Doing away with the kit lens in the next upgrade, advice on coverage

[fjrabon]

So, I've finally decided to stay crop frame for the next upgrade and move into a D7000. Reason being I already have mostly DX glass, I like the extra reach and deeper DOF for concert photography and after the initial rush on D600's I'll probably get a full frame then, and keep the D7000 as my second body.

Anyway, I'll be selling my D3100, and I'll probably include the kit lens in the package. I don't use it very much and I've generally noticed that people here trying to sell an intro body have trouble getting buyers unless they include a kit lens in the package as well. Makes sense, as not many people looking to buy a D3100 have a lens collection to begin with. I don't really have anything against the kits lens, and think it's a fine value

Anyway, I'm a touch concerned about focal length coverage. On the one hand I feel like I shouldn't be worried because I almost never used the 18-55mm anyway. I almost always shot with the 35mm f/1.8G for walk around stuff. On the other, 20mm-34mm and 36mm-55mm seems like a lot of ground to not have covered.

Is the 18-105mm just too good of a deal to pass up? I've used it before and liked it. It might be handy on vacations. But at the same time, I'm not a big fan of having lenses that just sit in the bag taking up valuable real estate. Especially when it adds $300 to the cost of my upgrade.

Currently my lineup is 10-20mm; 18-55mm (this is the kit lens I would be getting rid of); 35mm; 60mm; 55-200mm

THought about maybe throwing a 28mm prime and a 50mm prime and that way I'd be all primes for the normal focal lengths and zoom on my UWA and tele.

I know a lot of this is probably only stuff I can answer, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the issue if you have them. Thanks in advance!

 

[bratkinson]

I sure others will say it, as well...let your shooting needs dictate your lens needs.

If most of what you shoot falls in the wide angle range, a 28mm might be nice, but at the same time, that's very close to the 35mm. Why would you need both? Same with buying a 50mm and keeping the 60mm. What would you gain if you bought primes so close to the ones you already have? Would buying a non-kit zoom such as a 17-55 or 24-70 fill your needs instead?

Being a Canon shooter, I know zilch about the 18-105 you mentioned as a possibility. Even though I have a crop-body, I have the Canon 24-105L f4.0 and it's my main lens. Roughly 90% of my shots are with this lens. Everything else I have is "specialty use", aka, situation specific. If I could only have one lens, the 24-105 is it. I plan on going full-frame in the future, so I upgraded my glass to full-frame glass (EF, not EF-S lenses).

Another question you may want to ask is do you need faster glass? If you do any low-light shooting, faster glass is a necessity. Likewise, you may want to get something faster than your 55-200, if that would better suit your needs.

Ideally, you don't want to buy new (or new to you) lenses that will only need to be replaced for more speed, or better quality, or mount incompatibility somewhere down the line. Buy what you NEED today for todays' needs, but buy with the intent of your future needs as well.

Lastly, used or refurb lenses are a fantastic way to save some big time money.

 

[orb9220]

Like mentioned you may need faster glass and better Image IQ glass. I upgraded my 18-55 kit lens years ago with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Usability in lower light situations and Image IQ took a step up. And buy all my equipment used for the most part without a problem.
.

 

[Derrel]

Sage advice from bratkinson and orb9220. Not much to add. And your logic, that the D3100 needs to be paired with the kit lens to make it saleable--yes, agreed. I'm familiar with the 18-105...I bought one for my wife to use on a her then-new Nikon D40 setup...the Nikkor 18-105mm zoom is a very handy lens on DX. GOod range, decent size and weight, EXCELLENT choice if the top end is adequate for one's needs at tele.

 

[fjrabon]

the UWA doesn't need to be fast, as mostly when I use that it's on a tripod for landscape or real estate. but most of the others do. I'll eventually be getting a 80-200mm f/2.8, but that's maybe several months away. the 35mm is f/1.8, the 60mm is f/2.0, which is plenty fast for my needs, I have no real need for f/1.4 speedwise.

Speed was my primary concern on the 18-105mm. I'm so used to being able to shoot at f/2 if I need to at this point that it's a little irksome whenever I used my tele and am stuck at f/5.6. But my thought is that in some ways it might just be too good of a deal not to get at $300, for vacation type applications, where I could just take it and maybe one more lens and be done with it.

 

[Derrel]

Good thinking...18-105, good price, handy, one-lens solution...and YES, tele lenses that open up to only f/5.6 are more-constraining than faster,bigger,heavier, more-expensive f/2.8 zooms, or expensive high-speed primes. I too have VERY little need for f/1.4 speed...never really have much,either. Over the years, I have had a couple 35mm f/1.4 lenses, one 85/1.4, and four or five 50mm f/1.4 lenses of 1960's to 2010's vintages...eh...the more-modern f/1.8 and or f/2 models are now optically better I think. And lighter, and easier to pack, in the case of the 35 and 85mm lengths.

 

[orb9220]

I concur as my friend has the 18-105vr. And outstanding for a kit lens and useful extended range. Probably the best kit lens Nikon has put out next to the discontinued 18-70 that is.
.