# D7000+ 18-55 VR. Wise Choice for beginners?



## bharatwd (Feb 19, 2011)

HI, im about to buy my first DSLR and i've finally narrowed down the list to the D7000. However, im still struggling to select the right lens kit for my D7000. Im initially inclined to ditch the 18-105VR that comes with the D7000 kit (thanks
to Ken Rockwell) and pick the 18-55VR for the time being. I realize i wont be able to do justice to the D7000 in the beginning, hence I just want to enhance my skills with the 18-55VR. I later plan to add the 70-300VR and the 35mm/1.8 for indoor photography.
Now, my only concern here is if im doing the right thing by ditching the 18-105VR for the 18-55VR? I couldnt find much reviews on the D7000+18-55VR lens combination and hence I look for your advice on this issue.
Thanks  Looking forward to owning a Nikon DSLR


----------



## quiddity (Feb 19, 2011)

you could skip them both and just get the 35mm

what do you want to shoot most of the time


----------



## rickabobaloey (Feb 19, 2011)

I don't know much about Nikon. I do have one question though.

If it was I who was facing this choice I'd go with the 18-105. Gives you a longer focal length on the zoom end, yet you kept your 18mm wide angle as well. Unless there's a drastic price difference between those lenses, I'm not sure why you're want to opt out of the lens it comes with.


----------



## mfrankpdx (Feb 19, 2011)

I have no experience with the 18-105, but I have the 18-55 and it's not a terrible lens.  When you view your images at 100% crop you can see the things it gets criticized for, like chromatic aberration and fuzzy corners, but if you want to make regular sized photos, you won't be able to notice that stuff.  Probably what people don't like about it the most is it's not a good indoor lens without a flash.  As far as I know, every weakness the 18-55 has, the 18-105 has as well.  They are both basic kit lenses.  The 35 1.8 is good.


----------



## bharatwd (Feb 19, 2011)

exactly frank..both are kit lens, i.e. 18-55 n 18-105..so i was thinkin to ditch the 18-105 save 200$ after getting a 18-55.. n put that money into 70-300.because im sure once i have the 70-300VR..i wont be carrying the 18-105 around....i hope thats a good logic       im thinkin to later replace the 18-55 with a better lens..once i get some skills )))   What would be a good replacement to a 18-55?


----------



## bharatwd (Feb 19, 2011)

quiddity said:


> you could skip them both and just get the 35mm
> 
> what do you want to shoot most of the time




Quiddity...that was also a thought )) i know the 35mm will be perfect for indoor but will it be a good replacement for 18-55VR outdoor? Please enlighten me... ))))


----------



## Nikon_Dude (Feb 20, 2011)

bharatwd said:


> exactly frank..both are kit lens, i.e. 18-55 n 18-105..so i was thinkin to ditch the 18-105 save 200$ after getting a 18-55.. n put that money into 70-300.because im sure once i have the 70-300VR..i wont be carrying the 18-105 around....i hope thats a good logic       im thinkin to later replace the 18-55 with a better lens..once i get some skills )))   What would be a good replacement to a 18-55?


 
I replaced my 18-55mm with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Pretty happy with it so far.


----------



## DirtyDFeckers (Feb 20, 2011)

bharatwd said:


> quiddity said:
> 
> 
> > you could skip them both and just get the 35mm
> ...




The 35mm will be fine for outdoor shooting, as long as you don't need that zoom range of the others.  As far as image quality goes, the 35mm is miles above either of the other two.


----------



## sanderso (Feb 20, 2011)

Just got my D7000 w the kit lens a few months ago so I don't have a lot of time w the kit lens yet. But so far, the 18-105 is a good tweener lens below my 70-300 and above my 35. Was using a medium zoom Sigma tweener lens (forget the range 24-80?...gave to daughter), but found I used the 70-300 more. The new 18-105 spends a lot of time on the camera now.

My vote would be to stick w the kit lens first, then add other glass later after you've got time (& skills) under your belt. The kit is a good general purpose lens for me & my noobish skills (so far). BTY....I LOVE the 35 and am considering a 50!


----------



## bharatwd (Feb 20, 2011)

ok guys lets say i pick the d7000 body only......
what would be a better lens
Nikon 16-85 *f/3.5 - 5.6 VR *or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8?                        to go with 70-300 n 35mm


----------



## DVC Mike (Feb 20, 2011)

bharatwd said:


> ok guys lets say i pick the d7000 body only......
> what would be a better lens
> Nikon 16-85 *f/3.5 - 5.6 VR *or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? to go with 70-300 n 35mm


 
I have the Nikkor 16-85 VR and it's a great lens. I have the 10-24 on the ultrawide end, the fast 35mm, and the 70-300 VR, It's a perfect set.

The 18-105 isn't a bad lens. It's just a little soft when shot wide open at 18mm. The 18-105 is a great lens for someone just jumping into DSLRs.


