p.1 #1 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Just sold the last of my Canon gear and am about to purchase the D7100. I am not a working pro but am a pretty serious hobbyist; I used to shoot a great deal of hockey and volleyball, but now mostly family events, vacations, landscapes and "street" photography, with an occasional trip to the zoo, airshow and bird habitats (we have a couple of real good sites for bald eagles in the immediate area) thrown in.
I've about $2200 to spend on lenses and am trying to decide between: (a) a Sigma 35 and Nikon 85 1.8g, 16-85 and 70-300 VR or (b) a Nikon 17-55 and 70-200 f4 (plus TC). In the Canon world, my experience was that the 17-55 IS basically rendered the 35 superflous, except for the shallow DOF effect (which has never really been my thing), and the 70-200 f4IS generally did the same for the 85 1.8 with respect to portraits and the like. Based on YOUR own personal experience, which way would you go?
p.1 #3 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
I would go with a version of option A. A used Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead of the 16-85 and step the primes down a FL, probably 28mm 1.8g or wait for a new Sigma 24mm instead of the Sigma 35mm, and grab a Sigma 50mm 1.4 instead of the 85 1.8g. On DX, I think these primes are more useful. Keep the 35mm in the mix if you want because it is a great lens and a effective 50mm on DX.
Short version:
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Nikon 28 1.8g (or wait for 24mm)
Sigma 50mm 1.4
70-300 VR
I think 200mm isn't long enough for some of the stuff you list, and option B leaves you without any fast glass past 2.8.
p.1 #5 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Interesting dilemna.. I would probably go with a combination of what you had laid out there.. If you are planning on staying DX, which i assume you are, I would do the new siggy 30mm 1.4 art, and the 70-200mm f4 and have some $$ left over for an ultra wide angle.. maybe a rokinon 14mm 2.8 .. If you never find yourself at the ultra wide end.. grab the siggy 35mm.. it is that good.. a long with the 70-200 and you will probably be set.
Also. if you do want to go the 70-300mm route. I would suggest the Tammy VC model.. it is a fantastic bargain and performed much better at the long end compared to the Nikon version i had. There are some great threads on that lens over at the cafe if you want to read up..
I also own the Tammy 17-50mm 2.8 and it is a great value. I found all of these had to be carefully fine tuned in order to get good results out of them
With the new sensor on the D7100.. just make sure you get some quality glass.. i would rather have 2 great lenses than 3 good ones. I probably have about 12 lenses right now and i can tell you that the D7100's sensor is hypercritical of them. What looked great on my D7000 with some of these looks only good on the D7100. Strapping on my new siggy 35mm 1.4 or my 70-200mm 2.8 vrII is a pure joy with it though. A couple of my older pieces of manual glass also shine. I will tell you the tammy's are good options, but i would consider on the very edge of my personal acceptability when used with the D7100. It really needs that good of glass
p.1 #6 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
I think you shouldn't rule out the Nikon 35/1.8 DX prime. I'm not saying the $900 Sigma isn't as good or better, but it's not 4 times as good. I keep a 35/1.8 on my old D200 and it gets used every day (and occasionally on the wife's D3200). The 50mm prime makes a good portrait length lens on DX. I know zooms are better than they used to be, but primes are still sharper, especially at high pixel density.
The 70-300 VR is good, but not great. I thought "using that lens on a DX body and cropping a little will be all the reach I need" and that's generally true for me. If the eagles are a priority, you'll want something better. If birds are not really a priority, it's probably fine for the zoo or baseball games.
I have an 80-200 AF-D in my FX kit and love it, but it's not VR. I can't justify the expense of the 70-200/2.8VR. I haven't used the 70-200/4 VR, maybe that's the way to go, but I think I would get another 80-200, and a TC, and skip the 70-300.
p.1 #8 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Were I to be constructing a DX basic package it would consist of (i) Nikon 70-200VR/4 with 1.4TC, (ii) Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS (an excellent lens that has slipped under the radar and is reasonably priced), and (iii) Nikon 50/1.8G. The total cost, new for these 3 lenses is, coincidentally, $2200 without the TC.
If I were to add a 4th lens it would be the Sigma 35/1.4. Were macro of interest, it would be the Canon 500D Close-up lens.
p.1 #9 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
If I would start over again and be on DX, my set would be:
Sigma 30 1.4 (not 35 if you will stay on DX), Nikon 10-24, 70-200 f/4. If you don't need 200mm, go for 85 1.8G.
p.1 #10 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
My vote is option A, but if it was me, this is how I'm going to use $2200:
Used Nikon 16-85 = $500
Used Nikon 70-300VR = $350
Used Nikon 300/4 AF-S = $950
Used Nikon 35 or 50 1.8G = $175
Used Nikon TC-14E = $200 Total = $2175
16-85 / 70-300 will be your travel/landscape/all-rounder combination
300/4 + TC-14 will be your ultimate zoo/birding setup.
35/50 is your low light prime solution, also for street photography
p.1 #14 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Sayeret18 wrote:
This works for me. Plus what for portraits?
On FX the Sigma 50/1.4 is a great all-rounder and the 85/1.8g great for portraits. On DX the Sigma 50 would be just about perfect (on my previous Pentax K5 the 77 Ltd was my 'knock-your-socks-off portrait lens).
p.1 #15 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Sayeret18 wrote:
Fascinating. Seems like the 17-55 gets no real love.
I had it and wasn't impressed, esp. compared to the Canon equivalent. I second/third the opinions on the Tamron 17-50mm - it's an exceptionally good lens IQ wise and smaller+lighter but a step or two behind the Canikon equivalent in focus speed.
p.1 #17 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (not a typo) and the 70-300 VR
This works for me. Plus what for portraits?
I'd pick up an inexpensive MF 50 (gives ya 75mm FOV) I used the CV 58 f1.4 on on D2Xs/D300 and loved it,
but it'd probably kill the budget. If you have to have AF then the 50 f1.8G did a nice job on my D7K for cheap.
p.1 #18 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Am really surprised too that the 17-55 gets no love. It is my absolute fave DX go to lens. I would create the DX holy trinity....the old Tokina 11-16 2.8, 17-55 2.8, and the old 80-200 ED "New" . Used, you should be able to find all of these for under $2200. For faster glass when needed I would throw in the 50 1.8 and the 35 1.8, which you could probably get for around $250. This is my DX kit. Aside from birding, this kit is responsible for 95 pct of all of my pics.
p.1 #19 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
For me, it would be used: Nikon 12-24 ($500), 80-200 2r ($700), and 300 afs f4 ($900) plus 1.4 TC (might have to go with a KenkoPro used ($125)).
While I have the Nikon TC's (1.4/1.7) I also have the KenkoPro 1.4 for the 80-200 and have used it with the 300 and optically its very close to the Nikon just not in build quality. I use the 12-24 as my normal range as I got used to using a 35mm on film. The 50 1.8 is so inexpensive you could pick one up later at any time.
