7100 Upgrade question

Txgulfcoast

I have a D40x. I've decided on upgrading to a D7100. I'm trying to find out if my lens are compatible.
lenses i mainly use:
AF-S 70-300 ED VR
AF-S 18-55 DX
other lenses in my bag:
AF-S 55-200 DX
AF 50 mm 1:1:8

Photography includes: husbands triathlons( would like a great lens for action), architecture( heading to Rome-will be day and night shots- low light advice), sunsets, grand kids, randomness.

Thanks for any and all advice.

ads

Well all are compatible - as in all will work on the D7100.

As for the performance, the 70-300 should work very well for action shots, I've used that one myself.

For low light the 50mm 1.8 should also be a good performer. However for architecture you might think about getting something a bit wider.

I haven't shot the 18-55 and 55-200 myself, no doubt others will chime in with advice on those.

Enjoy the D7100 - you'll find it a massive jump over your D40x!

John

The best advice for low light has nothing to do with lenses.
Take those lenses with you to Rome that will allow you to capture the city as you want to.
The 18-55 should do quite well for scenic views as far as I know.
Just don't forget to bring a good tripod.
Yes, having a lens with a wide aperture and having a body with good high iso performance is great. But you will never have the same high quality results then when you put it on a tripod (and use the time delay normally used for group shots to have the camera take a picture without you touching the camera).
I don't know the weight of the D7100 + lens so I don't know what type of tripod you need.
My D800 with 24-70 weighs a lot and so I went with a sturdy carbon fibre tripod. (Very stable yet still fairly lightweight and easy to carry).

I know a young, skilled (Canon) photographer who has a bit of a fascination with the Eternal City (Rome).
She had a photo guide for the city on her website but it's currently getting renovated.
She does still have some nice images of the city at night which might be inspirational.
Here's the link:
http://www.caroma.be/gallery/gallery-34056.htm#!prettyPhoto

Msmoto

Architectural... an area within which one can work themselves silly...

Depending on the amount of money one wants to spend..... one can buy a lot of pricey lenses. I think the idea of a tripod, if this is feasible, makes a lot of sense. But, I follow the rule...the lighter the camera the heavier the tripod. You may find, however, for travel, a very small table top tripod is more practical such as this one

http://www.adorama.com/BG709B.html

The idea is to hold the camera up to a solid surface. An 18mm lens should be great at times up to a second or more if one learns how to hold the tripod solid and allow the camera to be free. Note, if one uses a time of more than a second, the mirror shake will most likely not be noticed as it stabilizes rapidly. But, one can use a mirror up delay.

I would suggest no new lenses, get the small tripod, learn your D7100. Run some tests prior to your trip to confirm you have the technique down.

KnockKnock

turn on the viewfinder grid lines too

spraynpray

Have delayed exposure mode under one function button (much better/more convenient than using the timer as only 1 second delay and that is after mirror vibration has finished) and have the built-in level under the other Fn button. Your 18-55 will serve you very well for city shots.

+1 to get a good tripod - make sure it has a ball head.

JJ_SO

+1 to get a good tripod - make sure it has a ball head.

L-) Make sure, it has a geared head suits better for architecture. Also, a good bubble level will help a lot, especially because the Manfrotto bubbles are only decoration and of no use.

spraynpray

Very nice use of the 'L' emoticon JJ_SO - what is your point?

Why stick a tacky bubble level on the body when it has a built in level you can use on the rear screen or in the viewfinder?

As for geared head when the OP is using an 18-55 kit lens - well...... 8-|

JJ_SO

The geared head was for 50/1.8

It was about architecture, wasn't it?

And the bubble level replaces the "built in on rear screen" because in LiveVIew you don't see it - or do you?
:-??
Can not try, currently I'm running out of bodies. Nikon service is waiting for spare parts (

tcole1983

Yep all are compatible. Unless you know of something specifically youbare missing you don't really need anything else. A good tripod might be nice. The only area you don't cover is ultrawide but the 18-55 is decently wide and can work in most cases. Something like the 10-24 nikon is all I might suggest without knowing any weaknesses you are seeing in your current setup.

spraynpray

@JJ_SO: 50? For architecture? I am always wider than 35 when I'm in a town shooting architecture which is why I said 18-55 :-?

