Rich,
Your thoughtfulness shines through, here, as others have said--you're sure to make good choices.
That said, let's question one key assumption: why have you decided to stick with zooms?
If cost is no object, then Nikon's new line of f/1.4 "G" primes--the 24G, 35G, 50G, and 85G are capable of considerably more versatile, interesting photography than are the f/2.8 pro zooms.
In the last year, many working professionals seem to have ditched the 14-24 and the 24-70, particularly, in favor of the 24 f/1.4 or 35 f/1.4 for wide coverage and the 50 f/1.4 (or, in an interesting trend, the 50 f/1.2 AIS) for normal.
Why? A few reasons:
(1) As many have already pointed out, f/2.8 really isn't all that fast. While it's true that f/2.8 combined with the impressive high ISO capabilities of the D7000 and the FX bodies means you can shoot in pretty much any available light, f/2.8 really isn't capable, on the wider end of the focal range, of producing those gorgeously shallow, cinematic shots--bokeh, dimension, and impressive subject isolation at, say, 24mm. That's why the 24 f/1.4, particularly, is such a revelation--also a reason why many working pros (I'm thinking, particularly, of Ryan Brenizer, Sean Molin, others) also carry Nikon's manual focus 50 f/1.2 AIS. That wide aperture brings such rich, cinematic character!
(2) The much smaller, much lighter f/1.4 primes balance
magnificently on smaller DX bodies. They're also highly portable--unlike the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8, they'll actually fit, with hoods deployed, in a reasonably-sized bag you won't be embarrassed to bring to family get-togethers, etc. The 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8, particularly, will absolutely overwhelm the small D7000 body--you'll need the 70-200's VR, because you'll have a hell of a time holding that rig steadily. If the zooms really are your thing, plan on getting the MB-D11 Grip as well to give the D7000 body a fighting chance at some balance.
(3) Don't underestimate the absolute wildness of the 14-24 f/2.8 zoom design until you've used and seen one in person. That enormous front element can't be covered with a proper lens cap, and you can't use any filters--so no UV/Protection, NDs, warming, etc. For hand-held landscape work, alone, think long and hard about not being able to use a screw-on ND or having to go into salty / dusty environments without a UV/Protection filter.
(4) Don't underestimate the continued power of Occam's Razor, even in the era of nano-crystal coatings and ED glass: not even the magnificent 70-200 VRII can pull the same lw/height sharpness as the $125 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor. Add glass, put it in motion, and sharpness goes down--the simplest solutions are most often the best. The new f/1.4 "G" Nikkors are RAZOR sharp, with impressive figures even wide open!
Long and short: the f/2.8 zooms are magnificent lenses, but they trade focal range versatility for massive weight, wild design, and some loss of aperture versatility--something you'll feel most acutely with the 14-24.
My recommendation? If you're "starting big," then get on the bleeding edge with the kit many forward-thinking pros have begun to use:
- 24 f/1.4 G
- 50 f/1.2 AIS
- 70-200 f/2.8 VRII (for those occasions you know you'll need a range)
- 85 f/1.4 G (for those occasions you know you'll prefer aperture versatility)
Visit Ryan Brenizer's wonderful blog (
http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/blog/ ) to see this lens kit in action. I think you'll conclude that the 14-24 and the 24-70, particularly, don't stack up.
Cheers!
M.
