Which 2 lens kit from my D7000

[jklofft]

I'm looking at my lens kit for my D7000. I mostly use this camera for travel and snapshots. So, which of these two lens sets would you prefer and why? Thanks for playing.

A) Nikon 10-24 & Nikon 18-200 VRII
B) Nikon 16-85 & Nikon 70-300

 

[Patrick]

What is your shooting style? Wide or long end?

You've got a bunch of other lenses too...

 

[jklofft]

Patrick,

With my DX gear I'm using it mostly for travel and snapshots at family events. For the snapshots, either the 16-85 or 18-200 would work, but it seems like the 16-85 is a much better lens. When traveling, it depends on the destination whether I'd want wide or long. I have travelled with the D7000 pair with the 18-200 I do like it (basically it's a P&S, albeit a large one) but it's not wide enough all the time. Again the 70-300 is better and longer than the 18-200, but the also larger and slightly heavier. Thus my question.

 

[Palmguy]

If 16mm is wide enough for you, then I personally think that the 16-85/70-300 combo is the answer. If it's not, I'd probably be inclined to add a UWA to the 16-85/70-300 combo.

 

[sylvesterii]

You left off 10-24 and 70-300 as choices, so I went with 16-85 and 70-300. I've never shot with the 18-200, but from what I have read it is not on par with the 16-85 and 70-300. Another thought could be the 10-24 and 55-300 DX since you wouldn't need the 70-300 on your FX cameras.

 

[CU2MIKE]

I vote for 16-85, 70-300 combo just because you cover pretty much the entire range (for a DX anyways, unless you shoot really wide)

If I had the choice to start over again, I'd get Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, and either the new Tamron 70-300 VC USD or Nikon 70-300 VR.

 

[GH41]

Looking at your sig budget isn't a problem. Use your 16-35 and pickup a 24-120 f/4VR. If you must go wider than 16 get the 10-24 and 24-120. I can't see a person with your inventory being satisfied with a slow 18-200 or 70-300! GH

 

[bargin]

My experience: What ever lens I have on the camera at the time, it's the wrong one. When travelling, you don't want abunch of extra baggage. I recommend the 18-200 and you probably won't have to take if off your camera once you put it on.

 

[mneary]

I voted B, but the best option would be the 3-lens kit: 10-24 + 16-85 + 70-300... Just skip the 18-200, it will show its weakness on the 16 MP sensor!

Cheers

Mike

 

[BourbonCowboy]

I'm creating a similar kit, except with some 3rd party lenses. Here are my choices:

* Sigma 10-20. It's as wide as any, and cheaper than the Nikon version.
* Tamron 17-50. It's as sharp as the Nikon 17-55...at half the price and a third the cost.
* Sigma 30 1.4. Sharp copies make the 35 1.8 look like crap. It's also muuuuch cheaper than the Nikon 35 1.4.
* Nikon 70-300VR. It's the best in class in this focal range.

But if you insist on a two-lens kit, skip the 18-200. It does just about everything OK...but nothing really well.

 

[James24]

I use a 16-85 with 70-300 VR as a light kit with my D300s. It's a great set up, with both lenses producing good sharp pics. I had an 18-200 a while ago and didn't get on with it at all. Maybe I had a bad copy, but image quality was very dissapointing.

 

[jklofft]

Looking at your sig budget isn't a problem. Use your 16-35 and pickup a 24-120 f/4VR. If you must go wider than 16 get the 10-24 and 24-120. I can't see a person with your inventory being satisfied with a slow 18-200 or 70-300! GH

The focus of this kit is very good quality in a small(er) package. The 16-35 and 24-120 are probably too big for my use in this case. I'm slowly migrating from my two D700s to a D3s and a D7000 set-up. Right now, I'm thinking I'll either go large (D3s with 2.8 zooms or 1.4 primes) or small (D7000 and mid speed DX zooms). The 18-200 isn't bad, it's just a little bit too long on the wide end. I suspect I could live with just the 16-85, but as you can see I like options

 

[jklofft]

My experience: What ever lens I have on the camera at the time, it's the wrong one. When travelling, you don't want abunch of extra baggage. I recommend the 18-200 and you probably won't have to take if off your camera once you put it on.

So true. As I said in a post above, I really like the 18-200. It's just not wide enough for me and that's what got me looking at alternatives (either adding a UWA or rethinking my DX set-up).

 

[jklofft]

I voted B, but the best option would be the 3-lens kit: 10-24 + 16-85 + 70-300... Just skip the 18-200, it will show its weakness on the 16 MP sensor!

Cheers

Mike

Yes, it could be better, but it's not that bad. Here's two from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Joseph]

I voted 16-85 & 70-300VR. This is perfect range and if you ever need to go wider someday, an 11-16 addition would fit in nicely.

11-16
16-85
70-300

 

[Mr. G]

I would say carry the 16-85 on the camera and vary the second lens depending whether you want to shoot wide or tele.

My grab kit is a Crumpler 6 Million Dollar home with either a D7000 or D2x with the Nikon 16-85 mounted. The camera sits in the center area. In the right rear is a Nikon 12-24. In the right front is a Sto-Fen Omni Bounce with a Nikon 35 f1.8 sitting on it. In the left rear is my Nikon 70-300 VR. In the left front is an SB600. In the bottom of the center section under the camera & lens is a 77mm CPL and a step ring for the 67mm lenses.

Not too heavy a kit but covers the bases pretty well.

 

[Ronald M]

I bought mine with 18/105, added the 35 1.8 and 60 2.8 N. I prefer the two primes. I will use the zoom for wide or long or just use the 12/24 for wide.

 

[jklofft]

Seems overwhelming in favor of the 16-85 & 70-300. Sounds like a good plan.

 

[camerapapi]

I go with 16-85 and 70-300 any time.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

 

[Zensu]

Joseph +1

I voted 16-85 & 70-300VR. This is perfect range and if you ever need to go wider someday, an 11-16 addition would fit in nicely.

11-16
16-85
70-300

I agree with Joseph.