Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nikon D7100 Camera Lens

S

Slevin

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 1, 2007
309
29
New York
I'm new to the world of photography and I live in Hawaii where there are spectacular landscapes to take photos of and I'm looking to pick up a D7100 plus a lens that would allow me to do so. However, I'm also going on a trip San Fran then NYC for about two weeks and I'll be taking pictures of friends and tourist attractions. So I'm wondering what would be the best lens for my purposes. I would love to get a lens that would allow me to take great landscapes but also capture people with the blurred background effect without having to change lenses. So I was wondering if anyone had suggestions. I read somewhere that the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G was a good general lens but like I said I'm new to this hobby and looking for suggestions.


Thanks for any help you can give
 
The 50mm 1.8G is definitely a great lens, but I found it to be a bit too narrow on the crop DX sensor for effective use in that application as a landscape lens...the ideal option would be a 16-85, but that is a bit of a nightmare for bokeh (the blur effect you describe) and I would therefore potentially discount the viability of this option...

I personally have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 EX DG HSM OS, which, if you get a good copy, is a great lens for application in the landscape and portrait field, given the ability of the aperture to blow out backgrounds and substitute the need for another dedicated portrait lens such as an 85mm 1.8G or another equivalent. Again, this is dependant massively on your budget :)

Perhaps the bet place to ask this question would be on the major photography and lens forums such as DPReview, where they will give you more accurate information regarding which lenses to look at and discount.
 
Slevin said:
I'm new to the world of photography and I live in Hawaii where there are spectacular landscapes to take photos of and I'm looking to pick up a D7100 plus a lens that would allow me to do so. However, I'm also going on a trip San Fran then NYC for about two weeks and I'll be taking pictures of friends and tourist attractions. So I'm wondering what would be the best lens for my purposes. I would love to get a lens that would allow me to take great landscapes but also capture people with the blurred background effect without having to change lenses. So I was wondering if anyone had suggestions. I read somewhere that the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G was a good general lens but like I said I'm new to this hobby and looking for suggestions.


Thanks for any help you can give
Click to expand...

I admit I had to smile here. Usually, scenic photography, when using moderate to wide lenses is taken using good depth of field. This is the opposite of people pictures with the background out of focus and thus that bokeh you desire. I have no idea what your budget is but I understand that Sigma has a new fast zoom lens. The Sigma lens would cover your wide shots as well as be fast enough for bokeh for people shots. For your camera, I believe it is approximately a 28-55 in view with F1.8 when wide open.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8

Some argue this lens beats out Nikon's own 17-55 lens which is an extremely good lens. (I know, I used to own it.)

In reality, to get all that you want you would really want at least two lenses to handle wide to moderate and then longer for a more compressed perspective shot from afar. Everyone has a different way of handling these challenges so you need to consider what works best for your budget, bias it towards the type of photos you would be most likely taking (say scenic vs people etc.). I can say without hesitation that it is possible to get outstanding shots with just one lens if you use it correctly. Long ago, I shot an entire trip with just one 90mm 2.5 lens that included scenic and people. I was lucky I was afforded the space to shoot the scenic shots. (This was all in the days of film with full frame of course.) I have also used just 24mm lenses for indoor outdoor use etc. It is really knowing how to exploit a lens.
 
What is your budget?
Take a look at the 35 1.8 DX lens. It will be more of a 50mm then a 50mm on DX body.
I own the lens. It's a great, cheap (but good quality) lens. Maybe a 55-200 in addition? Also think about renting
 
puckhead193 said:
What is your budget?
Take a look at the 35 1.8 DX lens. It will be more of a 50mm then a 50mm on DX body.
I own the lens. It's a great, cheap (but good quality) lens. Maybe a 55-200 in addition? Also think about renting
Click to expand...

its a 200 dollar lens, very very inexpensive and a great prime lens
 
I can't help you with an all in one suggestion but the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is an amazing super wide that I used extensively on the D7000. I've even used it underwater at 16mm on a D800. ;)
 
Not really sure why you would buy a D7100 and not expect to change lenses.
To the OP, there is no all in compassing lens that will do everything you need. Any 18-300 mm lens made is such a compromise your images will suffer.
Go with a couple of lenses as suggested and swap them over as needed.
 
Since you don't want to be bothered with changing lenses, why not go with Sony's new RX-10? That camera has an excellent fixed 2.8 lens with pretty good range (I think 24-200mm) and would be a terrific camera for travel plus around home.
 
Good and affordable for lanscape:
Rokinon 8mm (for crop)
Rokinon 14mm
 
Slevin said:
Thanks for any help you can give
Click to expand...

Not enough information:

Single person portraits?
Single or multiple shot landscapes?
How married are you to the "not change lenses" bit?
What sort of budget?

