7100 Upgrade question

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@SquamishPhoto - Like I said, some will disagree with the UV filters. I go by my experiences, not by what others tell me. Those have been lessons terribly learned, and sometimes at the cost of my employer's dime. ;-)

@Txgulfcoast - coverage of the focal range and packing for it not as tricky as it seems. What is tricky is getting comfortable with working with your gear. Some lenses will not be very good for some things no matter what you do - they just are made for that 'kind' of work. Of course, that's why folks ask what kind of pictures you want to take, before giving any advice. Wide-ish lenses tend to work best for architecture, a short telephoto with good bokeh for portraits, but then that also depends upon how you stage your portraits. Traveling, you might also do some things that are of a normal aspect - something that mimic's the "human's eye view".

Traveling usually means that you'd like to take less, so a zoom lens can offer more focal lengths.

Bokeh, the 'quality' of the out of focus area out of the depth of field for your subject is something you will soon want to pay some attention to as you navigate shooting and composition. It'll make all the difference in popping the subject out.

The faster lenses will be costlier and generally heavier. The depth of field will be more narrow and offer a more 'interesting' bokeh (on the whole) at the 'telephoto' setting at wide open - for what that's worth. Most of the folks who haunt this forum either have or want these lenses.

If travel photography is something you are going to do, you will really want to consider weight as a factor in your purchases along with what you're intending to shoot.

As an example, carrying some of the lenses you've listed - the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, would be a chore. I have it and like it, but you are upgrading to a D7100, and the lens weighs twice what that camera weighs, so be aware. ;-)

Tripods are a lot like cameras - the best ones are the ones you actually use. Ideally they are sturdy; the sturdier, the better for keeping an image sharp. If you could put a mount your camera on a tank it would be ideal, but you'd had a problem carrying a tank around.

Every compromise begins somewhere. My Gitzo tripod weighs 25 pounds and my carbon fiber weighs 2 and have the same general height specifications. Which do you think I carry when I travel for a few weeks? The carbon wouldn't hold up in the wind at on the cliffs at the Ring of Kerry, but then likely, anyone who bought such a tool wouldn't expect it to. Naturally, the center post also has a hook for adding weight - but that diverges from the thread... ;-)

And naturally, there is the prestige, and I need all I can get.

My best,

Mike

Msmoto

How did we get all this tripod talk going.....on the D7100 question?

Txgulfcoast ...has any of this chatter been helpful?

JJ_SO

Because the OP who kept silence after his/her second post, mentioned "architecture" and a lot of people, myself included, jumped onto the tripod train.

Msmoto

"Lot of people" included me....LOL

JJ_SO

Starting with John, Msmoto, spraynpray... I was not the first bringing tripod in discussion.

Txgulfcoast

Thanks again to everyone. I'm headed to the camera store this week with all of your posts and going to play with some lenses. Not ready for the super important tripod yet. Maybe a small version. I hear tripods aren't allowed in some locations Now who wants to hit the streets and teach me everything you know?

MrD200

For architecture get the nikon 10-24 or the 11-16 because it lets you get very close yet still have a lot of interesting things in the background. The one rule to keep in mind with wide angles is this: you have to be very, very, very close (between 6 and 12 inches) to something in the foreground of the shot. If you stand back and try to get a whole scene in, the picture will be boring and there won't be any detail. For instance, in a church, you might want to put a beautifully carved holy water fount filling half your frame the foreground and let the rest of the church be in the background. Or for a building exterior, put a cool fence detail in the foreground and let the rest of the building follow along behind. This cat has examples of how to use this technique in landscape photography, but it's the same for architecture. http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/photoblog/digital-photography-tips/73/

DaveyJ

I think msmoto's advice is the best here overall considering the txgulfcoast original post. Tripod weight is a real bummer UNTIL you want to actually shoot from it then heavier the better. The Tokina 11-16 is a very nice lens. The 18-55VR is OK but someday you might look at replacing that and the 55-200 I believe is terrible compared to the 70-300VR. I believe the 70-300VR is easily one of the best lens in relation to price that Nikon ever made. I have seen world class images made with it and often the challenge is to be at the perfect location at the right time.