----------



## bharatwd (Feb 20, 2011)

Lets say I own a D7000 + 70-300 + 35mm/1.8

NOW, which zoom lens should i go for below the 80-85 range.....
1) 16-85 Nikon 16-85 f/3.5 - 5.6 VR or
2) Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or
3) ? Please remember that this should complement the 70-300 n 35mm


----------



## arcooke (Feb 20, 2011)

bharatwd said:


> Lets say I own a D7000 + 70-300 + 35mm/1.8
> 
> NOW, which zoom lens should i go for below the 80-85 range.....
> 1) 16-85 Nikon 16-85 f/3.5 - 5.6 VR or
> ...


 
Considering you're new, and this is your first DSLR purchase, I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself.  It's good to plan ahead, but I think you should just pick up the 18-105 kit lens (perfectly acceptable general use lens), and upgrade as you need to once you find your own niche/style.  I mostly use my 50mm 1.8 for portraits, my 18-105 for general walk around shots, and am soon buying a tokina 11-16mm super wide. I occasionally wish I had more reach on the zoom on my kit lens, but I don't find myself needing it very often.  Depending on what you end up shooting, you may not need more than that either.

Don't go out and blow your savings on a bunch of equipment you may or may not use .. just take it a step at a time.


----------



## quiddity (Feb 20, 2011)

getting a d90 body only will save you 400


----------



## bharatwd (Feb 20, 2011)

sorry guys but i think im gonna get this -> d7000+16-85 n then 35mm/1.8 + 70-300...


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 20, 2011)

I would get the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 over the 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 nikon.   It's a better lens IMO (constant 2.8 aperture and very sharp).  It's also around $200 cheaper.

I'd recommend the non-VC version, as VR/VC is pointless on a lower focal length lens and actually degrades image quality.  

A used Tamron 17-50mm 1:2.8 AF is only around $325 in great condition. Buy used on ebay from someone that accepts returns.


----------



## Pierre 63 (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm not an expert, but here is my experience; 
i have replaced the nikon 18-55 with the non VR 17-50 Tamron, the Tamron is a much better all around
lens than the 18-55 and it's not expensive.


----------



## Ginu (Feb 21, 2011)

I think its hard to decide what lens to have specially as a beginner.
The big question is what do you normally shoot?

When I purchased my D90 with the kit lens 18-105 (which is not a bad lens as it is light and covers most usable focal range), I ended up selling the 18-105 and buying the 18-200AFS which stays on the body most of the time. The 18-200 is a fast lens which can be used in many different situation, I pretty much listened to Ken Rockwell  and could not be happier. Any professional photographer will not be caught dead with a lens with such great zoom variance, but for the average user I think its one of the best lenses to use, not to mention less crap to carry around. With that being said I would also suggest a flash as the internal flash can be lacking in many instances and a 50mm or 35mm 1.8 lens because they are super-fast, very sharp lens which produces amazing pictures (a must have lens specially due to the affordable factor).

I had the 70-300 VR lens which I sold because there was not much use for this lens at the time, however now I'm looking to get a new 70-300 VRII since were going on a month long trip in Europe and would be nice to have a more telephoto lens.

Keep one thing in mind though, as photography grows and you become more experienced, you will want to upgrade to professional lens  like the 14-24 , 24-70 and the great 70-200 along with 1.4 primes like the 35/50mm and 60/105 Macro Lens and a full frame camera D700 or above. 

Awesome hobby but pricey. Welcome to the club.


----------



## ulrichsd (Feb 21, 2011)

I just bought a D90 and the 35mm f/1.8, also picked up the 70-300mm used of a wedding photographer friend, so we're kind of in the same boat.  The 35mm is an awesome lens, the low aperture is so much better than the zoom IMO.  

If I were you, I'd start with the 35mm and skip the mid-zoom, the 35mm is great for indoor, outdoor, I absolutely love it.  I thought about getting a midzoom for a convenient do-it-all lens but after using the 35mm I don't feel the need.  The only advantage to the  zoom is the slightly wider angle when you're in a room and can't move back.  But, I plan on my next lens purchase being an ultra-wide and then I'll be happy forever (or until I need a fast tele).

Good luck.  Start with the 35mm and go from there.


----------



## Bram (Feb 21, 2011)

My first question would be: Why as a beginner are you blowing $1,500.00+ on an advanced DSLR? How about you buy a used DSLR, learn the trade, familiarize yourself with exposure, ISO settings, composition, aperture, etc.. Once you know your current DSLR upgrade. I've had my D40x for a year and a half, still working with it, been thinking about upgrading but I haven't felt that i'm being limited by my gear. I do feel limited with my gear when shooting under the football lights with a D40x, and a 55-200 VR lens. Therefore i'm looking to upgrade to a body with better FPS and ISO.


----------



## Ginu (Feb 21, 2011)

Bram said:


> My first question would be: Why as a beginner are you blowing $1,500.00+ on an advanced DSLR? How about you buy a used DSLR, learn the trade, familiarize yourself with exposure, ISO settings, composition, aperture, etc.. Once you know your current DSLR upgrade. I've had my D40x for a year and a half, still working with it, been thinking about upgrading but I haven't felt that i'm being limited by my gear. I do feel limited with my gear when shooting under the football lights with a D40x, and a 55-200 VR lens. Therefore i'm looking to upgrade to a body with better FPS and ISO.


