lenses for Nikon D7100...?

[coolhand78]

Hi Guys,

i'm a newbie here, and have been researching my first decent camera purchase... for a while i was leaning towards the canon 7D as my sister has one and
friends are canon owners, but i've always wanted a nikon since i was a little kid (FM2 back then) and after looking at some reveiws on both I'm leaning more towards
the D7100...

but what i'm wanting to know is what lenses would you recommend for this camera. My initial spend on the body and lenses is going to be around $2000, and i'll be shooting
mostly architecture (holiday stuff, england, italy etc) landscape/sunsets/sunrises, as well as holiday happy snaps etc...

ideally i'd like a prime wide angle lens (10-20mm) and then maybe something equivalent to the canon 17-55 USM or 24-105 L lens... but i'd like to know what you guys would recommend
for my purposes...?

thanks in advance...

Luke.

[William]

I saw a comment somwhere, if thinking of a new camera go with what your friends and rello's have , The lenes are interchangable with your friends etc , You'll be the one out with the Nikon

[coolhand78]

I saw a comment somwhere, if thinking of a new camera go with what your friends and rello's have , The lenes are interchangable with your friends etc , You'll be the one out with the Nikon

this was the main reason i was tending toward the canon, however, i'm planning on relocating to england, and from what I can see the D7100 is much more camera for similar money, and there's also the fact that i've just always wanted a Nikon..

[WhoDo]

For a wide angle, go with the Sigma 10-20mm ultra wide zoom but it will cost you. Personally, my kit 18-55mm Nikkor is fine for that sort of work. Check out my signature for a variety of lenses that will suit your D7100, when you get it. Hope that helps.

[arthurking83]

A UWA such as the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is an indispensable lens to have with you, but at the moment, and having just seen the initial review results .. the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens is about as good as you'll get for now.

Beyond this range, I reckon a 50mm(either in /1.8 or /1.4 version) will give good results .. and beyond that, well just wait to get more used to the camera and go with what you think is a good compromise.

70-200/4 will be a good (more) compact lens in this range, Tamron 70-200/2.8VC will give you extra light gathering abilities, better subject isolation allowance .. but is heavy and more cumbersome.

This setup gives you a good range, and the missing focal lengths between say 35mm and 50mm, and then 50mm and 70mm are not usually something you will lose sleep over.

I don't think the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is yet available for sale anywhere(not sure), but apparently it'll come onto the market at US$800 or so. I'm not sure how this fits with your $2k budget.

[coolhand78]

A UWA such as the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is an indispensable lens to have with you, but at the moment, and having just seen the initial review results .. the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens is about as good as you'll get for now.

Beyond this range, I reckon a 50mm(either in /1.8 or /1.4 version) will give good results .. and beyond that, well just wait to get more used to the camera and go with what you think is a good compromise.

70-200/4 will be a good (more) compact lens in this range, Tamron 70-200/2.8VC will give you extra light gathering abilities, better subject isolation allowance .. but is heavy and more cumbersome.

This setup gives you a good range, and the missing focal lengths between say 35mm and 50mm, and then 50mm and 70mm are not usually something you will lose sleep over.

I don't think the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is yet available for sale anywhere(not sure), but apparently it'll come onto the market at US$800 or so. I'm not sure how this fits with your $2k budget.

I notice that you haven't recommended any Nikon/nikkor lenses... Are the sigmas a better lens?

What are your thoughts in the AF-S 16-85 DX VR lens - I think you can get that one in a kit through DWI...?

[WhoDo]

I notice that you haven't recommended any Nikon/nikkor lenses... Are the sigmas a better lens?

Not necessarily "better", Luke; just better value for money most of the time with little or no loss of IQ. I have a couple of Nikkor lenses, and they're more than capable ... even the DX only versions. That said, when I go for a macro lens it will be either a Tamron or a Tokina. Nothing against the Nikkor equivalent except the price, really. For the fairest lens comparisons you can't go past this site: http://www.photozone.de

[arthurking83]

16-85 is a capable lens from what I've seen of it(not experienced).

