Next lens step for a Nikon D7000?

For my birthday i got a Nikon D7000, i got the standard lens with it, (18-105mm VR Lens) I want to upgrade but i'm not sure what VR lens to get now, i don't want to spend to much on one, i do want one that will zoom more, but then again a pancake lens would be good for up close. I think i want my next step to be one that will zoom more. What do you guys think?

The 18 to 105 lens gives you a pretty good range.

I like the following site, one of his favorite lens is just a 35 mm, nothing fasty. Fast and light. He says in one of his articles that he bought lots of lens but has gone back to only a key few.

Be aware that you should spend 80% of your budget on lenses, and 20% on your camera. In other words, 4 times as much money on your lenses as your camera.

My favorite DX lens line up is as follows:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (or the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8).

The first two lenses are Dx, while the last lens is a Fx lens, but it will work equally well on a Dx camera.

First, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is perhaps the best super-wide lens you can buy for a Dx camera, and beats the Nikon 10-24. And incredibly, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 beats the NIkon 17-55mm f/2.8.

Fact is, Nikon only provides so-so support for Dx cameras, focusing all of their efforts into the better (and more expensive - and higher profit margin) Fx lenses.

The 70-200mm is such a lens. The Nikon version is slightly better than the Sigma, but at twice the cost, it is usually only affordable by pros. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is just fine for amateurs.

Still, these three lenses will cost you $2, 400. But don't buy all of them at once. You can buy one a year.

I would buy the 11-16mm first; around $600 as this will offer you the best low end performance.

Next get the 70-200mm f/2.8. The Sigma lens is $1, 200 though.

And then replace your 18-105mm with the Sigma 17-50mm. This is the order I would us, but you may have different priorities.

So why do I recommend replacing the 18-105 with a 17-50? First, the Sigma is a lot faster - f/2.8 through the entire range, while the 18-105mm is a slower f/3.5~5.6.

When compared to the f/5.6 end, the f/2.8 offers a full 2 stops better light capability. And to get that in a camera, you would have to spend $6, 000 on the D4.So in other words, spending $600 on a lens gives you the same low-light capability as spending $6, 000 on a camera (of course there are other advantages to that camera).

Second, the 17-50mm f/2.8 is tack sharp. And it is built better than the Nikon. For instance, Nikon still uses a plastic mount on the lens - as they seem to do on all kit lenses. The Sigma has a metal lens mount, as do all of Nikon's higher quality lenses.

One caveat about the 70-200mm f/2.8 though, it is a big, heavy lens. So you may prefer to buy a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 instead. This is also a great lens, but it is strictly a daylight lens. The main limitation you will find is if you do indoor sports (hockey, basketball, etc). The 70-300mm lens will be too slow, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 will work fine.

If you want the 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6, it sells for almost $600, but you can buy one refurbished from Adorama for $375 or so. That is where I bought mine (three of my 11 lenses are refurbished, and I have not had a dud with any one of them).

By the way, I have these lenses on a D7100 (except I have the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 rather than the 70-200mm f/2.8).

When you want a lens that "zooms more" be aware of what you are asking for. Generally, the higher the zoom power, the worse the lens is optically. I also have a Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6 and I don't like it that much because of the varying optical quality as you zoom throughout the lens range. Especially after upgrading from my D90 to the D7100, the D7100 shows this lens's deficiencies more than the D90 did. I'll probably sell it as my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is now my "normal" lens.