16-28 Tokina FX lens+ 50 mm 1.8 G + 70-300 VR2, does it cover a reasonable ground

THe 24 - 70 2.8 Nikon has no stabalisation and because of its glass elements is almost as heavy as the camera by itself. At hand held shutter speeds under 1/80th it is nearly impossible to get consistantly sharp pictures. When conditions are ideal (like tripod mount) images are excellent but how often can you do that?

I now use a sigma 17 -50 F2.8 which has the same equivlant range on a D7000 as the expensive Nikon I just mentioned. It is lighter, has optical stabalisation and I get less fatigue from using it.

I originally bought a Tamron lens but found the barrel had a hairline crack in it so took it back and bought to more expensive Sigma. The Tamron felt like a cheap plastic lens although it did take nice pictures.

Its a great pity Nikon don't have as big a range of usable lenses as you can get with non-genuine stuff. WIth Photoshop now having optical correction in ACR, cheap lenses that previously you wouldn't touch for their errors are now viable.

I hope this helps.
Douglas