Here's another thread but some decent questions & some final decisions (finally). Done so much research and careful consideration and I've got my final decision. Last thing is to simply get approval or disapproval from anyone who cares to read.

On a full sensor DSLR, 50mm and 85mm prime lenses seem to be good.

Would a 35mm and 50mm prime lens set be good for a cropped sensor (35 = close to 50, 50 = close to 85)???

I can't get a prime lens that is any lower than 35mm for a reasonable price, so I'm wondering if 35 & 50 would be good primes to have for a long time? Any reason I'd want to look at anything else?

Lens set would be:
35mm
50mm
18-55mm
55-200mm

All on a crop sensor.

I'm going to go out and pick all that up tomorrow alongside a Nikon D5200, instead of the Canon 6D + 24-105mm. Except, I might leave out the 50mm lens to save $250 on the purchase (pretty sure I will do this simply because I don't think I need to have an 85mm equivalent right off the bat, and it gives me the cash room to get a camera bag, SDHC 64GB memory card, and extra battery since the battery included is wimpy). Total comes to $1400 + taxes, or $1200 + taxes if I take out the 50mm. Trying to keep costs down (at least $1000 lower) than what I would've spent on the 6D. Seems I'll be getting more versatility out of the Nikon D5200 as far as lens options go, flash (even if it's inferior built-in flash), swivel screen, size, weight, and price... and the performance seems to be excellent anyway.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jun 23 2013 10:02pm

I am sure 1/2 of your 30k posts come from the last week or so in the photography forum
that's good though as this place has been way to dead

my choice would be:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (AT-X 116 PRO DX-II) absolute superb wide-angle lens for landscapes, imo nothing comes close to this for a cropped camera especially considering price
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 obviously a more expensive version but way superior, good for general, walkabout and portraits

I would suggest those 2 1st, then later you could look at:
Nikon 50mm f1.8 great portrait lens on a cropped body
or
70-200 f/2.8, 3rd party like tamron, not sure of other tele options for a crop

Sadly I feel I've helped bring some life into the photography forum. (New blood). Talking about things that are relevant to a new buyer. Etc. Also, sadly, I've spammed the shit out of the forum. Though, all-in-all, I'm glad there's at least a few regulars around here who help It's not completely dead, and since I'm picking up a camera, I should be relatively lively here (but not as much as recently).

So if I get the 18-55mm, 55-200, and 35... would that be a good starter then? My budget is essentially $1400 absolute tops, and ideally $1200 with all lenses in. I will be spending $100-$200 on additional accessories (camera bag/backpack, extra battery, and an SDHC card as my three things I need right off the bat).

The 18-55mm and 55-200 are bundled (both VR version) for a total of $980 alongside the camera. Pretty good price. However, I could get the camera by itself for $700, and simply get a better lens setup. I like the idea of a versatile lens selection, but I'm open to suggestions before I go out and start tossing cash around tomorrow morning.

[edit]: The 11-16mm is tempting, though wouldn't a decent prime in and around that distance and price-range perform better? Or is the adjustable 5mm a big deal? For me, I just can't afford it anyway... but it is within an "affordable" upgrade budget range.

The 17-55 is wayyyyyy too expensive at over $1k >_<; It would have to provide extreme performance improvements over the 18-55mm, since it's more expensive than the camera body by about 1.5x. It looks very nice, I'll start looking at reviews. /edit: Read a few reviews on the 17-55 and it seems lackluster as an upgrade over the 18-55. Seems it would provide some better performance at the longer focal length, but maybe a 50mm prime would completely eliminate the desire for a 17-55? I mean, high quality on the walk-around lenses makes sense over having lots of primes... variable length lenses are going to be 90%+ of the photos. Maybe I'm wrong on my initial reading?

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jun 23 2013 11:12pm

Im pretty new to shooting but I bought a D3200 a while back with the 18-55mm kit lense and I also added the 55-300mm lens. Both of those lenses are enough for most shooting as far as focal length goes and the price is right on both of them for someone just starting out. My plan next is a 35 or 50 prime and then its time to save for some more serious lenses. I think the 18-55mm, 55-200mm, and a 35/50 prime is a great starting point and really gives you lots of options.

I also bought my camera and lenses refurbished which saved me a good bit. I think my D3200 and both lenses are cheaper than the D5200 you are looking at! That might be worth something looking into as it saves you money for more/better lenses down the road. All of my refurbished stuff came from Nikon with warranties.

Why the 55-300? I heard it's worse than the 55-200? Am I wrong? I'm a bit confused, since I could get the 55-300 for a hundred extra bucks instead of the 55-200.

I really wanted the extra focal length, plus it was cheap (right at 200 refurbished).
Ive been trying to shoot some wildlife and the extra 100mm makes a big difference for that.
The AF is a little slow on the 55-300mm but I havent had much of a problem.

If it helps, here are a couple shots at 300mm

I hear the 70-300mm is a huge upgrade at the $500 mark over the 55-300... and I'm wondering about the performance of the 70-300mm versus the 55-200mm.

Considering not getting primes and just getting better zooms, but pricing it out it's difficult.

Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G ED-IF VR II Nikkor
Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR II Nikkor

What a sick combination... but... it's getting into high-priced territory. Thoughts?

I think a lot of it depends on what you plan on shooting.
I was reading on another forum and one guy owned the 55-200, 55-300, and 70-300 and he claimed that in good light there isn't much of a difference. So if you are planning on bright outdoor shots it might be best to just save the money.

Personally, starting with one/few lenses and building a collection as you go is a good approach. As you learn what you like shooting more you can better decide what you want/need. Plus it helps to spread out the cost over time and make saving a bit easier.
I quickly realized the 55mm max from the kit lense wasnt enough, as im sure many people do.
From what I have seen, lots of lenses hold their value well if they are well kept so selling a lens you have outgrown can help offset the cost of upgrading down the road.

Also hear the 18-200mm is a great choice.

So I have to weigh the options:

18-200mm

vs.

16-85mm + 70-300mm

Whether I would use the extra 100mm which translates to about 400mm reach... and the performance difference between the 16-85 and the 18-200mm in the range under 85mm are what I need to determine now. >_<;