Next Lens...Prime or Zoom?

[table1349]

Personally wouldn't be without my 70-200 for my FF and my APS-C. Sharp as a tack no matter what I put it on.

 

[chuasam]

Tamron 16-300 is for you.
Ideal to test out which focal length you like the best.
As long as you're not a pixel peeper or need to provide files that get printed at billboard sizes, that lens will do fine.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks for the reply Tim (& I like your Flickr)! So you think the 11-16, 35, 50, and 85 would make a good set for my uses? Being in college, the 70-200 would be way down the line. The one thing I've heard is that the 35 and 50 is an either/or purchase and the 50 and 85 is the same.

I might just go straight for the 85mm 1.8 or 1.4, and then fill in the 50mm and 70-200mm eventually. Oh, another thing I forgot to mention: I'm on the brink of starting a DSLR cinema class...no VR on any of the fixed lenses, correct? Is there any way I can get by without VR, or should I swoop one up? I'll be doing mostly stills after this class, so it's not like I need a video arsenal.

At short focal lengths VR really isn't a feature that most folks actually use that much, if your shooting at shutter speeds equal to or higher than your focal length that's usually enough to eliminate camera shake. So unless your shooting at very slow shutter speeds you probably won't notice a lack of VR.

Primes are nice but honestly for what you've described I'd probably look for a decent zoom. The 7100 has a built in focus motor so you could get an older Tamron zoom pretty cheap, something like a 28-75mm 2.8 would probably be a great addition to your bag. It would give you a bit of zoom when needed but still be versatile enough in most other situations and I can tell you from experience the IQ is excellent.

 

[chuasam]

Personally wouldn't be without my 70-200 for my FF and my APS-C. Sharp as a tack no matter what I put it on.

I depend a lot on my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for my portraiture and when I require images to be sharp; but my 85mm f/1.8 is way lighter and more fun to use if I'm gonna be taking pictures for a whole day.

 

[Braineack]

and it's just as sharp if not sharper... what it cant do is shoot at 200mm.

 

[Koshua]

Tamron 16-300 is for you.
Ideal to test out which focal length you like the best.
As long as you're not a pixel peeper or need to provide files that get printed at billboard sizes, that lens will do fine.

I've had to turn in some pretty large prints, so that's why I was questioning if it would be most reasonable to assemble primes vs zooms. I'll check it out though!

Thanks for the reply Tim (& I like your Flickr)! So you think the 11-16, 35, 50, and 85 would make a good set for my uses? Being in college, the 70-200 would be way down the line. The one thing I've heard is that the 35 and 50 is an either/or purchase and the 50 and 85 is the same.

I might just go straight for the 85mm 1.8 or 1.4, and then fill in the 50mm and 70-200mm eventually. Oh, another thing I forgot to mention: I'm on the brink of starting a DSLR cinema class...no VR on any of the fixed lenses, correct? Is there any way I can get by without VR, or should I swoop one up? I'll be doing mostly stills after this class, so it's not like I need a video arsenal.

At short focal lengths VR really isn't a feature that most folks actually use that much, if your shooting at shutter speeds equal to or higher than your focal length that's usually enough to eliminate camera shake. So unless your shooting at very slow shutter speeds you probably won't notice a lack of VR.

Primes are nice but honestly for what you've described I'd probably look for a decent zoom. The 7100 has a built in focus motor so you could get an older Tamron zoom pretty cheap, something like a 28-75mm 2.8 would probably be a great addition to your bag. It would give you a bit of zoom when needed but still be versatile enough in most other situations and I can tell you from experience the IQ is excellent.

I'll check out the 28-75mm! Thanks for the info

 

[chuasam]

I've had to turn in some pretty large prints, so that's why I was questioning if it would be most reasonable to assemble primes vs zooms. I'll check it out though!

Define large? and how close will the viewer be?
Most of the time, a 16-300 will suffice unless you're photographic fine detail.
Or wildlife.

 

[Solarflare]

Unfortunately you have an APS-C(1) Nikon DSLR(2).

Unfortunatley Nikon doesnt offer much in respect to primes for APS-C. Neither do third parties, really.

Another reason why I went full frame.



(1) APS-C means the sensor size is "only" 24x16mm, in contrast to "full frame" which is 36x24mm, the classic format from the film days. APS-C results in a 1.5 crop factor, meaning a 50mm on full frame will give you on APS-C the viewing angle of a 75mm on full frame. This is great if you need longer focal lengths, but bad if you want shorter ones.

(2) Nikon calls APS-C 24x16mm cameras and lenses "DX", while they call full frame cameras 36x24mm "FX"; FX lenses however are just the default, since they existed since film days. It has been suggested that the "D" in DX stands for digital, because originally digital sensors have all been APS-C (since making full frame sensors was prohibitively expensive), while the "F" stands for full frame.

 

[Braineack]

Why would it matter if the prime was designed for and FX or DX image projection?

Price? or FOV?

 

[nerwin]

You already have a good street photography lens, the 35 1.8G. But if you find it too tele, then you can grab the 24 2.8D that would give you similar FOV what a 35mm lens has on a full frame camera.

For telephoto and that budget, I'd recommend getting the 70-300 VR from Nikon or Tamron. Both are good and around same price.

The 85 1.8G is a awesome piece of glass, but I hated it on DX. It was just too much telephoto because of the crop factor. Getting a 50 1.8G would be a better option in my opinion.

 

[Koshua]

Why would it matter if the prime was designed for and FX or DX image projection?

Price? or FOV?

It doesn't really from my understanding. You get a 50mm on a DX, you can expect a roughly 79mm focal length. I made the conscious decision not to go full-frame because they're much more expensive and the extra I saved I want to put towards good glass.