The level I use is visible in the viewfinder - I never use the rear screen version.

What is the big deal about a geared head (bearing in mind the OP's question and level of investment)?

JJ_SO

spnp, I tricked myself by just regarding "architecture" - all your recommendations are okay, of course. ^:)^

Except a ballhead for architecture. My 1st choice would be geared head because of finer adjustments, 2nd a 3way head and last choice the ballhead. And the 50 was clearly meant as a joke, because there was no other fast lens in the portfolio and she asked as well "architecture (heading to Rome-will be day and night shots - low light advice)".

I'd go for a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (new one) or 17-50/2.8. Faster are primes but I don't know about the budget.

spraynpray

I have more of an affinity with landscapes and so chose the Slik Pro 700DX and changed out the head from a three way P&T to a ball head as the Slick uses a circular puck QD plate so once the camera is levelled, it is a piece of cake to do pano's without ever losing level. I shoot a lot of night scenes without a geared head or fast lens BTW.

If the OP was looking to spend big bucks on a shift lens, I would agree with the geared head but it is not the best choice IMHO for her more general use.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@Txgulfcoast - The lenses are compatible and I would get a 35mm f1.8 (a normal lens and fast and good and cheap - you'll use it more than you think you will), and perhaps a Tonika 11-16mm f2.8 for architecture (it's reasonably priced and is very sharp). After those two lenses, a lot would depend on how deep you want to get into things - a micro lens or perhaps a faster zoom in the 17-55mm or a weatherized, sharper, sturdier but slower 16-85mm - choices are choices and you make them for what you do. You can go crazy with lenses, I have, and I don't recommend it.

Get the wireless remote and the wired remote - you'll find uses for both, and lens cases for all your lenses and a bag that isn't a camera bag that you can put all your stuff in to carry around comfortably. These accessories will end up being just as important as the lenses.

BTW, I get top quality lens protectors (I actually use UV filters) for all my lenses made by B+G or Nikon that cost a bundle - in a few cases, almost as much as the lenses they protect). There are some on the forum that will scoff at that (and for the cost of some of the cheap lenses they could be right), saying that why put something that may degrade the image on the lens? In traveling, I've had my bags roughed up too often; it's just insurance that the lenses are protected - somewhat. Even the cheaper ones - the point on the cheap lenses it that I can't replace them on location.

I agree with spraynpray, a ballhead is what I have and what I would recommend. I have a carbon fiber model - sticker shock on the price might give you pause, but then it's easier to carry and pack.

Be sure to carry lens cloths, an air blower, maybe an extra lens caps (they do disappear), battery, and SD cards.

My best,

Mike

SquamishPhoto

I've heard plenty of stories from people who've broken filters whilst on the camera and dealing with the tiny shards of glass afterwards is sometimes an extreme hassle and often leads to fragments inside the lens as well as larger shards scratching the surface of the front element. This hasn't stopped me from using a filter on certain occasions, but on the whole I leave them off the lens or simply never buy one for the lens.

Txgulfcoast

I love all of the answers. Thanks again. I really thought everyone would tell me to the Telephoto Zoom.
The 55-200 I think came with my first camera. YUCK!
I looked at the tripod's (Carbon Fiber type)-there is a bit of sticker shock. I might play with my heavy tripod with the new camera and see if I should upgrade to travel.
So if I were to purchase one of the lenses listed which would you choose:
Nikon 10-24
Tamron 17-50
Sigma 17-70
35mm f1.8
Tamron 11-16 f2.8
17-55
16-85

And why???

JJ_SO

Tamron 11-16? Isn't that a Tokina 11-16?

Given your lens collection is see a gap where this or the Nikon 10-24 would fit in. Hard to tell which one: The Nikon I know, it's living in my bag, too. I don't miss the fast speed of the Tokina - for that I have a 14-24 on FX. I guess, Tokina is better at the wider end, but Nikon gets really good from 12mm on and has the advantage of less lens changing.

spraynpray

As you seem open to reviewing your whole lens collection now Tx:

I have the Tokina11-16 and have no complaints about it other than the zoom range is quite small whereas the Nikon 10-24 is more useful like that as JJ_SO says.

