Previous news story    Next news story

DxOMark investigates lenses for the Nikon D7100

By dpreview staff on Oct 4, 2013 at 10:39 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $1,146.9515 deals

Our friends and collaborators over at DxOMark have recently been looking into how lenses score on specific cameras, and the latest model they've examined is Nikon's 24 MP APS-C flagship, the D7100. The article looks at no fewer than 126 lenses, and gauges the advantage of the D7100's higher pixel count and lack of a low-pass filter compared to the 16MP D7000. As a bonus, there's also an assessment of how the imaging performance of Nikon SLRs has improved over the last decade. Click the link to read more. 

952
I own it
283
I want it
75
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 23
Jonne Ollakka
By Jonne Ollakka (6 months ago)

It's Nikon tested by DxG Balls, so expect a 100% score on everything.

1 upvote
groucher
By groucher (6 months ago)

I'm not sure why DPR have used ACR for the RAW comparisons - NX2 is a better RAW processor for Nikon cameras.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (6 months ago)

They use ACR at default settings for all cameras. It's part of their work flow.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

the question is how the work flow was designed and for what.
it's more important to compare at level ground,
which may not be easy to define sometimes.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (6 months ago)

For some Nikon cameras. ACR is better for the D7100/D800e filterless items. Fewer artifacts, better detail. A/B them and you'll see.

0 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (6 months ago)

I would like to see how nikkor 18-105 is doing. Not included in tests. I think for that price range is perfect lens.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (6 months ago)

Sharpness is out of the picture taking equation with the D7100 and just about any lens at its better settings, corners excepted on many. Now you've got only the subject to worry about.

6 upvotes
thecameraeye
By thecameraeye (6 months ago)

The subject is always the most important spec.

0 upvotes
motobloat
By motobloat (6 months ago)

It's unfortunate that they didn't include the *new version* of the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS. It's been out since last year and all the reviews I've read say it's an amazing lens, very sharp with few aberrations. I do own this myself, but use it on the D7000.

Plus, with a 75-225mm "full frame equivalent angle of view", and a minimum focus distance half that of a 70-200, the 50-150 OS a really versatile lens too. Sadly, DXOmark is often very slow about getting lenses reviewed, so make sure you take their recommendations with a grain of salt.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/836-sigmaex5015028dcos

2 upvotes
leschnyhan
By leschnyhan (6 months ago)

I bought the new Sigma 50-150, used it for a few months and then sold it. Focus was so far off on my copy that it couldn't be corrected with AF Micro Adjust. If I used live view, it focused accurately but was a little slow. I replaced it with the Nikon 70-200 f4, which has given me no problems.

0 upvotes
roshmon
By roshmon (6 months ago)

Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS is one of my sharpest lens in my set with D7100

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (6 months ago)

Both Tamron and Sigma: 17-50mm F2.8 did very well on DXOmark sharpness scores with D7100 considering the lower price points. Good value for price under $700 USD. Tamrons two lens of this range scored 12 and 13 sharpness and Sigma at 14. Higher than score for Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 at 9 (I guess sharpness depends on which F stop you use on this lens. I do not have this lens though).

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Torben Laursen
By Torben Laursen (6 months ago)

The test says the Nikkor 24-70mm 2,8 is right up there at the top.

It it fair to suppose that my Nikkor 35-70mm 2,8 performs at the same high level? What do you think?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

a rule of thumb is that Nikkors after 2007 are good ones.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (6 months ago)

The 35-70 f2.8 is one of the best zooms Nikon ever made. Use it with the lightweight and compact 24mm f2.8 (also excellent) if wider angle is needed.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

it was only a 2x zoom with unpleasent distortion and needed frequent maintenance. Nikon failed to develop a good 28-70 which was one of reasons why people said their 35-70 were "good" which were really not. it was not until 2007 that Nikon could finally make one that compete with Canon well and Canon's new 24-70/2.8L2 only suppasses the 2007 Nikon a little bit and Nikon users can get better result by using higher resolution cameras.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
epozar
By epozar (6 months ago)

Not really I think.
I had have 35-70/2.8 on D600 and sold it. Simply not up to the 20+ MPix sensor. And CA is excessive.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (6 months ago)

This seems to prove there are real benefits in having more megapixels - especially with good lenses, but even fairly ordinary lenses benefit too.

A full frame sensor with the same pixel density would be something like 56mp.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (6 months ago)

think about FX 36mm x 24mm @ 9000px * 6000px :)
Mmmm, 54MP (provided with the same IQ as D800 at the minimum).
Coupled with good Sigma 35/1.4, Nikon85/1.4 Ai-S and 14-24/2.8, I just couldn't stop drolling :p

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

there should still be resolution left for squeezing when we have 56.8MP APS-C

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
BlueBomberTurbo
By BlueBomberTurbo (6 months ago)

Yeah, as soon as I got my D7100, I noticed it brought out the worst in some of my lenses. The previously regarded "very sharp" Nikon 50mm F/1.8D turned into mush (the 1.8G is supposedly superior). My Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 moved down to just being very good, but was still lacking. The Nikon 35mm F/1.8 was getting there, though.

The sharpest two lenses I have are the Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8 and 80-200mm F/2.8D ED. Stopped down to F/4-5.6, they're razor sharp, showing each individual hair on a dog's head, or every letter on a car's tire. The 17-55mm is especially impressive at the wide end, and I can't see how DXOMark rates it at only 9MP for either end of the zoom.

Either way, it's nice to know the sensor is as massively sharp as it seems vs the D7000, as opposed to what some other people say. Though, it would've been nice if they had also compared the sharpness between the D7100 and D5200, so we could finally quantify just how effective removing the AA filter actually has.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (6 months ago)

D7100 vs D5200 @24MP for DX sensor AA competition?
The judges will have a hard time, let the computer decide the number regardless image quality.

0 upvotes
Robert LO
By Robert LO (6 months ago)

This has thrown a large rock in the pool of my thoughts by showing that the Nikkor 16-35 f4 and the DX 10-24 perform roughly the same as my 18-105 kit lens and that the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 is much(?) better. (I haven’t got my head around whether the better Mpix score of the Sigma out-weighs the DXO mark of the Tamron.)
I was looking at extending the lens range wider and also gaining wider aperture and better IQ. I also am getting older so some form of VR would yield more keepers.
Current thoughts: Nikkor 10-24 plus Tamron 24-70 OR Tokina 11-16 (a compromise with no VR) plus Nikkor 16-35. The prices are roughly the same, although both Nikkors are like rocking horse dung here in Brisbane so it’s not possible to try them. Yes, I know that one combination gets me to 35 and the other to 70 but there may be another tax break next year ….
Nikon D7100; 18-105; 50 f4; 70-300 VR

0 upvotes
Total comments: 23