Is this a good setup for a beginner?

[randyphotoforum]

I am doing most of my research from Ken Rockwell's site, and got the idea of the 35, 50, and 55-200 from his review on the D7100. I agree that this is a lot of moving parts to get right off the bat when I am new to this. He really brags about the 35/1.8 and says that is his go to lens for most shooting. He also has a really good review on the Nikon 18-200 VRII and I can get that in a kit from B&H for ~$1300. Maybe thats a better do-it-all lens to start out with, but I thought I had read somewhere a jack of all trades was a master of none. Nikon also has an 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 lens that Ken brags about. Would a smaller zoom like the 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 or 17-50 f/2.8 be a better lens to start with than the 18-200 VRII?

Ken Rockwell is... lets just say.. not highly regarded. His site and reviews are built to make him money. He wants you to click the links on his site. He REALLY wants you to buy the items he recommends using the links from his site. Every click is money in his pocket.... and that's why everything is the best (Nikon is the best.. Canon is the best.. 35mm is the best.. Buy it now! Send it back if you don't want it... etc).

"I shoot the smallest size JPG on my D800 because nobody needs anything higher!"

His site is a joke... and he even admits it every now and then.. Sometimes its good to research the reviewers.

I'll leave you with this:
Where do Babies Come From?

i can't believe he was stupid enough to write that not to mention post it

 

[PBlais]

The 50 and 35 are just so easy to love and you'll be hard pressed to find two lenses this good at the price you'll pay - just do it! They just should go in everyone's bag. I'm not a huge fan of my 55-200mm. It's not really that long and not very sharp or bright. I tend not to use it much but it's also not the style I shoot now either. I would say checkout with the cart you have set up but don't buy the 55-200. Use the stuff you buy for a few months then save up for maybe an 85mm or maybe something wider. If you use the 35 and 55 a bunch you'll be spoiled for wider aperture good lenses and all the rest you might find are a lot more money. I got an 18-105mm and it's better than the kit lenses (not a huge amount). The 18-140 is supposed to be better. For a long lens you need a real reason to invest the money it is going to cost. I got into shooting panos and the 35 and 50 make nice wide pictures and also shoot nice HDR too. I bought tripod gear to support that instead. I'm leaning more to a 20mm or an 85mm next. Recently I've got an interest in Lensbaby too. Once you get a couple decent lenses you can take the time to sort out all these goofy ideas you get before you run out of money. I wouldn't try to spend it all today. You'll be having great fun right out of the box so don't worry.

 

[rjackh]

Alright I will quit reading Ken's reviews.

Amazon.com: Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera: Camera & Photo

Is this the sigma yall were talking about?

The 50 f/1.8D and 35mm f/1.8G are just so cheap its hard not to get them also. Will they perform better at 35 and 50 than the sigma 17-50?

 

[rjackh]

Bump to the top.

 

[xj0hnx]

Something I didn't see mentioned ...a Speedlight, get one. Dump the 55-200 and get a SBXXX

 

[bigal1000]

Don't waste your $ D7000/18-55 that's all you need right now to get started do some shooting and then see what your needs are for other lenses down the road or you can buy all that stuff and want to sell it a few months.

 

[bigal1000]

I am doing most of my research from Ken Rockwell's site, and got the idea of the 35, 50, and 55-200 from his review on the D7100. I agree that this is a lot of moving parts to get right off the bat when I am new to this. He really brags about the 35/1.8 and says that is his go to lens for most shooting. He also has a really good review on the Nikon 18-200 VRII and I can get that in a kit from B&H for ~$1300. Maybe thats a better do-it-all lens to start out with, but I thought I had read somewhere a jack of all trades was a master of none. Nikon also has an 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 lens that Ken brags about. Would a smaller zoom like the 18-55 II f/3.5-5.6 or 17-50 f/2.8 be a better lens to start with than the 18-200 VRII?

That's your first problem KR as a mentor !!!!!!!!!!

 

[sk66]

Lots of outdoor photography, hunting, fishing, wildlife, action, people, I guess just about everything really.

Honestly, the lens I would choose is the Nikon 28-300, or possibly the 18-300 but I have no experience with that one. Yeah, it's an "f/8 lens" but with descent light it can cover a large range of subjects/situations quite adequately. But they're not cheap, probably as much/more than the body even used/refurbished.