Hello i got the nikon d7100 and i have a budget about 1200$ and i need to shoot landscapes, nature , wildlife etc and i don't know what lens do i choose? Please help by naming the lens and why this lens specifically And what about good portrait lenses too?? Thanks all !!
Dunno if its in budget (but probably is), but that looks like a job for the standard setup for Nikon DX: AF-S 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 DX VR [walkaround lens, landscape/nature, 16mm because its most of the time sufficient] AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR [wildlife] AF-S (or AF) 50mm f1.8 (or f1.4) [portraiture, lowlight] And maybe later the Sigma 8-16mm, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, or some other for wide angle, and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC Makro (or some alternative) for macro photography.
Used (about $650) Refurbished (about $750). For wildlife and portraiture. Made from 1997 to today. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens Or you can get the previous generation (made from 1993 to 1997) 1-ring (push-pull to zoom instead of a ring) Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED for about $350. It looks like this - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-d/80-200mm-f28-d-950.jpg http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm Also consider a clean used copy of the about $350 Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens that has a switchable macro (1:2) close focus capability from 35 mm to 85 mm. For low light and portraiture I recommend the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens instard of the 50 mm f/1.8 recommended above.
I got my two ring for half that. The trick is to find someone selling a few things together and just resell what you don't need.
I would go with: Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 DI II (499.99), Tamron SP AF 17-50 f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Asperical (IF) (no stabilizer) (499.99) Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) (no stabliizer) (769.99) [h=3][/h]These are retail at BH photo. but shop around, I got the 17-50 from amazon for 235.00 new. The Tamron 10-24mm is slow but up to 17mm, where you switch lenses to f/2.8. These lenses are older versions but the 17-50mm is sharper than the new one with Vibration Control. Not to mention, Tamron comes with a 6yr warranty and Made in Japan. Not China or some other country. Their customer support has very high ratings. Also you will have a range from 10mm-200mm with most of it at f/2.8 throughout. So for $1800.00 you are pretty covered to do anything. My 2 cents. [h=3][/h]
I personally use a 18-105 as a walk-around, 70-300 AF-S VR for reach, and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for wide angle. I also have a 50mm 1.8 AF-D but I NEVER use it even though I've been wanting to force myself to use it more often. You really can't go wrong with any of the above suggestions. The 80-200 f/2.8 is an excellent lens and I would've gone for it over the 70-300 AF-S VR but I'm on a tight budget. I've read the 24-85 isn't quite wide enough for most and lacks the reach compared to say the 18-105.
I think the most fun DX lenses to get if just starting out would be an ultra-wide zoom, and a fast mid-tele prime for portraits. These would be my pick for the most fun, most useful (especially in low light), and best bang-for-the-buck: • Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II [16.5-24mm-equivalent] $525. • AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G [127.5mm-equivalent] $497. You could also choose the slightly wider (but, considerably slower), bargain-priced Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM [15-30mm-equivalent] which is currently on sale for only $399. The Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM [12-24mm-equivalent] super ultra-wide is also a really fun lens, but suffers from marginal corner sharpness. Nevertheless, it's a darned wide lens for $649. Although shooting people with a 50mm [75mm-equivalent] on DX is okay, I much prefer the compression achieved with portrait lenses in the 120-180mm FX focal length, where the 85mm on a DX body fits right in the lower end of that range. My Nikon D3200 usually has just the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G on it when I take it out for casual people shooting. Have fun!
