Lens decision for d7200

[Toshanda]

Hi all.

I think I finally decided to buy D7200. Now I need to decide what lenses to get with it.

I sort of want to get this bad boy - Tamron 150-600mm DI VC for Nikon

The kit I am thinking of getting is this
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens - 2213

Am I limiting myself in any way with this set up? Should I get something in between these two?

Or should I just buy this pack
Nikon D7200 DX Body - Black - 33715

This one looks like a good set up for a beginnerand these two lenses have very good reviews on Nikon website?

Thank you in advance for advice, in advance.

 

[cgw]

Lens choice is totally dependent on what/how you like to shoot. Check photoprice.ca for a sense of Canadian prices. Though Nikon prices are up across the board this year in Canada(no "Back to School" sale to match 2015), you might find a few minor deals on D7200 bodies. Lenses just aren't discounted much--if at all--this year. The D7200 hits the image quality/price sweet spot in the Nikon line-up.

 

[goooner]

I paid the extra few euro and also got the 18-140. Am very happy with it, very sharp. The ring between the zoom, and focus did fall off after about a week, but it was fixed without much problem. It is the perfect walk around lens imo, and quite light as well.

 

[GKey]

Hi all.

I think I finally decided to buy D7200. Now I need to decide what lenses to get with it.

I sort of want to get this bad boy - Tamron 150-600mm DI VC for Nikon

The kit I am thinking of getting is this
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens - 2213

Am I limiting myself in any way with this set up? Should I get something in between these two?

Or should I just buy this pack
Nikon D7200 DX Body - Black - 33715

This one looks like a good set up for a beginnerand these two lenses have very good reviews on Nikon website?

Thank you in advance for advice, in advance.

I have both 18-200 and 18-140 (got this when i bought the 7200);the 18-140 has more sharpness and feels smoother. Great day to day lens.

 

[Toshanda]

So I got myself this 18-140 lens, I took some pictures today. Are they too soft and out of focus or am I being too critical???
Anton Ovtchinnikov has shared 3 photos with you!

 

[PaulWog]

So I got myself this 18-140 lens, I took some pictures today. Are they too soft and out of focus or am I being too critical???
Anton Ovtchinnikov has shared 3 photos with you!

What do you see wrong with the photos? There's a difference between being critical, and being nutty .

The water you were close, so even at f8 some of the water is in focus, and some is not.

The seagull, you slightly focused in front of the seagull (look at the grass that is in focus), but it's still within focus. It's slightly softer than it needs to be because of this.

The plant is in focus completely as far as I can see.

 

[Toshanda]

So I got myself this 18-140 lens, I took some pictures today. Are they too soft and out of focus or am I being too critical???
Anton Ovtchinnikov has shared 3 photos with you!

What do you see wrong with the photos? There's a difference between being critical, and being nutty .

The water you were close, so even at f8 some of the water is in focus, and some is not.

The seagull, you slightly focused in front of the seagull (look at the grass that is in focus), but it's still within focus. It's slightly softer than it needs to be because of this.

The plant is in focus completely as far as I can see.

I guess I was expecting something that looks like a picture from National Geographic's Picture of the month.

I see you have contemporary sigma 15-600. How do you like it?

 

[PaulWog]

I guess I was expecting something that looks like a picture from National Geographic's Picture of the month.

I see you have contemporary sigma 15-600. How do you like it?

I like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I think it offers great bang for the buck. If I were buying new right now, I would still lean toward it more-so than the Tamron 150-600, or Sigma 150-600 Sport. I could give a longer explanation why. The Nikon 200-500 is also worth looking at.

 

[Toshanda]

I guess I was expecting something that looks like a picture from National Geographic's Picture of the month.

I see you have contemporary sigma 15-600. How do you like it?

I like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I think it offers great bang for the buck. If I were buying new right now, I would still lean toward it more-so than the Tamron 150-600, or Sigma 150-600 Sport. I could give a longer explanation why. The Nikon 200-500 is also worth looking at.

I was just curious about this one, the sales guy suggested that over the exact 2 you mentioned. So I picked up that one. I think I want to pick up something in between for good all around shooting...