Msmoto

@Txgulfcoast

So, what did you buy?

And as to teaching you everything I know...Colorado Springs in a couple weeks at our NRF get together....I can teach you everything I know in about ten minutes.... LOL

spraynpray

+1 DaveyJ except the bit about selling the 18-55VR. I am pleasantly surprised by it every time I use it and it isn't like it is going to be worth much to sell...

DaveyJ

@spraynpray: I actually totally agree with you that you should not sell that lens. And also I will probably buy one fairly soon. My ONLY point here is that the range is inadequate according to my friends who own it. I also am impressed by YOUR answer which will sure cause me to buy one now sooner than later. Yet here is my INTENDED use. I pack back into places sometimes where every pound I carry must go for miles in say a portage situation. I ALWAYS would rather have more range yet very good quality but DX and even this exact lens may fill a bill. AND IF YOU rate it that good I really should just buy one.

I wish I felt the same way about the 16-85VR as I don't own that lens yet as it doesn't have the same situation for me as I use the 12-24 a lot and have other lens that cover other bases. The 16-85VR is very expensive by my reckoning in "retirement". The fact is Nikon sells a ton of the 18-55VRs as a pretty good lens at a great price point.

I think one of the best lens on the D7100 is a 18-105, but we use 12-24, and 70-300VR a lot too. But since it comes body only at a very good deal.....I see no reason to go to the 18-55VR on that camera and when I use one if I get it it will be on a D3200 or a D90, or at most on our D7000. But to sell a 18-55VR?? I agree that I would keep it and use it whenever the use for it surfaced!

spraynpray

@DaveyJ: As you have the 10-24, the best choice is the 18-105 for sure. I changed from 18-105 to 16-85 because I missed the 2mm that was missing between my 11-16 and 18-105. I now have that with the 16-85, but I really miss the extra length of the 18-105. All of those lenses are light though, so don't sweat on the few ounces difference. Like you said, the bundle price makes it an excellent buy.

Ignoring range, I would rate the performance of the lenses like this: 18-55 (sharpest), 18-105 (less sharp but decent on distortion) then 16-85(marginally sharper than 18-105 but worse distortion that all). That may not agree with the reviews, but it is my experience as I have, or have had, all three. Adding the range into it, the 18-105 is best overall.

Photobug

Don't forget that the 17-55mm F/2.8 is very sharp as well. It's a great lens although a little large and heavy but I don't mind it. The quality of pictures is excellent.

DaveyJ

Wow! spraynpray's comments on the three lens is pretty interesting and will lead me to 1. add a 18-55 (they are inexpensive, readily available, and would work well for extreme back packing. The lens I own though is the 12-24DX Nikkor, not a 10-24. That lens is amazing. It is also EXPENSIVE. The 16-85VR I have used, thought was pretty good, but Thom Hogan's rating and spraynpray's is awfully far apart. Thom Hogan's advice though is if I own a 12-24DX Nikkor the 16-85 makes less sense.

The 18-105VR I use a lot and have no problems with. It is not a lens that seems as marvelous as the 12-24 but it very useful. I also shoot and own the 18-200VR Nikkor and that lens is on our D7000 all the time. The lens most often on our D7100 is the 70-300VR. So in summary, based on spraynpray's assessment of the 18-55VR is I am buying one ASAP. The 17-55 2.8 though for me is totally out. Yet in low light that might be a lovely lens. The lens that comes out as a kit lens on the D400 in September 21 will be very interesting. Australian sources say that may be a 18-55VR3??? Any kit lens Nikon offered for a D400 would be , I guess, a pretty good one?

Photobug

Although I am ready to buy a D400; would probably not buy the kit lens. Agree with Daveyl, what ever they use for a kit lens on the D400 better be good. A new 18-55mm VR3 would be interesting.

And yes, my 17-55 F/2.8 on the D300 is a great lens in low light...and good light too. (grin)

PB_PM

It's very unlikely an 18-55mm variable kit lens would be released with the D400. If it was coming, it would have made more sense release it with the D3200 or D5200.

Photobug

If it was a 18-55mm F/4 kit lens with dust protection I would think it would be available on the D7100 and D400.