D7100 upgrading from 18-55 II kit lens

Marinlik

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I've been thinking about getting a new lens(haven't we all?). I've thinking something around 18mm as that is where I take by far the most photos according a quick grouping of photos by focal length by Lightroom(and I have another lens for 55mm+). I've been looking at the Tokina 12-24mm as it looks to be pretty good for it's price when buying used

Have anyone gone from the kit lens to the Tokina 12-24? How is the difference in picture quality? Any other lenses I should look at?
 
I bought a tokina 12-24 about a year ago for my d7100. I was very disappointed, so much so that I sold it within a week. I found it soft everywhere except the centre at every aperture.

When I sold it I borrowed a friends one to try it out and it was the same. Now maybe it was something with my d7100, but I had issues with a tokina 50-135mm f2.8, my camera didn't seem to want to play with tokina lenses. I have seen great shots with this lens but this was my experience
 
I upgraded my 18-55 kit lens to a used Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. The slight increaee in range is useful and its super sharp. Also it's categorized as a macro lens due to the short minimum focus dustance. It's very versatile when I don't want to have to carry more than one lens.
 
If you are upgrading your lens from 18-55 you generally want to stay in the same focal length. Thus @SquarePeg has the best recommendation of the 17-70/2.8 lens from Sigma and Tokina, etc.

The 12-24 would be an additional lens as it wouldn't cover the 25-55 focal length. I think you would keep both of them.

I think the 35-55 focal length on a d7x00 camera is very useful so I wouldn't just remove it from your lens selection.
 
If you are upgrading your lens from 18-55 you generally want to stay in the same focal length. Thus @SquarePeg has the best recommendation of the 17-70/2.8 lens from Sigma and Tokina, etc.

The 12-24 would be an additional lens as it wouldn't cover the 25-55 focal length. I think you would keep both of them.

I think the 35-55 focal length on a d7x00 camera is very useful so I wouldn't just remove it from your lens selection.
That is true. If I bought a 12-24 lens I would probably use it the most(as I mostly take pictures at around 18mm), but I would keep the kit lens for when i want to take pictures between 24-55.

I don't think that it's neccesary to buy a lens with 55+ because I already have another lens for that part. That's why I started to look at the 17-50 Sigma lens. That lens would of course completely replace the kit lens because it covers the same focal range. But I would only do that switch if there is a very noticeable difference in IQ
 
I can't recall but I think the 18-55 is a sharp lens
Though the 55-200 kit lens is not sharp ( I had one and it visible wasn't sharp)
Of course the Sigma is a "faster" (aperture) lens which has its advantages too.
 
I can't recall but I think the 18-55 is a sharp lens
Though the 55-200 kit lens is not sharp ( I had one and it visible wasn't sharp)
Of course the Sigma is a "faster" (aperture) lens which has its advantages too.
I don't really know how much I will use the faster apertures. But I guess 2.8 would still give some decent DOF at a distance, atleast enough to the front of a building or whatever when walking around at night. A I mostly take pictures where I want a large DoF I don't know how much I would really use the faster numbers. But it's hard to say how much I would use it as it's something I can't do today
 
I upgraded my 18-55 with the Sigma 17-70 "Contemporary" lens. I loved it and I think you would too. I chose it over the 17-50 to have the extra 20mm of zoom. I didn't see it as much of a loss to have f/4 at the 70mm end, either.
 
I have the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and I love it. It's on the camera almost all the time. When I need more reach, I use the Nikon 70-200 f4. Both work great on the 7100.
 
I can't recall but I think the 18-55 is a sharp lens
Though the 55-200 kit lens is not sharp ( I had one and it visible wasn't sharp)
Of course the Sigma is a "faster" (aperture) lens which has its advantages too.
I don't really know how much I will use the faster apertures. But I guess 2.8 would still give some decent DOF at a distance, atleast enough to the front of a building or whatever when walking around at night. A I mostly take pictures where I want a large DoF I don't know how much I would really use the faster numbers. But it's hard to say how much I would use it as it's something I can't do today
It's an interesting lens. But I think that the 17-50 is better for me because it looks to have the better image quality of the two, and I mostly use short focal length anyway.
 
Have to be a zoom?

I'm looking at the 35mm f/1.8 myself...
 
Have to be a zoom?

I'm looking at the 35mm f/1.8 myself...
I have been looking at the 35mm myself. Then I looked through my photos on lightroom to see where my favourite photos where at, and the absolute majority where at 18mm, some where at the 50 range, and just a few where somewhere in the middle at 35mm. I want to want the 35mm 1.8 because people say that it's awesome. But I just have a hard time with that focal length. To me it's a middle ground that I don't usually take pictures in. It's not wide enough to take the nature or street shots that I like, and it doesn't get close enough for the close shots that I like.
 
The more reviews I read about the Sigma 17-50 it seems like the 18-55 is even sharper overall. Am I completely missing something about upgrading lenses? Because it kind of seems like the big reason to upgrade from the kit lens(within the same focal range) is to get lower aperture, and otherwise you'll get basically the same image quality? Or are there other parts of the image quality that would improve with another lens, that doesn't come across as well without comparing images side by side?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top