Choosing a new small budget lens

[circleoftrust]

I just want to know, is the Nikon 18-55 actually that bad? Or am I better off getting a 50mm 1.8D? I'm into snapping landscapes, architecture and people too. I have a D7000 and a 35 1.8 as my only lens. I know it's the "go-to" lens for general photography like I do but I want to get a new, cheap lens to add a bit more flexibility to my photos. I have to say my only lens now does a great job, but I just want to know from you guys what you think.

- I'm trying to save up for a wide angle lens in the future, which I also need some guidance in. I'm looking in to the Tokina 12-24 or 11-16. I know the 12-24 is cheaper and some say it's more "usable" and versatile than the 11-16. What do you guys think? Thanks for all your help and more power to us all.

Flickr: c1rcl30ftru$t's Photostream

[circleoftrust]

Or are the Nikon's far more better: 16-35 or 17-55? Far more expensive but as long as they're a keeper I don't mind saving up and waiting to get any one of these (in the future)

[Almond.Butterscotch]

The 18-55mm really isn't a terrible lens for a kit lens. Is it as fast as a prime or a pricey zoom? No. Does it get the job done? Absolutely. I love my 35mm, don't get me wrong- it's almost completely obsoleted by 18-55mm, but I loved the results I got from it and will still occasionally whip it out when I need the wider end. Just because I don't think I've ever whored my 18-55 AND my 35 set in the same post....

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 - a set on Flickr
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - a set on Flickr

[Almond.Butterscotch]

That asaid, the main draws to the two zooms you pointed out are the fast speed, superior build quality, and better technical optical quality. For the money though, I'd rather get a set of primes. Like I mentioned, the 35 is a gem. And the 50mm f/1.8 is cheap too. For the price of the 16-35mm ($1200), I'd pick up a 35mm f/1.8 ($200), 50mm f/1.8 ($100), 85mm f/1.8 ($450), and a decent tripod+head ($300), but that's me.

If you'll be shooting landscapes and architecture, the 35mm or something wider will be great. For people/portraits, the 50's your target, but the 35's great for the people/street category.

[circleoftrust]

Thanks for the input! Yea, the 35 1.8 is stellar just as long as you know the best and sharpest apertures for it, though I have to say I shot it wide open and got some nice pics as well. What do you think about the Tokina's I've mentioned above, the 11-16 and 12-24? I'm looking into getting a wide for when I go on trips and take landscape and architecture photos. The 12-24 is more affordable in my budget in a few months than the 11-16 and as other people have said you don't need a 2.8 in landscape photography so getting that 11-16 is not that practical. I'm also into the 50 1.8D in the near future as it makes for a 75mm in DX so it'll be good for people photos I take. I'm just wondering if it's better to wait for the G version though paying for a motor in the lens isn't needed in my case as I have a D7000.

Thanks again and happy Cinco De Mayo!