Brian Dunlea , Jan 29, 2012; 07:10 p.m.
Hi all. I've searched for the answer to my question. Got some good ideas but I'd still like some feedback if possible. I'll try to be as specific as possible.
I'm a musician and do a tiny bit of web design. I wanted to buy a good compact to make my own images for web so I bought a Fuji X10 to get me going. Now I've been totally bitten by photography and would like to take it a step further. I'll keep my X10 as it's easy to carry around everywhere and has helped me learn so much.
I'm going to buy a D7000. I'd like to get body only and buy 2 lenses, a prime and a zoom. I seem to like 28-36mm a lot. Over 50% of my shots are in this range.
I'd like to get a 20/24mm prime to do some street shots. Something small and light.
With that I'd like a versatile zoom. I don't need it to be super long but good quality would be nice.
I'm not pushed about portraits or wildlife photography, but I would like a decent zoom for versatility and portablility.
My budget for both lenses would be about 1200euro aboslute tops......maybe a tad more ;)
Here's what I'm thinking about. A 24mm prime would give me about 36mm equivalent on a DX as far as I know. The 35mm might be a bit tight on a DX based on the pictures I've been taking.
What I'm looking at:
Prime:
Nikon 20mm AF f/2.8D
Nikon 24mm AF f/2.8D
Nikon 35mm AF f2D
Nikon 35mm AF-S DX f/1.8G
Zoom:
Nikon 18-55mm AF-S DX f/3.5-5.6G VR
Nikon 18-200 AF-S f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II
You can see what I've been shooting here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/briandunlea/
I'm not ruling out the possibility of three lenses, I might consider a 35mm f/1.8 dx as well. I know I'll get a good discount from my local store. Am I crazy?
I don't know if I'm on the right track here. Any suggestions or comments or links would be very welcome folks.
Cheers,
Brian.
Cesar Kastoun 
, Jan 29, 2012; 07:18 p.m.
Have you checked the 16-85? It's quite good and will give you both the focal range you're looking for and some versatility.
You can then add the 35/1.8 fir low light...
Kevin Chow , Jan 29, 2012; 07:31 p.m.
I would personally get the D7000 and either the 18-55VR or the 16-85, assuming they do that combination as well. The gains from the 16-85 over the standard kit lens are small, but price aside, it is a better lens.
With regards to losing telephoto, given the photographs on your flickr site, I'd guess that you probably wouldn't miss it, so there isn't much point compromising the overall optical formula to get a longer reach.
I'd hold off buying primes until you know precisely why you need it. Both the 16-85 and the 18-55 are fairly competent lenses as is, so unless you really just want it, I'd try and narrow it down to why you need the prime. If you have a zoom which already covers the range of the prime, do you really want to change lenses back and forth? What is the prime able to do that the zoom doesn't?
Personally, I think you've been bitten quite hard, and have a bit of GAS, so it might be wise to stand back a bit and try to apply some more discerning criteria. :o)
Brian Dunlea , Jan 29, 2012; 08:00 p.m.
Cesar thanks for the reply. Ha ha GAS. Kevin it's like you know me. You should see my instrument room. The 16-85mm seems to be a good choice. Do you guys think it would be a lot better quality-wise than the 18-200mm?
The reason I would like a prime is to learn and experiment with a fixed lens plus it'll be "faster" than the zoom. I'm a musician so I spend a lot time indoors reahearsing. And I'd like to do some street photography with a light, unimposing lens.
Plus I'm 40 in March :)
Maybe I have some romanticised idea about primes in my head. I'm not sure. And a touch of GAS I guess ;)
James Youngman 
, Jan 29, 2012; 08:01 p.m.
In your position I'd buy the 16-85 and a flash. Although the D7000's built-in flash works, it only ever faces forward, which gives a look to the photo which I don't like a lot. Being able to bounce the flash off a large surface before it hits the subject can make more flattering lighting (the only example I have of this to hand is http://www.flickr.com/photos/james_youngman/5479114003/in/photostream).
Clearly though my buying choices are influenced by the kind of photography I want to do, and hence my preferences may not work for you.
Brian Dunlea , Jan 29, 2012; 08:15 p.m.
Thanks James I appreciate the feedback. For now my portrait days are in the future.
Matt Laur 
, Jan 29, 2012; 08:23 p.m.
I agree on the zoom first (useful immediately, and a good find-your-favorite-focal-length laboratory). But since you like musical situations (known for wretched light), you might really like Sigma's 30/1.4 HSM on a DX body. That Nikon 35/1.8 is also a nice lens, but the 5mm difference is very noticeable. That's something you can explore with the zoom.
Brian Dunlea , Jan 29, 2012; 09:33 p.m.
Great stuff Matt and everyone. I will definitely get the zoom first and I'm thinking the 16-85mm would suit me better for now. I don't need the superzoomness. Wide probably suits me better.
It's sensible to test the focal lengths first on this and find the length I like before I get a prime. I know it sounds weird but I like the idea of being restricted by one focal length. But of course time will tell if that's a good idea or not.
I like the 35mm 1.8. Looks nice and sharp. I'll experiment with the zoom when I get it to make sure I'm buying the right lens for the right reason. The sigma looks good Matt, I didn't really consider them.
Simon Hickie - Melbourne, Derbyshire, UK 
, Jan 30, 2012; 05:58 a.m.
The 16-85mm is excellent - I sold my 18-200mm to buy it and have never looked back. I also have the 35mm f1.8. You could argue that this would be a fine street shooter. Try googling the photographer John Gay - he took thousands of images in the UK with a Rolliflex TLR with the same effective field of view as the 35mm.
Shun Cheung 
, Jan 30, 2012; 07:57 a.m.
It is indeed a good idea to get the zoom first to give yourself a chance to find out which focal lengths you use most. On a D7000, I would avoid low-quality lenses such as the 18-55 DX and 18-200 DX. The former has a plastic mount and generally poor construction and the latter is not up to it optically. As far as I know the 16-85 DX has better quality but it is still a slow f5.6 lens on the long end and is rather expensive for what it offer.
I would not get any one of the non-DX "primes" you listed. All of them are old optical designs that will look bad on the D7000. I have never used the Sigma 30mm/f1.4 DX lens, but a lot of people recommend it here. Nikon's 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX is a cheaper alternative but it has fairly serious chromatic aberration.
