Decided to go the d7k and spend more on glass, than spend it all on the body and have no glass. My favorite focal length in general is 50 (on a DX) but which 50? I presume the G is worth the little bit extra? Lookin at the 1.8s. Also, thinkin bout a used 24-70 as my walk around lens (would rather buy FX lenses as sometime in the next 2 to 3 years ill be upgrading to FX like everyone else and don't want to have wasted on the lenses) but would love to keep the pricing at around 1k for that lens. Any suggestions there? Thanks in advance!! Can't wait to get back into the Nikon world!
For less than $1000 you could get a 28-70. You won't find a 24-70 that low.
If I were starting fresh today (and my apologies if you are not starting fresh, but it kind of sounds like you are), I would buy all MF Nikkors, maybe a cheapo 50mm 1.8 AFD for times that I felt I needed AF.
You might consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. The old one with the non-built-in motor is generally an excellent lens, is a lot lighter than the Nikon Pro glass , and they go for between $300 and $350.
If you can afford both the 50 1.8G and the Nikon 28-70, you certainly won't regret them...
As DTOB mentioned you would not find a 24-70 for a $1000. My Advice is to buy DX glass for the moment and enjoy your D7k's potential rather than investing in FX from now. You can sell & buy anytime and Nikon glass keep its value particularly if you buy used. Manual glass is also one the advantages of having a Nikon, checkout the manual focus group.
As for best glass for your money for the D7k, I would go for a Nikon 17-55 2.8 and a Nikon 50 1.8G if you really need the 50 focal length as a prime. Though I recommend spending the money on a tele like 55-300 or a UWA like a Sigma 10-20 which opens new doors for you...As a cheaper option for the 17-55, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non-VC is a great lens and you can get it for less than $300.
I think it's a mistake to buy large, heavy FX lenses and put them on a nice small DX camera. Here's why. A 24mm will never be wide enough for you. By the time you get around to buying an FX (and you might not--you might get a 4/3 type camera,) there might be better lenses available anyway. Buy lenses for what you have. A big clunky lens like the 24-70 will kill your joy as a "walk around" lens. Buy a Sigma 17-50mm OS (see Thom Hogan's recent review.)
I wouldn’t recommend the 24-70 f/2.8 unless you’re routinely paid to shoot events and “have to get the shot.” For amateur use, I’m with Kent; it’s a lot of lens to carry around for what it does and is obviously expensive. On the other hand, the 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens is fairly compact and a great performer, but it’s still not cheap and is pointless on an FX camera.
The 50 f/1.8G you’re considering is a no-brainer if you like that focal length. I think if I was doing DX all over again, I’d also go for the 16-85 VR as a general purpose lens. Even though it’s no good on an FX camera, you stand a good chance of getting your money’s worth out of it on your D7000 before making the jump. For telephoto use, the 70-300 VR is a good choice that will still be useful on an FX camera.
i would agree with those advising to buy dx lenses for now, and if you switch to fx in a couple of years, just sell the dx glass and buy fx. my experience has been that if you buy quality used glass (here of course!) it doesn't really depreciate much more after taking the initial 'not new' hit in value. so the cost of ownership of glass isn't going to be very much. as for which lens, when i was shooting dx i loved the 17-55 2.8. that was my 'walkaround' lens on my d300. good luck!
