Which Lenses For My Soon To Be New D7100

Hi everyone. I have been posting in a couple of forums trying to get as much info and advice before pulling the trigger on a new camera. I want to make sure I get the right gear for my level of photography.

I am going from a Nikon D2X to a D7100 - I am selling the D2X and all associated lenses which were:

Nikkor AF VR 80-400mm 1:45-5.6D ED

Nikkor AF-S 24 85mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED

Nikkor Wide Angle 24mm f/2.8D

So as mentioned in previous threads, I want to take wildlife, aviation and landscape. I have just taken my gear to a local camera shop to see what price they will give me.

I think I am going to get the 7100 Body only and then get the lenses which will suit my style. This is where I need a bit more advice.

The guy is the shop suggested the lens listed below. I put it on the D7100 body and it seemed to be a really great lens. What he did say is that this would be able to be used for all the photography I want to do. I'm not so sure about that. We did not really talk about any other lenses as I want him to give me the price for my old gear before we get into that.

Tamron 18-270 di II VC PZD

For the price though, the Tamron seemed to be a good start.

So, given the type of photography I want to do. I would really appreciate some advice of you fine people regarding lenses. I don't really have a budget, but I don't want to go crazy mad at this point.

OK, I'll bite. Keep your 80-400 (you've got to be kidding right? Trading that in on a Tamron superzoom?????). Pick up a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or if you can live without the short end a bit, get a Tamron 24-70. I'll go out on a limb here and say that that lens is one of, if not the sharpest lenses from stopped down to wide open I've ever used on a D7100. I currently have a Tamron 17-50 and love it, but am going to sell it for the 24-70 which is as sharp at f2.8 as my 17-50 is at f5.6. I won't say it's sharper...as sharp though as the Nikkor 24-70 but also offers VC.

Thanks for the reply. I think I missed understand you though. Are you saying don't get rid of the 80-400? Or do?

I thought it would be too soft. It's version one of that lens, not the new version.

And if I do sell it what reasonably priced replacement should in get.

Sorry if I have misunderstood.

The ORIGINAL non-motor Tamron 17-50/2.8 is excellent on my D7100. The Sigma 50-150/2.8OS is one of the sharpest zooms made by anyone. It's big and heavy. The Nikkor 85/1.8 is phenomenal, and the 300/4 is too.

I'd get the body and see what sort of performance you get with the lenses you have since you already have a variety in hand. Could then do a back to back comparison with that Tamron although like the person who first replied, I'd consider a shorter range Tamron or Sigma that compliments rather than replaces it.

There is a fantastic writeup comparing about 130 lenses on the D7100 at DXOmark. Check out part one here http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-24M-Pix-Nikon-D7100-Part-I

I'm working through that to compare with recommendations and images people are posting here as I don't have either at the moment. Initially I was thinking about the Tamron 17-50mm but the Sigma lenses that are coming out recently are getting glowing reviews and seem to be a bit sharper, faster focusing, better IQ for about the same price as the equivalent Tamrons.

Scott

I think if I wanted something like a super-zoom I'd consider the Nikkor 18-140 which should be Less than the $400 you would pay for the Tamron when priced as a kit.

ShaggyRS6 said:

Thanks for the reply. I think I missed understand you though. Are you saying don't get rid of the 80-400? Or do?

I thought it would be too soft. It's version one of that lens, not the new version.

And if I do sell it what reasonably priced replacement should in get.

Sorry if I have misunderstood.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was a bit all over the place on that one.....what I was saying is that you should not get rid of the 80-400 and expect to replace it with a super zoom.

If I were in your position, I would do one of the following.......

First, I'd keep at least the 80-400 if not all of your current lenses until after you purchase the D7100 to see how they perform on the new body. The 24mp chip in the D7100 is capable of some amazing things.

If you are looking for new lenses, I would do one of several things.....

