Soon-to-Be Nikon Owner in Dire Need of Advice

[tamg72]

I am going this evening to purchase a Nikon D7100. This I am sure of. Lenses... Not so much.

I've been a faithful canon shooter for 8 years with the old ancient Rebel t1i. So it's about time I take the plunge and upgrade, eh? And just go all wild and switch to a Nikon!

What I plan to shoot is
*portraits of people
*my very active, sport playing, running around, can't stay still, just all crazy 7 year old son
*tourist-y vacation shots, so landscapes, buildings, scenery etc
*low light shots indoors and out
*shots inside of museums, without flash more than likely

Out of these lenses, what are my best options for my photography needs?

This is the first D7100 bundle that I'm looking at:
*DX AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR
*18-140mm

Second bundle that's an option:
*18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 G II
*55-300mm same as the one above
*DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8
*DX AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm 1:3.5 G ED VR

Then another option I'm considering is just the D7100 with the 18-140mm kit. Then adding a few extra lenses.

Also, would I need BOTH the 35 and 55mm 1.8 G standards since I want to do portraits, low light, scenery landscaping tourist-stuff.

What lenses options should I combine or go with to meet all my needs? Without breaking the bank too, too much. I can splurge a little....

I've also considered the el cheapo Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC all-in-one zoom lens

Any advice and breakdown on what lenses would suit my needs is greatly GREATLY appreciated. Please and thank you

Also, I will shoot in Raw. I have been using Photoshop Elements to edit my pictures for several years. Considering going to Lightroom....

 

[tirediron]

Based on your stated requirements, it sounds like you need just about every lens Nikon makes! To be honest, I would avoid buying any more than the minimum to start; either the 18-140 or the 18-55 & 55-2/300. Get that and play with it and find out what you want/need and what you can and cannot do. You may find that what you get works perfectly or that something entirely new comes to light as a 'must have'.

 

[jaomul]

Great camera. Don't go to cheap on lenses. The 18-140 is quite good. The 55-300 is good, but not very well built.

In your position I'd buy the 18-140 and add a 35mm f1.8 for low light stuff, look into a yongnuo yn 568 flash

Alternatively, just get a sigma 17-50 f2.8 and add a longer lens later

 

[dennybeall]

I really like the 18-140, I have one and it stays on the camera. On occasion, not often, I'll get out the really wide 10mm zoom, the 300 zoom or the 500mm zoom but over 90% of the time the 18-140 does the job.
For the low light no flash stuff, unless it's action you can just use a tripod or monopod and a longer shutter time. For low light action you need "fast glass" and that has a high price. Apertures at f2.0 and lower carry a hefty price tag.

 

[Designer]

Then another option I'm considering is just the D7100 with the 18-140mm kit. Then adding a few extra lenses.

Also, would I need BOTH the 35 and 55mm 1.8 G standards since I want to do portraits, low light, scenery landscaping tourist-stuff.

What lenses options should I combine or go with to meet all my needs? Without breaking the bank too, too much. I can splurge a little....

Yes on the 18-140. FYI: It is the "50mm 1.8 G" that you want, it's not a 55mm. Yes, I know all those numbers are quite confusing.

I'm not sure if you want to spend a lot on the 35mm. After all, you've got that focal length covered with your 18-140, and the low-light conditions covered with the 50.

For portraiture, you probably want something longer, and in that vein I recommend the 85mm 1.8 G.

Congratulations, BTW.

 

[DarkShadow]

18-140 got my Vote, it's a very good sharp lens and if you can fit it In your budget get a 35mm 1.8 for the low light stuff like indoor or night photography.

 

[goodguy]

Don't rush to buy a lot of lenses is what everybody say and I add my voice to it.
Get the 18-140mm and maybe the 55-300mm or 70-300mm
This is a good start, after that you will see where you are going to, so many lenses to choose from limited by your wallet.
Used to own he D7100, excellent camera, from it I went full frame so if you plan in future to go full frame don't invest too much in DX lenses.

 

[otherprof86 28]

I really like the 18-140, I have one and it stays on the camera. On occasion, not often, I'll get out the really wide 10mm zoom, the 300 zoom or the 500mm zoom but over 90% of the time the 18-140 does the job.
For the low light no flash stuff, unless it's action you can just use a tripod or monopod and a longer shutter time. For low light action you need "fast glass" and that has a high price. Apertures at f2.0 and lower carry a hefty price tag.

The 35 1.8 goes for under $200 and gets raves from users.

 

[jcdeboever]

I really like the 18-140, I have one and it stays on the camera. On occasion, not often, I'll get out the really wide 10mm zoom, the 300 zoom or the 500mm zoom but over 90% of the time the 18-140 does the job.
For the low light no flash stuff, unless it's action you can just use a tripod or monopod and a longer shutter time. For low light action you need "fast glass" and that has a high price. Apertures at f2.0 and lower carry a hefty price tag.

The 35 1.8 goes for under $100 and gets raves from users.

I love mine. My line up for digital is 35mm 1.8g, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8g, 55-300mm, and my Sigma 150-600mm C. I also have other manual film lens that I could use.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

Bundle #2

 

[wfooshee]

A 50 is a reasonably good portrait lens on a crop-sensor camera, just a slightly wider field of view than an 85 on a full-frame. An 85 on the D7100 might be a bit long for portraiture, giving a field of view equivalent to up around 130, 135 mm on a full-frame.

If you want a long zoom, forget the 55-300 and get the 70-300 ED. It's a bit sharper, I think, and a better value even at a 100 bucks higher list. Do not skimp on lenses! Glass can stay with you forever, as you upgrade bodies when you run into limits of the camera's features, and a better camera after you upgrade will highlight the shortcomings of a lens you settled for to save a few bucks.

