18-200 is a brilliant multi use walk about lens, the image quality is good but with the higher min aperture it need good light and the bokeh/background blur will not be that good
I have use the 16-85mm previously and I was very disappointed I feel the 18-105 performed much better

not tried the 70-300 but heard good stuff for it being a starter tele zoom

I would view the 70-300mm as a "tech" purchase: I absolutely don't need that kind of range for the purposes of the camera. However, for a lot of fun photos and having lots of fun playing with the camera, it would be a great purchase.

Is the 18-105 really better than the 16-85? I'll take a look at the reviews more thoroughly. The 18-105 is $300 cheaper too so that's a huge difference and leaves me wondering.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jun 24 2013 02:11am

yeah is cheaper, I not read reviews on either of them, this is purely from experience
I might have had a good 18-105 and an unlucky 16-85

the 18-55 cheapo is a good bundle lens, image quality is not bad but the 18-105 is more versatile to start with
if you really get into photography you are going to want to upgrade and get rid of any of these lenses a year down the line, so just get a cheap option for now (18-55 + 55-200) and add a 50mm f/1.8
you will learn a lot from using the 50mm

Well, I've also looked at the Sigma 17-70mm, it's $150 less than the 16-85... the range is a little lower but I'm looking at that too.

I've been told that the cheaper 18-55 and 55-200 is a terrible idea by a few people. The resale value on the more expensive lenses is much higher too. Thinking it out >_<;

don't know anything about that sigma, but my brother-in-law has the sigma 24-70 and its pretty good not as good as the Nikon/canon but great for the price, prob is afaik they still have QC issues so u could get a sharp lens or u could get a crap soft lens
I wouldn't say terrible at all, most of us started with similar or worse lenses and certainly worse camera bodies, its not the gear that makes the photo
resale on most the cheap lenses is just rubbish, ppl generally only want the higher end lenses
I still say go for cheap lens and the 50 atm, you will learn a lot, prob be using the 50mm 80% of the time and realize how great it is, and u will then want comparable lenses

Thing is I'll likely just use my kit lenses 95% of the time to take photos. I figure the 16-85mm gives a good focal range, and good performance.

I probably couldn't ever justify lenses that cost more than $500-$700 a piece. Or not until I've graduated from University (and I'm not a film or photo student so no excuses there haha).

So I'm thinking the 16-85mm makes sense, I'm considering the 70-300mm as a splurge just for the fun zoom, and then primes (35mm, 50mm, etc) will be added if I get them as presents... or if I land a better part-time job after summer.

The way I justify it is this: Getting great quality in the 16-300mm range with two walk-around lenses will be good, and then filling in with primes will ice the cake eventually. I'll likely not want to upgrade my camera for another 2-3 years, and by that time I'll likely sell anything I have and jump ship to a new system altogether anyway.

sigma 30mm 1.4 if nikon doesent have some equivalent

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Jun 24 2013 08:42am

50mm on a crop sensor is just too zoomed in if you want my opinion.
I now use a tamron 17-50 f1.8 and the fact that i can get to 22-24mm makes it way better.
Under 22mm it gets a bit too much wide (shows too much distortion).
You'd be better off with a zoom lens unless you're really planning to move all the time with the prime lenses

I wouldnt get a 35mm and a 50mm. they are to similiar for my taste. a good solution would be a 24mm, a 50mm, and a short tele like 100mm or 135mm. a 70-200mm is good aswell. I wouldnt spend alot of money on 15 more mm though, at least not in the beginning. You´ll want to try different types of lenses.

The only zoom i would ever suggest buying is a high end 70-200.

Other than that i think non DX 24mm,35mm,50mm,85mm primes would be far far better in terms of image quality