If you are a wide end shooter too, I'd look at the new Sigma 18-35 f1.8. Everything so far on that lens has been positive with the exception of all of the idiots selling it for well over MAP. That gives you something rather fast on the wide end, and gives you a LOT of latitude with DOF on a DX body. Next, I'd go with a Tamron 24-70. Like I said, it's the sharpest lens I've used on my D7100. As sharp as the Nikon version, but much lighter, less money, and VC (VR in Nikonspeak). Finally, I would go with a 70-200 f2.8 or a 70-200 f4 which is a fantastic lens. If you still need more reach, look at the Nikon 300 f4 and some of the images here that Rudy Pohl is shooting with it.

You can take any variation of the above to fit your budget. All of the lenses will perform VERY well on your D7100. The only ones I have not personally shot on my D7100 is the 18-35 and the 300 but I've seen great results from people who have.

If you are looking to do it on the cheap, in addition to any of the Sigma/Tamron 17-50 recommendations made above, you can go REALLY cheap and go with a Nikon 35-70 f2.8D and a 80-200 f2.8D (2 ring or push/pull). Both are old (older) screw drive lenses meaning no in lens focus motor, but your D7100 will have an in body motor. Both are professional series lenses and are extremely sharp. The 35-70 is known for some flare shooting in to direct sunlight if that's an issue for you, but otherwise it's been compared sharpness and image quality wise to the 24-70. The 80-200...well, there's a reason Nikon is still making it. It's an absolutely stellar lens. It can get a little soft wide open at 200mm, but some of the best images I've seen shot with a D7100 have come from that lens. The 35-70 can be had in the $250-$350 range, and the 80-200 in the $400-$800 range depending on if you go with the push/pull or the two ring version...if you go with the push pull, just make sure it's the "D" version which focuses much faster than the original version.

There are your extremes from "spare no expense" to "damn I'm a cheap SOB" (kidding...those older lenses are incredible). Like I said, any variation there of will work, but I'd shoot what you have first.

I love sigma lenses, I use them because they are excellent and the company stands by their product. However in my opinion they are slightly less sharp then nikon lenses. If I I could afford it, I would keep the 80-400 get the 10-24 nikkor , also consider the 18 -200 as a carry lens, while alittle soft ifs very small for its range and a little sharpening in photoshop and you got a light weight winner. Another inexpensive lens that is tack sharp is the Nikon 35mm 2.8 lens. Good luck with your choice whatever it is.

Want to save & earn some $$$? sell & buy on ebay. I just sold a Nikon 16-85mm that was about 8yrs old for $400 and a Nikon 70-300mm that was also that old for $350. Think a trade would get me that?

Funny thing is I posted them for sale on ebay last week at 1 a.m. then 15 minutes later while posting them to cragslist one them sold, 10 minutes later the other sold.

I then purchased a like new Nikon 70-200mm VR II f2.8 like new for $1700.

I have bags full of Nikon gear that I purchased on ebay, all like new and not a ding or scratch on anything. Buy from sellers with a 100 rating, 95 if you want to live a little. I have a 100 rating and won't falsely advertise anything in order to keep it.

FWIW I don't believe in super zooms, how can the quality come close to a normal or tele-zoom with all that glass to travel through? I think they are compromise lenses.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Steve

Thanks everyone, that has really given me something to think about. I never really considered keeping the lenses so see how they performed as I was being told by a few to get rid of them.

This is still a tough choice!

What to do.......

Every single lens you currently own is better than the Tamron. I would keep them and replace as needed or might even add a superzoom for convenience. Thge Sigma 18-125 is pretty decent as a carry around lens and dirt cheap.

Whats the exact model of that Sigma SeaHawk? I can only find a discontinued model.

I have 6 lenses, but find for 90% of what I do I leave the Tamron 18-270 on the camera. I usually use a 50mm f1.4 for inside shooting. All the others seem to stay on the shelf. Just my experience.....

Sigma 18-125 OS HSM - it is discontinued, but at least in Germany you can still grab it for 200€. But then your 24-85 should not be worse, so no need to hurry.

jimoyer said:

OK, I'll bite. Keep your 80-400 (you've got to be kidding right? Trading that in on a Tamron superzoom?????). Pick up a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or if you can live without the short end a bit, get a Tamron 24-70. I'll go out on a limb here and say that that lens is one of, if not the

Click to expand...

