p.2 #1 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
DontShoot wrote:
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.2 #3 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Get a wide angle lens. I have the Tamron 10-24, 50mm 1.8G and trying to add the 70-200 2.8 to the list. The 10-24 is stuck onto my D90 90% of the time at family events. The 17-55 2.8 would be a great match up to the D7x00's though.
p.2 #4 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Thanks again to everyone for the information. Just to close the loop, I'm pretty much set on the Sigma 35 1.4 and Nikon 70-300VR. I'm on the fence between the Nikon 16-85 plus the Nikon 50 1.8g/Sigma 50 1.4 (I loved this lens on Canon) or the the Sigma 17-50 OS plus an 85 1.8g. I'll probably opt for the 16-85/50 combo, given that it seems to be a bit better option for landscapes at the wide end than any of the 17-50/55 options and that I'm not doing paid event work where the 2.8 zoom is critical.
p.2 #5 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
there's a lot of good suggestions on here, but going back to your original uses, I think the 17-55 is essential. It'll be your primary lens for 3 of your uses (family events, vacations, street), and also serve for landscapes in a pinch. it'll stay on your camera the majority of the time. when you get int specialized trips like the zoo, airshow, and birding, then you'll swap out to either the 70-300 vr or 70-200/4 vr.
i'd go with the 70-300vr and then use the extra money for ultra-wide (tokina 11-16 gets a lot of good press), and low light fill-ins like the 85 (heck, try to find the 1.8D for cheap - it is a superb lens), 35/1.8dx, or maybe even the 28/1.8. the 35 or 28 with foot-zooming could also replace the 17-55, so long as you have the freedom to do so.
so if you go with the 35 or 28, you could get the siggy 17-50 or even the nikon 24-85 to supplement if you want a mid-ranged zoom, and that will still stay in your budget (all used prices):
unfortunately, some of those prices might be aggressive (siggy and tokina, esp), but you get the idea. or, like i said, you could replace the 17-50 with the nikon 24-85 vr and save $150.
p.2 #6 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
IF "street" photography is your main thing, and I'll define that as walking around core urban areas taking shots of people etc., you might consider another camera. I've been using a D5100 for that and love it. It has a fold out screen that's the cat's meow for this sort of photography. What i do is fold it out and then use the LCD as a waist level finder. I hold the camera at my waist and look down at the LCD. This does two truly great things for me. First, it's a very steady position to hold the camera. Second, people don't see me holding a camera to my face and pointing it at them. Most don't seem to realize what i'm doing. This is the camera to have for that! The new D5200 has the same sensor as the D7100 BTW. If you mostly photo birds, the AF on the d7100 is clearly faster.
For lenses, stick to zooms. You get more for your money. I'd get a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS and maybe a Nikon 70-300mm VR. If birds are your main thing, I'd look for a used Signa 50-500mm OS and go cheap (Nikon 18-55mm VR) on the wide zoom.
My own lenses on the D7100? My most used are the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. That's for "general purpose and weddings. For ultrawide I have the excellent Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. For vacations (Iceland, Hawaii, Arctic Canada, Scotland, etc.) I just take the 17-55mm f2.8 and the Nikon 80-400mm VR. It's a killer combo when it comes to flexibility in a relatively compact package. Keep in mind I use a tripod whenever possible (~80% of the time when not shooting a wedding.) Anyway, I suggest you stick with zooms to start.
p.2 #8 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
The Nikon AF2.8/17-55 is a phantastic lens on the D7100!
But you must be aware of the very strong field curvature and select a suitable focus point to get landscape + architecture sharp. It's bonus is superfast AF (like the FX AF2.8/24-70), nice bokeh for a zoom. DOF is potentially stronger because of the field curvature...
But check the AF first - I had to finetune the used D7100 to +8. On my D7000 I had -9. 24MP forgive nothing...
p.2 #9 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
If it was me with your requirements......
I'd do a Sigma 17-50 IS, the 70-300 or 70-200 f/4, and then (if you're serious about the eagles, airshows, etc) the 300 f/4. About $2200 with the 70-200, less without.
p.2 #11 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Thanks all for the help. I used Minolta gear in the 80s, Canon gear in the 90s and 00s, but have no real world experience at all with Nikon, so this is great.
Sigma 17-50, Sigma 35, Nikon 85 1.8 and Nikon 70-300 seem to be where I'm ending up. The 70-200s are very tempting, but for my needs now, the 85/70-300 combo is likely good enough from an IQ/functionality standpoint and it is certainly a less expensive option.
p.2 #12 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
Sayeret18 wrote:
Sigma 17-50, Sigma 35, Nikon 85 1.8 and Nikon 70-300 seem to be where I'm ending up. The 70-200s look great, but for my needs now, the 85/70-300 combo is likely good enough from an IQ/functionality standpoint and it is certainly a less expensive option.
I think these are great choices, although I would take a closer look at a Tamron 17-50. I've owned three copies of this lens and all were excellent. A used copy in excellent condition should cost about $300. Additionally, it uses 67mm filters - just like the rest of the lenses in your list. If you use CP or ND filters, this is a big deal.
p.2 #14 · Getting It Right In Nikon-Land With A D7100 + $2200 For Lenses
I have both the 16-85 VR and 17-55 f2.8 and while they are both good lenses, I find the 16-85 VR to be a better DX lens for my needs. They are both equally sharp in comparison, yet the 16-85 gives a much better shooting range. I'd match a low-light prime (35 f1.8) and a wide angle lens (I use the Tokina 12-24 f4). That leaves you with the telephoto dilemma. I own the 70-300 VR, the 70-200 f2.8 VR, and the 300 f4 AFS. The choice really depends on what you plan to shoot. I use the 70-300 as a walkaround telephoto for hikes, the 70-200 for portraits and sports action shots, and the 300 f4 for wildlife (sometimes coupled with the TC-17 for added reach). I've never held the 70-200 f4, but I hear good things about it (except for the missing tripod collar).
Good luck with your decision. Send me a message if you have any questions.
24MP forgive nothing...