 

Found the best deal last week on craiglist in Vancouver for the following:

D700 - 1700$
14-24 2.8 for cheap cheap
24-70 2.8 really cheap
60-200 2.8 for 1300 cheap again
SB800 for 300

I would have jumped on all of this but due to a month vacation in Europe coming up in less than 3 months, I could not afford it


----------



## Lazy Photographer (Feb 21, 2011)

Nikon_Dude said:


> bharatwd said:
> 
> 
> > exactly frank..both are kit lens, i.e. 18-55 n 18-105..so i was thinkin to ditch the 18-105 save 200$ after getting a 18-55.. n put that money into 70-300.because im sure once i have the 70-300VR..i wont be carrying the 18-105 around....i hope thats a good logic       im thinkin to later replace the 18-55 with a better lens..once i get some skills )))   What would be a good replacement to a 18-55?
> ...



:thumbup:   :thumbup:   :thumbup:


----------



## juha108 (Jul 12, 2012)

bharatwd said:


> HI, im about to buy my first DSLR and i've finally narrowed down the list to the D7000. However, im still struggling to select the right lens kit for my D7000. Im initially inclined to ditch the 18-105VR that comes with the D7000 kit (thanks
> to Ken Rockwell) and pick the 18-55VR for the time being. I realize i wont be able to do justice to the D7000 in the beginning, hence I just want to enhance my skills with the 18-55VR. I later plan to add the 70-300VR and the 35mm/1.8 for indoor photography.
> Now, my only concern here is if im doing the right thing by ditching the 18-105VR for the 18-55VR? I couldnt find much reviews on the D7000+18-55VR lens combination and hence I look for your advice on this issue.
> Thanks  Looking forward to owning a Nikon DSLR




Hey bharatwd, for God's sake, do not ditch the 18-105 for a 18-55. Although, Ken Rockwell is a great expert in digital photography, he's not the God. His recommendations&#8212;unfortunately&#8212;are many times very subjective (rather than scientifically objective) because if he for some reason happens to like something he praises it and if doesn't like something he completely bashes it. With all due respect, but this is a fact!

I have used both 18-55 VR and 18-105 VR with D40, D5000, D3100 and D7000 and I warmly recommend 18-105mm lens: it is clearly sharper (especially wide open) and it has much nicer reach with 105mm vs. 55mm. 

For objective lens reviews, please visit unbiased sites like www.lenstip.com, instead. Lenstip has tested throughly both 18-55 and 18-105 lenses and here's what they say about 18-105 in the summary:

"If only Nikon decided to place this lens in a solid body, even raising the price twice, I would recommend it to all amateur photographers..."    "...the lens&#8217;s fabulous performance places it among one of the best kit lenses I&#8217;ve ever tested. I think that everybody, who plans to make a purchase of a Nikon D90, should seriously consider buying it together with the Nikkor 18-105 VR."

Cheers,
-Juha


----------



## Dao (Jul 12, 2012)

I think OP already made his/her purchase since he/she asked the question back in Feb 2011 (1 1/2 years ago)


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 12, 2012)

bharatwd said:


> sorry guys but i think im gonna get this -> d7000+16-85 n then 35mm/1.8 + 70-300...



Why are you sorry?  Get those lenses and then be sorry


----------



## juha108 (Jul 13, 2012)

Dao said:


> I think OP already made his/her purchase since he/she asked the question back in Feb 2011 (1 1/2 years ago)




It was just meant for the future reference for all you, guys.


----------



## kshapero (Sep 24, 2012)

quiddity said:


> you could skip them both and just get the 35mm
> 
> what do you want to shoot most of the time


That's what I did.


----------



## Gary_A (Sep 24, 2012)

Bram said:


> My first question would be: Why as a beginner are you blowing $1,500.00+ on an advanced DSLR? How about you buy a used DSLR, learn the trade, familiarize yourself with exposure, ISO settings, composition, aperture, etc.. Once you know your current DSLR upgrade.



I realize this is an old thread but as a person looking at the same camera and also at the same skill level I thought I would take a stab at this. First thing the OP didn't state he currently had a DSLR that he was upgrading, or perhaps he is like me and feels its better to buy once and have a equipment that you can grow into rather than buying equipment that might hold you back and it needs to be replaced costing you more money in the long run.


----------



## greybeard (Sep 24, 2012)

I have experience with both with the 18-55, 18-105, and the 35mm f/1.8............I now use my 35mm f/1.8 for most things and the 18-55 VR when I need wide angle. The 18-55 at f/5.6-f/8 is really quite descent.   I don't care for the 18-105.  It is OK on the wide side but is soft at 105 and doesn't focus as close as the 18-55 which will go 1:3.  My 18-105 had a focus error of -6 which took some time to correct.  The D7000 is such an awesome camera, it lets you adjust just about every aspect of the process.


----------