Off the cuff without any of that information, the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED is the "best" answer for your intended usage.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520637-USA/Nikon_2164_AF_S_Nikkor_24_70mm_f_2_8G.html

The next-best answer is probably going to be the Tokina 24-70 II, but it's not available yet. The Sigma 24-70 is much more affordable, but Photozone doesn't like the Bokeh opened up for portraits.

After that, maybe an old Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D in good condition[1].

On a crop body, 24mm is only moderately wide for landscapes, but frankly, I find most wider shots suck with too little detail, too much sky and normally end up around 35mm on an FX body, so that's why I'd go with that. I generally stitch panos for wider shots so I can get more subject detail and crop out dead ground and empty sky when I'm not in mountainous terrain where I can get everything balanced in the frame.

Paul
[1] I still shoot with mine fairly often.
 
compuwar said:
Not enough information:

Single person portraits?
Single or multiple shot landscapes?
How married are you to the "not change lenses" bit?
What sort of budget?

Off the cuff without any of that information, the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED is the "best" answer for your intended usage.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520637-USA/Nikon_2164_AF_S_Nikkor_24_70mm_f_2_8G.html

The next-best answer is probably going to be the Tokina 24-70 II, but it's not available yet. The Sigma 24-70 is much more affordable, but Photozone doesn't like the Bokeh opened up for portraits.

After that, maybe an old Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D in good condition[1].

On a crop body, 24mm is only moderately wide for landscapes, but frankly, I find most wider shots suck with too little detail, too much sky and normally end up around 35mm on an FX body, so that's why I'd go with that. I generally stitch panos for wider shots so I can get more subject detail and crop out dead ground and empty sky when I'm not in mountainous terrain where I can get everything balanced in the frame.

Paul
[1] I still shoot with mine fairly often.
Click to expand...

In my film camera days, both 24mm and 35mm were my go to primes for scenic work. I never liked going beyond 24mm even with correcting issues of convergence (as best possible in a darkroom). The option for a 24-70 is a good one but also something just a hair wider would be extremely useful under certain conditions and it is of value to know the best f stop that delivers the sharpest image. The old rule of thumb of stopping down at least 2 stops is a good starting point and more often than not, with the 24 and 35 I would shoot at 5.6, 8 and 11 or somewhere in between.
 
phrehdd said:
In my film camera days, both 24mm and 35mm were my go to primes for scenic work.
Click to expand...

I've never really liked Nikon's 24mm primes. With the 35-70mm AF-D and the 20-35mm AF-D, I find myself at 35mm for wide a lot of the time. If I'm shooting Panos, it'll be with the 60mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.8 if I don't have time to do a series with the 400mm or 80-200mm.

Paul
 
Thanks for the responses... doing some homework I've read lots of good things about the SIGMA 18-35MM F1.8 DC HSM LENS and I think that's what I'll go with for now as a starting point... maybe in a few months I'll pick up something that I can use to shoot the landscape here in Hawaii.
 
While the best zoom you can buy is your two feet, I would have trouble selecting a prime as my all around/walk around lens.

My go to vacation lens is the Nikkor 18-200MM VRII f/3.6-5.6. It's compact (yes it is telescoping, so dust may get into it), not that heavy, and will shoot everything well that I throw at it during a normal vacation day.
 
compuwar said:
I've never really liked Nikon's 24mm primes. With the 35-70mm AF-D and the 20-35mm AF-D, I find myself at 35mm for wide a lot of the time. If I'm shooting Panos, it'll be with the 60mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.8 if I don't have time to do a series with the 400mm or 80-200mm.

Paul
Click to expand...

I certainly appreciate your view and take on this. I find that the 24mm worked quite well for me in film days. Then again, as also mentioned, 35mm was more often the ideal lens for many of my needs. I admit of all the Nikon lenses that I had and only a couple were true favourites for all the right reasons. The rest were just part of my tool set. (I speak of the days before digital. During my foray into digital with Nikon, I used the 17-55 quite a bit and wasn't overly excited by it and the first 70-200 VR lens was like the 17-55, very usable and sharp enough but not spectacular as promised.
 
NukeIT said:
While the best zoom you can buy is your two feet, I would have trouble selecting a prime as my all around/walk around lens.

My go to vacation lens is the Nikkor 18-200MM VRII f/3.6-5.6. It's compact (yes it is telescoping, so dust may get into it), not that heavy, and will shoot everything well that I throw at it during a normal vacation day.
Click to expand...

This is a great suggestion. When I got rid of my DX stuff, I kept this lens and 1 DX body. When I want to travel light or grab and go, it's a toss up between this setup and an FX body with a 35mm on it.
 
Kurwenal said:
This is a great suggestion. When I got rid of my DX stuff, I kept this lens and 1 DX body. When I want to travel light or grab and go, it's a toss up between this setup and an FX body with a 35mm on it.
Click to expand...

should i jump into full frame ? sold my nikon d5200, was thinking of nikon d7100
 
MCH-1138 said:
Can't answer the "should I" for you, but (1) I thought you moved to a Canon 70D; and (2) the D7100 is DX.
Click to expand...