Because you shouldn't skimp on lenses, you shouldn't go out and just buy everything you think you might want to have. The only thing a 50-1.8 gives you that the 18-55 won't is larger apertures, which may end up not meaning anything for you. (It might be a little sharper, too, but probably not at larger apertures, and maybe not enough sharper for the D7100 to be able to tell.)

I started with the basic 18-55 and 55-200 that came with the used camera I bought 6 or 7 years ago. The next body showed how bad the 55-200 was and I got the 70-300. Although I've picked up a couple of pawn shop finds over the years (a 50-1.8 AF, not even an AF-D, and a manual-focus 85-1.8) plus a Rokinon fisheye, my go-to lenses for daily use are the 18-55 and the 70-300; 997 out of 1000 shots are through one of those.

 

[Ido]

What lenses do you currently have with the Canon? If you keep using the gear you already have and learn with it, you may have a better idea of what sort of lenses you actually need. I would even advise that you keep using what you already have until there is something specific that you need to change related to the camera—not just a desire for something new—but then again, it is your money and you can do as you want. Buying a camera can be like buying a gadget, if that's what you want, or it could be like buying a tool.

 

[JoeW27 1]

Let me throw my voice in advocating that you get the 35mm DX f1.8 among the package you're looking at getting.

Look, here's the problem with buying lens on paper...we tend to go "okay, this one is from 15mm to 100mm so I don't need a lens that is 35mm or 50mm or 80mm." Yeah, there are some lovely zooms out there and Nikon made it's name (initially) with glass.

But there is tremendous value to having at least one prime lens. The 35mm DX f1.8 is small, light, very inexpensive (especially if you buy used). Like most wide angles, you get some distortion up close--that's true of all wide angles. It also has chromatic aberration (easily corrected post production) at extremes and when shooting in to light (which isn't much of a damning indictment, most lens produce this at extremes when shooting in to light).

That said, it is a damn fine lens. Even if you have a zoom that covers that focal length, you will NOT have a zoom that is sharp as this particular prime lens. It's notable not only for being small, light, inexpensive but also being especially sharp. I've got a dozen pieces of Nikon glass in my various bags and this 35mm (along with my 50mm f1.4) are the two consistently sharpest lens I've got .

And separate from the 35mm focal length, it's good to have at least one prime lens in your kit b/c it will teach you to see as a shooter. Instead of just going "oh, nice shot, I'll take it and just zoom in or out and then post-production to 'fix' the other problems" a prime lens has you seeing things differently (which is a good habit to have as a photographer--even if you have a zoom on your camera). To look at a room in a house and go "oh, my 18mm isn't wide enough for this" or "I'd need to get a lot closer and change the shooting angle in order to get the 'S' curve in the road behind that subject as a background." And being able to "see" the photo is an acquired trait--and a prime lens helps you to acquire that trait (it's not the only way but it will help you get it faster than a totally zoom toolbox).

And if you're going to be shooting serious portraits, than an 85mm lens is a really, really, really, really useful piece of glass to have.

 

[chuasam]

The 35mm DX is one of the best little lenses. I bought mine the day it came out and used it on my D300. It was my mainstay until I upgraded to a D700.

It is close focusing and lightweight. It's not as sharp as JoeW says but sharpness is overrated.

 

[dannylightning]

if your gonna buy that kit i say start with the camera and the 18-140mm and do some research on what lenses to get next. that lens will cover most of the shooting you want to do..

here is how i see it.. primes are great and usually have better image quality than a zoom. zooms are more convenient, its nice to have lenses that do well in low light like a f/1.8 or f/2.8 and its nice to not need a bunch of lenses.. so this is my advice...

for general shooting on a DX camera that will and will work great in low light. the sigma 18-35mm 1.8 art and the sigma 50-100mm 1.8 art there expensive but that will take care of your everyday shooting and portraits and do very well in low light.. i have these lenses and love them.. surprisingly these are much better than any of the inexpensive nikon prime lenses i have had.. these lenses are amazing.. super sharp, great image quality and they take beautiful images and do very well in low light. they do not have image stabilization which may be a issue for some people.. that is really the only drawback if you are shooting on a DX cameras.. i think you should look into these lenses and if you can afford they are a great option. these lenses are made for DX and not full frame.. so if you ever think you may get something like a D750 or D800 some day i would not go for these..

now you need a lens for sports.. you should check out something like the nikon 200-500mm or a sigma 150-600mm but there are not low light lenses like the others, low light lenses with that much zoom are crazy expensive and heavy but if your shooting sports in good lighting these will get you nice close up shots from a good distance.

another less expensive option for a sport lens but not as much zoom is that nikon 70-300 VRII is a very nice lens that is light weight.. 300mm would be ok for sports if your not too far away from the players again any 1.8 or 2.8 that will be good in low light will be very expensive and heavy in that type of range. around 300mm is about the minimum you want for wildlife or sports photography unless you can get nice and close to the players, something like a 150-600 is really the way to go for sports or wildlife IMO.

for example of weight on the good low light lenses, my 50-100mm 1.8 and its about 3.5 lbs and it was not cheap. there is a sigma 200-500mm 2.8 and its about 35lbs and 25k bucks so big low light lenses are crazy expensive..

say you get those two sigma lenses and a lens for shooting sports. now you have 3 lenses that would cover just about any shooting you want to do...... and if you also have the 18-140 you have one lens that will cover most things well when you only have the room to take one lens with you.. lenses are expensive. there more important than the camera body..