This sounds like decent advice.

Keep the 80-400 to start with.

Get yourself a 24-70 which covers the range you have now except the 70-80 band, which I am pretty sure you won't miss and you'll have much the same wide angle as you had before.

Then see how it goes. Either way the 24-70 will probably a useful lens that I'd imagine you'd keep using - after all you had the 24-85 for however long and I assume were happy enough with it.
The only question with the 24-70 is Tamron or Sigma. I get the impression that when they are built properly the Tamron's might be a bit sharper and have better VR. But I also get the impression that coy to copy variation is huge and Sigma seem to have better QA now.

J

Yes, you've been given some good advice.

I will just add something from experience. I own the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and it's really a very good lens on the D7100, if you can stand the small nuisance of the 'review bug' (just search among my posts for more info). The lens is very sharp, fast and accurate in focusing.

On the other hand the Tamron 18-270 PZD (which I also have) is not really suited for the D7100.

I have used it a lot this summer, as I did not want to carry extra weight (in the mountains, I was recovering from a broken leg) and change lenses (on windy beaches). The sharpness is not so good, and focus, though usually correct, is very slow. In addition to that, build quality is just average.

I would certainly discourage you to buy it for the D7100: as others have suggested, you'd be better off with an 18-140 and keeping your 80-400.

If the urge for a superzoom is uncontrollable, consider the 18-250 Sigma (I have seen both good and bad reports about it), or one of the Nikon's, but remember that they are always a compromise lens.

The D7100 is a wonderful camera, definitely harder to master than my old D90, as it easily shows my shortcoming. Take your time and enjoy the learning curve (if you need it, of course!).

newbrain said:

The D7100 is a wonderful camera, definitely harder to master than my old D90, as it easily shows my shortcoming. Take your time and enjoy the learning curve (if you need it, of course!).

Click to expand...

^Keep this in mind^

This baseball season was the first I shot with the D7100 after shooting with a D300s previously. The 24mp sensor is capable of some incredible things (I did some test shots last night in average indoor lighting working with DXO's new Prime NR, and in that type of light and images at 25,600 ISO were almost identical to ISO 6400....all were better than OOC JPEG at ISO 1000) but it will also show any mistakes and shortcomings. My D300s presets in LR look great with the D7100 files at 8x10 print sizes or under, but at larger sizes you start to see all kinds of interesting (and unappealing) things you'd never see with the 12mp files or the 10 mp files from my D200. So I've had to spend the last few weeks now that the season is over and I'm not processing 700 files every few days working on my presets to be more appropriate for the level of detail you get in the D7100 files.

"I want to take wildlife, aviation and landscape......Tamron 18-270 di II VC PZD"

It sounds like you will work the long end of the zoom a lot. I have the Tamron 18-270 PZD and it is a fine lens. But soft at the long end. It is more suited to nearer subjects and then an occasional long shot like you do on vacation. I think you would disappointed with it for wildlife and aviation.

I have a pretty complete set of Nikkors and one lens you might want to consider for $500 or so used is the 12-24 Nikkor. I currently own and use the D200, 7000, and 7100, and this lens just shines on them. Combine that with your 80-400 on a D7100 and you have a very nice system.

Last summer due to a health issue I added a Sigma 18-250 OS Macro (that is the new one reviewed here) and for $400 it is a very good performing lens on either the 7100 or 7000. However in your case I'd not get it and go for the used 12-24. Using the 1.5 & 1.3 additional crop you go from 18mm-48mm (FF eqiv.) and it becomes a "leave it on all the time" lens. It is very fast focusing and very sharp even wide open.

Thanks for the info everyone. Thanks Jeff for them last tips on Lenses. Well, between my last post and this one I have gotten a D7100

I have just been out to test some shots. Then the clouds came So I am going to see what happens over the next few days and weeks and with guidance from you guys I hope to get one more lens to complete my setup for now