the D7000 and D600 that is setting a1 and a2, focus priority selection. Not sure about the setting for the D5200.</p>

<p>I have had oil, dust, pollen and small bugs (no cat hair Phil, that's a new one) on three different versions of Nikon bodies. In my experience the oil is gone after a few thousand shots. The dust, pollen and bugs, well, I am a landscape guy living in the desert so I can't avoid those. If I were to try to avoid them it would mean I could never use my camera. The D600 is a great system. I still love it.</p>

<p>I suggest using great care in your personal safety but I have bought three wonderful lenses from people on Craigs List. Just last week I bought a Nikon AF 300mm F/4 that looks and operates like it was brand new. And it was 20% the cost of the new AF-S 300 f/4. I took my body and tested it very well before I handed over the cash.<br>

<br />Good luck.</p>

<p>Hi Ric, I would add a different option if I may. I have both the 35mm f/1.8 and the Micro 40mm f/1.8 and I find the 40mm to be much more sharp and I like the focal length better. Yes, Nikon says it is a macro lens but with the focal length that's a stretch. I loved the 40mm on my D7000, but as I got closer to FX I permanently mounted the 40 to my D3000 as my throw in the back seat setup. And I love it.</p>

<p>Having said all of that. If you are even considering a move to FX in the future forget all of this and look at a FX lens. I hear great things about the new 50mm 1.8G. And it's only $219. But I've never used it.</p>

<p>It it were my money and choosing what you have listed I would go with the 18-105mm, then decide what you need next and save your money for better glass. I certainly understand the need for frugality when you are first buying a setup, but after that don't go cheap on a lens. You won't be happy, and you will end up with a lot of unwanted cylindrical paperweights.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your new D600. I bought mine to expand the abilities I had with the D7000. I found the transition to be almost seamless. I carry both bodies with different lenses and can switch back and forth with no effort. You'll love it.</p>

<p>I also use it, but on a D600. It's my main lens. You'll love it.</p>

<p>Actually Mendy I think Jerry was right on track. The 40mm on a DX sensor is my current throw in the car setup. I never use my 35mm and my 50mm gets thrown in the bag sometimes but is rarely used. If you haven't figured it out yet I am a prime snob. And for my money the AF-S Micro 40mm f/2.8 is the best bet. And if you didn't find it sharp then you did something wrong. The 40 is fantastic glass, and with a 40mm lens how fast do you need it to focus? Is that fraction of a second going to cost you any shot? Ever? The 40 is always on one of my bodies....</p>

<p>I have the 35, 50 AF, and the 40mm. I use the 40 on my old D3000 as my throw in the car camera. I love the focal length and it's a very sharp lens. I almost never use the 35mm.</p>

<p>In my opinion 36mm is wide enough for Yosemite. At least the high country. I just spent a week up high and rarely shot above 40mm. Most everything was at 24mm (36mm) or below. My favorite Landscape lens is the Nikkor 24mm AF-D. But I often used a Tamron 10-24 at Yosemite. The quality I gave up was worth the compositions. I am a prime lens fanatic so I rarely shoot a zoom but a friend of mine gets great results with their 16-85mm. Good luck!</p>

<p>My response is based on personal experience not a lab or internet review. I have both lenses and enough experience to know when the issue is my technique or the equipment. For what you are planing Jamie the D5100 with the 18-55 saves you some money to put towards a 35mm prime lens to use indoors with the family. The 35 will have a larger aperture to allow for faster shutter speeds. You may leave it on the camera a lot. If you decide you want something longer later you can decide which will be better for you at that time. For me, indoors and landscapes are almost always shot below 55mm.<br>

And remember, choosing your gear is the second most fun part of photography. So seriously, have fun.</p>

<p>Since you didn't state what kind of photography you'll be concentrating on I am assuming that you don't need the reach past 55mm right away. I like the D5100 but I would want the 18-55mm lens with it. The 18-105 is manageable but I don't think it is as good as the 18-55. Good luck and have fun.</p>

<p>I started with a D3000 then bought a D7000. I realized that I could still great photos with the D3000. I carry both with different focal lengths. I use an equal number of photos from both bodies. Do yourself a favor and carry both.</p>

<p>Personally I think that you are not ready for a D800. If you do not already know the answers to your questions you should stick with the D90. You will know when you are ready to upgrade. And you will also know what lenses you need to capture your preferences. There's no rush.</p>

<p>Actually going back. Eric had it all right.... I just repeated it differently...</p>

<p>Eric is right on track with not letting the camera choose your focus point. For static scenes like this I always use AF-S single spot. It has really improved my image quality. And every lens is different as far as where they will produce the sharpest image as far as aperture is concerned. If you want sharp images figure out where that is with your lens/lenses. I know where it is for all of mine. I try to use that aperture whenever possible. Hey! This is where the fun is. Learning how to use our new toys. Good luck! And have fun!</p>

<p>I'm a prime lens fan but I still love the Nikon 70-300 VRII. I've heard good things about the 16-85 but I use primes and move my feet within that range. Sharper images in my book.</p>

<p>I just bought a used 24 AF-D and it may be one of the sharpest lenses I own. This one was built in the late 1990's. That says something...</p>

<p>Each of your lenses has a aperture at which it is the sharpest. Some folks will try to tell what that is. They can't without using the lens. You should test each of your lenses and determine the best aperture to use. Then you will know which one is best. Having said that, you will still need to think about the other settings as well. Shutter speed to stop the action and ISO. Good luck! This is the fun part.</p>

<p>I have been using a Black Rapid RS-5 for over a year. Absolutely love it. I carry a D7000 with battery grip, and often a 70-300mm lens. No worries at all. I do guide it on my hip with one hand when I am in a crowd or hiking through brush. But it will easily carry the weight. I also often carry one of backpacks/sling bags over the strap. This is much more comfortable than a neck strap. I am actually going to order the DR-1 for when I want to carry both systems.</p>

 

<p>Personally I think you are wasting your money. If you want something with more range that's cool. But why replace a lens that has good image quality with another? If you wanted more range I can see that. Like the Nikkor 18-105 or the 18-200. On the D7000 you don't need the larger aperture. The high ISO quality will more than help you. Don't let other's poor opinion of the 18-55 scare you away from it. It's a great lens. Good luck!</p>