 

[PaulWog]

I guess I was expecting something that looks like a picture from National Geographic's Picture of the month.

I see you have contemporary sigma 15-600. How do you like it?

I like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I think it offers great bang for the buck. If I were buying new right now, I would still lean toward it more-so than the Tamron 150-600, or Sigma 150-600 Sport. I could give a longer explanation why. The Nikon 200-500 is also worth looking at.

I was just curious about this one, the sales guy suggested that over the exact 2 you mentioned. So I picked up that one. I think I want to pick up something in between for good all around shooting...

If you have an 18-140 and a 150-600, what is it you want that is "in between" for "all around shooting". The only couple of things within reason that I can think of would be the 70-200 f2.8 (it's sort-of in between, and it's good for all-around shooting in a sense), or the 300mm f4e (again, it's sort of in between, and it serves a more special purpose). The 70-300 VR lens would be fairly useless since you have the 150-600.

If you want another lens, maybe look at a prime like a 50mm 1.8G or 85mm 1.8G. It's all a slippery slope if you get hooked on being able to shoot fast though.

 

[Toshanda]

I guess I was expecting something that looks like a picture from National Geographic's Picture of the month.

I see you have contemporary sigma 15-600. How do you like it?

I like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I think it offers great bang for the buck. If I were buying new right now, I would still lean toward it more-so than the Tamron 150-600, or Sigma 150-600 Sport. I could give a longer explanation why. The Nikon 200-500 is also worth looking at.

I was just curious about this one, the sales guy suggested that over the exact 2 you mentioned. So I picked up that one. I think I want to pick up something in between for good all around shooting...

If you have an 18-140 and a 150-600, what is it you want that is "in between" for "all around shooting". The only couple of things within reason that I can think of would be the 70-200 f2.8 (it's sort-of in between, and it's good for all-around shooting in a sense), or the 300mm f4e (again, it's sort of in between, and it serves a more special purpose). The 70-300 VR lens would be fairly useless since you have the 150-600.

If you want another lens, maybe look at a prime like a 50mm 1.8G or 85mm 1.8G. It's all a slippery slope if you get hooked on being able to shoot fast though.

There are a lot of people talking about this 50mm 1.8 lense, I think I will pick it up when it goes on sale somewhere. I have read that it can go as low as 180.00 vs 250-270 right now. Is there a big difference between 50 and 85 for basic day to day shooting of landscapes and general scenery???

Thanks for the responses btw.

 

[nerwin]

If you have the 18-140 and 150-600, and you want something in between, I'd recommend the 35 1.8G (or 50 1.8G, I just never liked that 50mm on crop) and if you wanted a lightweight tele, then the Nikon or Tamron 70-300 VR/VC would be an excellent choice. But not sure if I'd want them if I had the 150-600 but that lens is not something you'd probably want to walk around all day with. Its more a speciality lens for wildlife, but the 70-300 are pretty compact and light. Great as a travel tele.

 

[PaulWog]

If you have an 18-140 and a 150-600, what is it you want that is "in between" for "all around shooting". The only couple of things within reason that I can think of would be the 70-200 f2.8 (it's sort-of in between, and it's good for all-around shooting in a sense), or the 300mm f4e (again, it's sort of in between, and it serves a more special purpose). The 70-300 VR lens would be fairly useless since you have the 150-600.

If you want another lens, maybe look at a prime like a 50mm 1.8G or 85mm 1.8G. It's all a slippery slope if you get hooked on being able to shoot fast though.

There are a lot of people talking about this 50mm 1.8 lense, I think I will pick it up when it goes on sale somewhere. I have read that it can go as low as 180.00 vs 250-270 right now. Is there a big difference between 50 and 85 for basic day to day shooting of landscapes and general scenery???

Thanks for the responses btw.[/QUOTE]

Not sure why you wouldn't get the 1.8G. The 1.8E isn't particularly sharp on a modern sensor.

The difference between 50 and 85 on crop can depend based on where you shoot, and how you shoot. The 50mm is more versatile (not as tight), while the 85mm will give you more bokeh in most situations.