If money grew on trees .. I think I have enough trees to safely say that I'd probably get Nikon lenses on the whole too .. but general life is more than just about having the best of everything!
(where's the effort in that! )

LOL! I have many lenses, and I can't say I've been disappointed in any of them. Not happy with one Nikon lens I got, and it didn't perform as I'd hoped it would .. considering the prase it usually received.
That was the 80-200/2.8, which I then replaced with a (cheaper!) Tamron 70-200/2.8 ... and I didn't simply replace it only for the increased IQ I got from the Tammy .. the older mechanically locked focusing system of that old lens drove me nuts!

Only reason I didn't get a 16-85VR was that (at that time) the price was simply way too inflated(about $600-700 from most places). Instead I took a bit of a punt and got an 18-105VR, and for the price, it's a damned good lens(apart from the fact that it needs a +0.5Ev to +0.7Ev metering adjustment) .. otherwise a fine lens for a small amount of $

Other lenses you could look too could be cheap options such as Tamrons 17-50/2.8's either VC(stabilised) or non VC and they're both good value and the non VC model that I still have is an impressive performing lens too.

I suggested the Sigma 10-20 with the f/4-5.6 aperture, as this is a lens I have, is very practical, can produce some very good results if used appropriately, and is small and cheap.
The other Sigma lens I suggested is an f/1.8 lens with zoom capability.
I don't currently know of any 18mm f/1.8 lenses currently available on the market today, if if such a lens existed, chances are that It'd likely cost about $800 itself!
That you get the ability to zoom a bit as well, is a bonus. Fastest zoom lens available, and if flash is not one of your things, then fast lenses is always an aspiration to have deep in your heart!

I always try to recommend gear on a value/ dollar basis .. and of course this is hard. Hard to work out what scoring system for quality in the form of value is, and also how to judge what constitutes an accurate foundation for money as a ratio in the mix too.

I suppose for me, a good argument for value for money could be:

35mm/1.8 prime will cost 'ya about $200-250 for Dx.
Trying to find a wider and still fast prime is also hard, but Sigma(I think the only company) also has a 20mm f/1.8 .. and no else has a wider lens that this at f/1.8 .. and this lens usually sells for about $500 .. maybe a bit more. So there's about $700 or so, and if the news that the Sigma zoom is going to retail for $800 ... I think it's pretty obvious that the single lens with as fast aperture makes more sense as the better value for money


In saying that, I didn't mention the Nikon 17-55/2.8Dx and a good lens it is too tho .. but horrendously expensive.

[CarlR]

You don't mention future plans, but in my lens purchase decisions, which have, for various reasons, been exclusively Nikkor f2.8 zooms, have maintained the option for use on a Full Frame body. This has meant interchangability between my DX and FX bodies. If you plan to stick with DX (or crop sensor lenses), this may not be a consideration for you.

Agree with Arthur, the Nikkor lenses (particularly the fast zooms) are generally more expensive than the alternatives, but there are some excellent, affordable primes (like the 35mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8) that make a valuable addition to your collection of lenses.

Also worth looking at good condition second hand lenses. You can easily save several hundred dollars on something that is in excellent condition.

[coolhand78]

You don't mention future plans, but in my lens purchase decisions, which have, for various reasons, been exclusively Nikkor f2.8 zooms, have maintained the option for use on a Full Frame body. This has meant interchangability between my DX and FX bodies. If you plan to stick with DX (or crop sensor lenses), this may not be a consideration for you.

Agree with Arthur, the Nikkor lenses (particularly the fast zooms) are generally more expensive than the alternatives, but there are some excellent, affordable primes (like the 35mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8) that make a valuable addition to your collection of lenses.

Also worth looking at good condition second hand lenses. You can easily save several hundred dollars on something that is in excellent condition.

I'd like to think that one day i may get a full frame camera, but it'll be a long while off i'd imagine...

what would you recommend as say 2 or 3 good lenses the match with the D7100..?

the 35mm or 50mm f1.8
16 - 85 f3.5 or 17 - 55 f2.8 (this one might be too expensive initially
and then maybe one of hte kit tele zooms... 55 - 200???

if you were in my shoes what do you think would be best?

[CarlR]

I have the 35mm f1.8 and I have found this to be a great lens that available at a good price that is a really usable focal length on the crop sensor.