I did move tot he CAnon 70D, 14 day return policy.

I sold my Nikon D5200 which was an entry level and thought was ready to move on. I sold it along with the kit lens and a 35mm prime. I for some reason cant help but think if I should have went all out for a full frame like the D610 rather then a a smaller jump to a mid range consumer camera.
 
KimJonNumberUn said:
should i jump into full frame ? sold my nikon d5200, was thinking of nikon d7100
Click to expand...

I have no basis to answer that question (or even recommend an answer), for you. Many factors go into that decision, not just money. For me, it was a relatively easy decision as I had ended up with both DX and FX gear over the years and my decision was to sell (my DX gear), not to buy.

It's hard sometimes to know there is something "better" out there....a newer model Mac....a newer lens......etc. But, your pictures don't automatically get "better "by switching from DX to FX. There are a lot of DX vs FX articles out there on the web. Since you could be "stuck" with the decision for a long time, I suggest doing a bunch of research and renting/testing the models you are interested in.
 
Last edited:
KimJonNumberUn said:
should i jump into full frame ? sold my nikon d5200, was thinking of nikon d7100
Click to expand...

If you can say EXACTLY why you were not able to capture the images you wanted with the d5200 then upgrade to soothing that WILL get those shots you've been missing.

Can you tell us what it is you are looking for? Perhaps even a full frame Nikon will not do it. It would be a shame to spend $3,500 and still have the same problems. And YES it will cost you - none of the ld DX lenses will work and you will be starting over with all new FX lenses, likely the good f/2.8 glass

Why not Medium format? Seriously. Why not? Do any of your arguments against medium format apply to full frame?

Why not FILM? No, please do not tell us film is expensive. Full frame costs MUCH more than film.

----------
Slevin said:
I'm new to the world of photography and I live in Hawaii where there are spectacular landscapes to take photos of and I'm looking to pick up a D7100 plus a lens that would allow me to do so. However, I'm also going on a trip San Fran then NYC for about two weeks and I'll be taking pictures of friends and tourist attractions. So I'm wondering what would be the best lens for my purposes. I would love to get a lens that would allow me to take great landscapes but also capture people with the blurred background effect without having to change lenses. So I was wondering if anyone had suggestions. I read somewhere that the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G was a good general lens but like I said I'm new to this hobby and looking for suggestions.


Thanks for any help you can give
Click to expand...

The camera will come with an 18-55mm f/5.6 "kit lens" which is very good for landscapes. The 50mm f/1.8 is good for people pictures if you want to shoot one person head and upper body. It is to long to groups of people indoors. If you shoot indoors in a normal home or apartment size room and want more then head shots a 35 mm f/1.8 lens might be best.

Use the kit 18-55mm lens to get a feel for the focal length you want. If you like, get some blue masking tape and fix the lend down to 35mm or 50 mm so you can't operate the zoom and see if you can live without removing the tape.

(Do use only the blue tape and remove the tape after each session, do not store the lens with tape, uese fresh tape each time. Otherwise you will have adhesive stuck to the lens, but the blue tape comes off clean if demoed within 24 hours.) This is a great test to see which fixed lens suits you.
 
compuwar said:
If you have to ask, then no, you probably shouldn't. There's not much point in paying for the larger sensor if you don't know that you need it.

Paul
Click to expand...

ChrisA said:
If you can say EXACTLY why you were not able to capture the images you wanted with the d5200 then upgrade to soothing that WILL get those shots you've been missing.

Can you tell us what it is you are looking for? Perhaps even a full frame Nikon will not do it. It would be a shame to spend $3,500 and still have the same problems. And YES it will cost you - none of the ld DX lenses will work and you will be starting over with all new FX lenses, likely the good f/2.8 glass

Why not Medium format? Seriously. Why not? Do any of your arguments against medium format apply to full frame?

Why not FILM? No, please do not tell us film is expensive. Full frame costs MUCH more than film.

----------



The camera will come with an 18-55mm f/5.6 "kit lens" which is very good for landscapes. The 50mm f/1.8 is good for people pictures if you want to shoot one person head and upper body. It is to long to groups of people indoors. If you shoot indoors in a normal home or apartment size room and want more then head shots a 35 mm f/1.8 lens might be best.

Use the kit 18-55mm lens to get a feel for the focal length you want. If you like, get some blue masking tape and fix the lend down to 35mm or 50 mm so you can't operate the zoom and see if you can live without removing the tape.

(Do use only the blue tape and remove the tape after each session, do not store the lens with tape, uese fresh tape each time. Otherwise you will have adhesive stuck to the lens, but the blue tape comes off clean if demoed within 24 hours.) This is a great test to see which fixed lens suits you.
Click to expand...

i read full frame is better quality over all for whatever your shooting. somewhere i read its 2 stops better in lower light as an example and the bodies are more robust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back