General lens questions - newbie needs some direction

... (not sure if this would be better off posted in Lenses - feel free to move, if so) ...

My head is spinning. I've finally decided to buy a DSLR. I have an old Nikon N65 35mm SLR and about 4 years ago I purchased a high-end point-and-shoot (Sony Cybershot DSC-HX1). I was almost immediately disappointed with that camera. It just never took the pictures I wanted. After doing some research I realized (duh) that was because I needed different lenses than I had. I should have just spent the money on a DSLR. Live and learn.

Fast forward to now, and I'm pretty well sold on a camera body (Nikon D7000), however the lens situation has me running in circles. I have two lenses from my N65 that I *should* be able to use with the new camera, which is one of the reasons I chose the body that I did. However, since many of them overlap, I'm completely confused and everything I read is just turning in algebra (letters + numbers = wtf?)

What I'd like to know is this... with the two lenses I have already, where would I get the most bang for my buck with the different package deals I have available?

I have: AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G & 28-80mm 1:3.3-5.6 (these are not super quality but I can always upgrade later when $$ allows)

The package deals I can get include:

body + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR II Lens ($350 off)
body + 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX Micro ED VR-II Telephoto Nikkor Lens ($200 off)
body + 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Lens ($300 off)
body + 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II Lens ($250 off)
body + 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DXVR Lens ($200 off)
body + 18-105mm DX VR Lens & Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens ($500 off)
body + 18-105mm DX VR Lens, & Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR II Wide Angle Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor ($550 off)
body + 18-105mm DX VR Lens, & Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX Micro ED (VR-II) Telephoto Nikko ($400 off)
body + 18-105mm DX VR Lens, & Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR II Autofocus Zoom ($450 off)
body + 18-105mm DX VR Lens, U.S.A. & Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR ($400 off)
body + 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S VR Nikkor Lens ($200 off)
body + 18-200mm DX VR Lens & Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX Micro ED (VR-II) Nikkor Lens ($450 off)

... there's more but frankly I'm overwhelmed with the choices I've got already. The rest can be seen here if anyone cares to slog through - http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/de...&category=1088

I'm leaning towards the 2-lens bundles but then again, I'm not sure if the 2nd would be overkill if I've already got one similar. It's more money upfront but with some of these I'm saving 50% or better on some pretty nice lenses. I'm only vaguely aware of what all the letters mean; the aperture numbers I "get" but I have never really had a chance to put it into practice so it's not really helpful to my decision making process.

What I do know:
I want wider aperture given the choice. Most of what I want to do will fit with that.
I would love a wide-angle lens - not totally necessary but I would have a lot of fun with it.
Who doesn't love a telephoto? My 70-300mm should have me covered. Right??
I love the idea of a macro lens ... but is it worth it? I think this would be considered a "splurge" lens like the wide angle, but I would probably use the macro more than the wide angle.
This is a hobby for me - I take a lot of pictures of my dogs (and kids, someday?), action shots in my martial arts class, nature shots, and I enjoy macro pretty much anywhere.

How would my 28-80mm compare to the standard 18-105mm? Should I pass on the 18-105 completely? Or is my 80mm so outdated that I'll hate it and wish I had the 105mm? *sigh*

And finally, would it be wiser to skip the Nikon lenses completely go with Sigma or another off label?


Thanks for any advice

~ Ana

Can you get the D7000 body only? If you can, that's what I would suggest you do and here's why...

Your 28-80mm will serve as a general purpose, walk-around lens. It's not a superb lens but it's entirely adequate. A little wider than a standard lens, a little touch of zoom but not much of either. It's light as feather and fast enough for most types of shooting. The 18-105mm would give you more of both but that lens isn't going anywhere so it's not like you need to drop dime on it today.

Your 70-30mm is a pretty decent zoom with plenty of reach. Between these two lenses, you're pretty much covered for what you want to do. Is it a perfect setup? Probably not. But it's PLENTY enough to get you started until you gain some practical experience with the D7000 and better figure out where you want to go based on where you are.

As for third-party lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina...) some of them are superb lenses, some are not so superb; unfortunately it's an "It depends," question. There's no single answer to who makes the best glass these days; you have to decide what sort of lens you want and examine the available options.




...

Horoscope Fish said:

Can you get the D7000 body only?
...

Click to expand...

I certainly can. The only reason I was looking at the bundle deals is because I could save a few hundred bucks buying another lens now rather than later.

I do feel like I need to do some more reading - I've got a few weeks before I'm planning to make any purchases, so I'll keep on digging around. I've also picked up the book "Mastering the Nikon D7000" and hope to get through much of that before I pick up the camera.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Well all that being said... If I was going to suggest one of the bundles above, based purely on what's being offered (meaning putting aside what lenses you have now) I'd suggest the 18-105mm / 70-300mm combo. Those are two pretty freaking killer lenses. I have the 18-105 and it's the lens that rarely comes off my D7100. I lust after the 70-300mm because it's just... That... Freaking... Awesome.