With my experience if I were in your shoes I would get the 16-85 as a fit and forget walk around lens or if you don't mind changing lenses (and actually find you need/want to), then 10-24 to use with your 18-55. If you don't do many portrait type shots the 35 f1.8 may be more useful than the 50 on DX but then at that price you could get both. I have both plus 11-16, 18-105 and 60 micro but am thinking of selling everything in favour of the 10-24 and 24-70 f2.8. Keep your 70-300 if it is the VR as it is best bang for the buck although soft at 250-300 IME.

Is your head spinning now?

JJ_SO

Wait, spnp, in the blog there's a very yummy piece of glass announced. Sigma 18-35/1.8 for DX. To me it looks to be exctreeeeemly well fitting to a D7100 and I was kind of drooling when reading the specs - but that's something for next autumn, given the time between rumours and roll-out of Sigma.

We need to discuss this anyway, don't we?

DaveyJ

I think a Tokina 11-16 would be awesome. Also i admit I must wonder about all the tripod suggestions as some are pretty expensive, but if you got a used, high quality tripod you might have a really good combo. For daylight city shots of buildings I use handheld and ISO 640 or even higher. Tripods introduce quite a few problems and i prefer the handheld faster fire method. City night shots are more reason to use a tripod but even there I have not needed one all the time.

Msmoto

@DaveyJ

I like to do the handheld city shots, and even do this with a 24mm PC lens using the virtual horizon in camera through the viewfinder. But, when traffic flow is a factor, waiting for the right moment handheld can be a pain.

Cheap tripods, as long as the actual mechanics are intact can be used, and weights can be hung form the center post or other to stabilize. Probably the two advantages of carbon are lightqweight and prestige... )

But, for the D7000 and a trip to Rome, I would still suggest a tabletop tripod and just hold it against a building or street lamp, fence post etc. Use any extra money for a nice lens.

JJ_SO

Probably the two advantages of carbon are lightqweight and prestige... )

And a more pleasant handling in wintertimes, better vibration reduction and since when is prestige a bad thing?

I mean, from a person walking around with masterblaster D4 and huuuuuuge lenses ...

Nikonhotep

Txgulfcoast, I'm quite pleased with the performance of the 70-300 on the D7100. It's a tad softer at the long end compared to what my D300 produces, but I expected that.

spraynpray

Recently I have been out shooting with a friend who uses a carbon tripod and I have to say my heavier aluminium Slick has been better than his lightweight one because of.... the extra weight of mine! When the conditions are not ideal (windy and/or unstable surface for feet) my tripod seems to be better.

I have a wide rubber strap which seems to take the weight right out of it too so it isn't a no-brainer expensive carbon is better than cheap aluminium/magnesium. You can get a great aluminium tripod used for under £100.

If I have a few hundred pounds to spare I'll not be spending it on a CF tripod, I'd go for the 85mm f1.8 for instance.

JJ_SO

As "there are aluminium tripods and aluminium tripods", you can say as well, carbon alone is not necessarily a guarantee for a good tripod - one can use the best materials to produce lousy design. And for stability by weight it would be best to use solid cast iron with soft lead feet. I know the contradiction of lightweight tripod and some fast (=heavy) prime lenses instead one decent (not as fast) zoom. If one compares the legs only, the difference of some 100 grams appears to be enormous. Together with some heads, the difference can nearly disappear.

I got my first carbon Gitzo not because of the weight but because of it's size of 43 cm with ballhead which is great for traveling. The other carbon tripod is because you don't get "systematic" legs in aluminium. You can choose between normal carbon and "ocean" version. At least in the shop mine are from. I was not very happy with Manfrotto although they come from the same place and RRS is always import and never try before, so the choices in tripods are not that big: lowprice, midprice and the ones you only buy once. Having them life long makes the price look different.

spraynpray

I chose mine because it puts the viewfinder at 6ft high without the centre column up so is never fully extended even on an uneven surface. I can't stand crouching and squinting through my viewfinder.

My D7000 vibrated in the wind on the Manfrotto 055CX3 but was steady on the Slik.