Reducing Weight and Getting Closer

[OldManJim]

I currently have a Nikon D7100 with Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, Nikon Kit lens 18-55 VR, and Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR lens in a ThinkTank Retrospective 7 camera bag.

I use this setup for "walk around" and occasional shots of my grandchildren, dog, nature, etc. I am NOT a professional photographer, just a hobbyist.

​

I've been looking at slimming down this rig by acquiring a Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 and a Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 35 mm F/1.8G Lens to replace all but the Sigma 10-20 lens.

Although I won't have the reach of the 300mm, I find I don't use that focal length much - and I've got a Tamron 150-600 G2 for "reaching out".

Am I missing anything by going to the proposed setup? My budget is about $250. I'd appreciate any feedback from the experts on here.

 

[Designer]

I'm no expert, but I can count. You will leave behind two lenses, and pick up two additional lenses, which still leaves you with carrying three lenses. How is that going to reduce weight?

 

[OldManJim]

Well, the 70-300 is pretty heavy, and the 35mm is lighter than the 18-55, so...….

 

[tirediron]

I suspect you are going to be sorely disappointed in the image quality from the 28-200.

 

[Jeff15]

Buy a Sony RX10 M4 problems solved.....

 

[OldManJim]

Buy a Sony RX10 M4 problems solved.....

can I get one for $250?

 

[Designer]

I use this setup for "walk around" and occasional shots of my grandchildren, dog, nature, etc. I am NOT a professional photographer, just a hobbyist.

I own two zoom lenses, one of which is my "walk around" lens that is mounted most of the time. Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G VR

I don't know how often you use the short zoom, but frankly, you really don't need a short zoom. Since there isn't much difference in the FOV between the wide and the "long", why not just use a short prime in its place?

Talking of focal lengths; the 35 mm you would like to acquire is covered by the 28-200 super zoom, and if it is a good lens, then you might not need the 35, even though the Nikon 35 will probably give a better image quality.

 

[OldManJim]

You're right about

I use this setup for "walk around" and occasional shots of my grandchildren, dog, nature, etc. I am NOT a professional photographer, just a hobbyist.

I own two zoom lenses, one of which is my "walk around" lens that is mounted most of the time. Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G VR

I don't know how often you use the short zoom, but frankly, you really don't need a short zoom. Since there isn't much difference in the FOV between the wide and the "long", why not just use a short prime in its place?

Talking of focal lengths; the 35 mm you would like to acquire is covered by the 28-200 super zoom, and if it is a good lens, then you might not need the 35, even though the Nikon 35 will probably give a better image quality.

the coverage for the 35mm lens, but I'm interested in that lens for low light situations. It's supposed to be pretty good at f2.8, which is faster than the Tamron at 35mm. I'm trying to keep the ISO as low as possible to reduce noise.

 

[ac12]

I suggest looking at the 18-140 as your GP lens, and the 35/1.8 as your indoor low light lens.
You might be able to find a used 18-140 in your budget.

 

[TWX]

Photo Lady had some pretty good results with a Tamron 18-400mm super zoom lens. New it's out of your stated budget at around $500, but used it seems to go for more like half that price. Obviously it isn't ultra wide angle so it wouldn't replace your Sigma 10-20mm, and obviously it's not a fast lens like the 35mm you're discussing, but if you don't do a lot of wide-angle shooting anyway then you might not need to bring the 10-20mm unless you specifically want to do that kind of shooting. That leaves you with two lenses, the super-zoom and a fast prime for indoors.

 

[DarkShadow]

Nikon 18-140mm is great suggestion a light and sharp lens and better all around than a Tamron 28-200 especially with the 1.5 crop factor its still reasonably wide for landscape work at the short end.Now you you have the 150-600 to almost pick up from where the 18-140 leaves off.win win.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

Jim, maybe you should look into a Bridge Camera.
I have no idea what there is today but 5 years ago there were some pretty decent bridge cameras. They DON'T have an interchangeable lenses but have a very broad range from wide angle to long telephoto with pretty good IQ.
Probably some nice and small ML now. Good luck
SS

 

[stk]

Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR is an amazing lens for it's price, I don't think you would get the same image quality from anything else in this range without spending a lot more.

I mainly used Nikon 35 f/1.8 DX + Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR for a long time. You don't need to carry every mm of focal length with you at all times.

 

[OldManJim]

Photo Lady had some pretty good results with a Tamron 18-400mm super zoom lens. New it's out of your stated budget at around $500, but used it seems to go for more like half that price. Obviously it isn't ultra wide angle so it wouldn't replace your Sigma 10-20mm, and obviously it's not a fast lens like the 35mm you're discussing, but if you don't do a lot of wide-angle shooting anyway then you might not need to bring the 10-20mm unless you specifically want to do that kind of shooting. That leaves you with two lenses, the super-zoom and a fast prime for indoors.

I agree that her images with the 18-400 are very good but the lowest price I can find on an 18-400 in questionable shape is $245, I may keep looking, though.

 

[Braineack]

Well, the 70-300 is pretty heavy

Cute...