Just two lenses and you're covered from moderately wide to super zoom.

Come to think of it, if I were in your shoes I'd probably get that combo and dump the lenses you have now (Craigslist to the rescue!) to offset the cost of the initial buy. Believe me, with a D7000 and both the 18-105mm AND the 70-300mm in your bag you are NOT going to be missing either of those two lenses you have now.




...

If you get the D7000 body only, I would suggest the new Sigma 18-35mm 1.8, plus 50mm 1.8 with it. Keep the other lenses for general purposes. Skip the rest, go with the best option.

I understand the 18-105mm has a plastic mount. I gather some are adverse to the lens because they are afraid of possible breakage with heavy or rough usage. I'm considering the 16-85mm as a replacement because of a metal mount and perhaps a better image. I'm not really concerned with cost as I am with which would be the better walk around lens.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

What about the 18-300mm to replace both the 18-105 and the 70-300mm. For that matter, couldn't the 18-300mm also replace the 16-85mm? 5hanks

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

I have the D7000. The 16-85 serves me best. And with a 70-300 you should be covered for almost anything. through in a 50 1.8 and you are golden.

well, the 18-105 is stil la great lens....the plastic mount doesnt bother me much...i used it and tested it almost to they very last drop of blood... (haha)... i used it for more than 2 years..carried it along with me while i was in Japan...strap on, strap off... so far it didnt break, loose or anything that it been rumurs will do... it work just fine with the way i handle it....

ok back to ur suggestion, my take would be the no.1 with the 18-200mm.. this will cover from wide to tele without having another lens for your normal shooting.... currently i'm with this setup most of time for my general shooting outing. Unless i will do a specific shooting or night out, then i will take lens with wide aperture such as 50mm f/1.4D as well as 24mm f/2.8D ... but if u have the budget then get 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and you are king!

my 2 cents

Am I correct in assuming a 18-300mm would seriously sacrifice quality? To me it seems one of those "too good to be true" situations. I'm looking at some pictures taken with one and I'm just not feeling the 'wow' factor like I was with some of the other lenses.

Also, can someone explain the differences (pros/cons?) of a 50mm f/1.8 vs f/1.4?

fanofdmb84 said:

Am I correct in assuming a 18-300mm would seriously sacrifice quality? To me it seems one of those "too good to be true" situations. I'm looking at some pictures taken with one and I'm just not feeling the 'wow' factor like I was with some of the other lenses.

Click to expand...

In a word, yes. The 70-300 is, simply put, a superior lens. In my opinion, the sooner you dismiss the idea of "One Lens to Rule them All", the better. You're going to give up something, somewhere and in this case it's image quality. That being said, I do like the Nikon 16-85mm, I just happen to have more experience with the 18-105mm. I think either would serve you well.
....

fanofdmb84 said:

Also, can someone explain the differences (pros/cons?) of a 50mm f/1.8 vs f/1.4?

Click to expand...

Some people report slightly better IQ with the f/1.4 but it would have to be a whole lot more than what I've seen to justify the additional cost of the f/1.4 version.


...

fanofdmb84 said:

Am I correct in assuming a 18-300mm would seriously sacrifice quality? To me it seems one of those "too good to be true" situations. I'm looking at some pictures taken with one and I'm just not feeling the 'wow' factor like I was with some of the other lenses.

Also, can someone explain the differences (pros/cons?) of a 50mm f/1.8 vs f/1.4?

Click to expand...

Yes, 18-200mm will sacrifice quality. If you expect to shoot inside a building without flash, expect yourself to bump up the Iso and reduced image quality.
But if you don't mind that, it's a perfectly good walk around lens.

50 1.8/1.4 will differ on background blur wherein 1.4 generally has smoother bokeh, but many tests show that 1.8 is a sharper lens and great bang for the buck.

Another lens I was using before in DX was Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4. There's an OS version now, but it's a great walk around lens with 2.8 @ 17mm. Other alternatives are 17-50mm 2.8 and 18-35 1.8 I mentioned. IMO, you shouldn't concern too much with 50mm< since you have a crop camera and 70-300mm.

fanofdmb84 said:

Also, can someone explain the differences (pros/cons?) of a 50mm f/1.8 vs f/1.4?

Click to expand...

The 1.4 is slightly faster and thus, slightly better in low light. The 1.8 is significantly less expensive. I chose the 1.8 over the 1.4.

After some consideration, I decided to order the D7000 now rather than later. We're leaving for vacation next week and I know I would kick myself the entire time knowing I could be practicing with a new camera in the great outdoors (we're going camping).

I ended up going with the 18-105mm & the 70-300mm. I think this will give me the greatest range for what I plan to do, without going over my relatively small budget. I also think a 50mm f/1.8 is in my near future, if for no other reason than I can play around with it and not break the bank. From everyone's answers here, I think the f/1.8 would be more than adequate for my needs and still allow me to keep my costs down so I can purchase a nice bag and a few other accessories.

I really appreciate everyone's input! I've learned much!