My understanding is the kit lens with the D7100 is a 18 - 105mm f3.5 - 5.6, of which I have no experience, however my experience with kit lenses generally has been that they are good to get started but as soon as things get serious, the limited optical quality and minimum aperture becomes a constraint. Having said that, as you will see throughout this site, there is no impediment to creating excellent images with kit lenses.

In my view, the 35mm f1.8 is an obvious choice. I'd suggest considering your likely subjects, whether that requires wide or tele lenses and look closely at Arthur's suggestions above.

[coolhand78]

thanks for the help guys, i'm still trying to get my head around the Nikkor Numbering/Naming system...

i'm not sure if i want to get 35 or a 50 prime, i'm thinking that maybe the 50 and then go for a 10-20 for the wider stuff. Like anybody, i guess i just wanna make sure that i'm getting the best lenses for my money!

i'm unsure about whether or not to go for a tele zoom as well, i don't envision using it much but at the same time when i'm overseas it might come in handy... but i think id be most likely to use a prime, an ultra wide and then something like the 16-85 or 17-55 for everyday/walking around...

[old dog]

I have a 17-55 nikkor lens and it rarely comes of my D7000. A little heavy, especially when on holidays but I`m more than happy with the results. get a s/h one.

[coolhand78]

I'm think I'll get the nikkor 16 - 85mm f3.5 and the 10-20mm sigma f1.8/1.4 to start with..,

At least that's what I'm leaning towards ATM...

[livio]

Hi Coolhand78,

I have the predecessor the D7000 which I am keeping by the way I also have a D4 and a number of the AFS lenses. I believe you are investing well with the D7100 the low light capability has been improved, the focusing has been improved. With the full frame lenses I had a back focus issue wit the D7000 but since I bought the 16-85mm DX VR lens for the D7000 it has been great the focus is clear the range is really versatile and to be honest it rarely comes of the D7000. It is that good, I would probably consider delaying the 10-20 UWA in the short term invest in a good tripod you you can use longer exposures.

Kind Regards
Livio

[coolhand78]

Hi Coolhand78,

I have the predecessor the D7000 which I am keeping by the way I also have a D4 and a number of the AFS lenses. I believe you are investing well with the D7100 the low light capability has been improved, the focusing has been improved. With the full frame lenses I had a back focus issue wit the D7000 but since I bought the 16-85mm DX VR lens for the D7000 it has been great the focus is clear the range is really versatile and to be honest it rarely comes of the D7000. It is that good, I would probably consider delaying the 10-20 UWA in the short term invest in a good tripod you you can use longer exposures.

Kind Regards
Livio

Hi Livio,

Thanks for the advice, I'll definitely be investing in a tripod in the near future but I'll predominantly be shooting hand held due to travelling etc, but it's definitely on the cards...!

My next decision is which prime to get a 35mm or a 50mm?

What are people's thoughts here?

[ameerat42]

Guys. When talking about lenses, can you please remember to give them a brand name. I'm trying to follow this and I have to scroll up and down and apply 16 levels of contextualisation
to get a drift on what lens you(se) mean sometimes.
Am.

[WhoDo]

My next decision is which prime to get a 35mm or a 50mm?

What are people's thoughts here?

I have the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8D and it's easily the sharpest lens I own. I paid under $100 for it from Harvey Norman (yeah, I know I could have got it cheaper elsewhere, but I wanted "right now"! )

If you can afford the 35mm f/1.4 you may find that is more versatile on the DX sensor, but I wouldn't be without my 50mm for portraiture and short tele landscapes. JMHO of course.

[Glenda]

Also consider the Tokina 11-16f2.8 or Nikon 10-24 for wide angle. I have both and for architecture wouldn't go past an ultrawide. Also have a D7000 and D7100. On a recent overseas trip the 2 lenses I used most were the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 as a walkaround lens and the ultrawide for architecture. I also have the Nikon 35 f1.8 which is a great lens for low light.

[Warren Ackary]

My wife just upgraded to the 7100
She has only one lens but its the latest version & that is the 28-300 3.5-5.6

Di originally had the 7000 with the 18-300 on it but we were advised due to higher MP that the newer 28-300 is the way to go (as the 18-300 is going obsolete).... anyway have seen the proof of the pudding & yes its a great lens if you are thinking of just one.