Camera Labs

Hi guys,
i'm next to buy a D7000, i like panoramas, architecture and "everyday" photography.
For a beginner such me it's better to start with the 18-105VR of the kit, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or even the 35mm 1.8 would be a good choice?
Thanks.

You might also consider the Nikkor 16-85mm (if you want a zoom)

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/

I know it's a very good lens but way too much expensive at the moment , even on kit

tbh, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX is a very good lens. It won't break the bank while you're learning & it'll give you lots of time to decide what lens you want/need next.

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/

I chose the 16-85 in favour of the 18-105, but it is much more expensive. The benefits are more metal in the lens and, ultimately a bit better definition (but only on high pixel count sensors - it isn't much) and less distortion.

However, the performance differences are really minor and I would recommend the 18-105 if budget is any consideration. It is a very good performer with a versatile range of focal lengths.

You would probably be able to buy both the 18-105 and the 35/1.8 for less than the cost of the 16-85.

And if you get the 18-105 as a kit, there is the possibility that it will be even cheaper - depending on proces where you are. There's usually something of a bargain with kit lenses and camera bundles.

I find the 35/1.8 usable from maximum aperture, but remember, for static subjects, the 18-105's VR makes it roughly equivalent. The 35/1.8 is superior in terms of DOF isolation, and it's satisfyingly sharp.

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

If you're on a budget, you can't beat the 18-105 combined with the 35 1.8. I personally went for the 16-85 (got it on sale), and haven't looked back. The quality optically is better, but the difference 99% of the time is negligible. The extra range at the short end is definitely a nice addition, plus as Hilary mentioned, it's nice to have a little less distortion. The build quality also improves over that of the 18-105, you get a metal mount, a focus scale, M and A/M focus modes, and it feels more solid overall. That being said, it's also more than twice the price.

I digress though, you can't go wrong with either choice. However, no matter what you do, be sure to add the 35 1.8 to your kit - it's inexpensive and by far one of the best lenses on the market for the money.

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams

Thanks guys for the answers
Here, in Italy, i can find the D7000 body (with Nikon warranty of 4 years) at about 850€ and the D7000+18-105 (Nikon warranty) at about 1030€.
The difference is approximately 180€, but the 18-105 alone costs 210€, not that much of a difference
Maybe with a plus of "only" 90€ it's better to focus on the Tamron 17-50 not VC (300€ approximately) losing 55mm of tele side, but getting a better lens (to match in a future with a Tamron 70-300 to cover the tele side) able to shoot at 35&50mm at f2.8 (with worst bookeh, i know) and let me learn what it means to shoot at fixed focal with decent results in the meantime.
What do you think?
Thanks.