Whoops. New camera incoming.

[conkerman]

Well it seems I have managed to order myself a D7200.

Now on the lookout for a macro/portrait-ish lens. And a fast zoom lens.

I have a 50mm f1.8 and an 18-200 which hasn't come off my old D90 that much.

[Simpo Two]

conkerman said:

Now on the lookout for a macro/portrait-ish lens. And a fast zoom lens.

Wide angle, mid-range or telephoto zoom?

Your 50mm lens will be good for portraits but no good for bugs.

[conkerman]

I was thinking of a wideish zoom.

Something like the sigma 17-50 F2.8 or 17-70 F2.8-4

I was thinking the Nikon Micro 60mm AFD would be a good macro lens for a crop sensor, the seemingly default choice of a 105mm is just too long for anything else (based on setting my 18-200 to 105 and taking pictures of the kids).

[Simpo Two]

conkerman said:

I was thinking of a wideish zoom.

Something like the sigma 17-50 F2.8 or 17-70 F2.8-4

I haven't used those but can recommend the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8; it's my general purpose lens and has done many weddings. Very affordable now s/h.

conkerman said:

I was thinking the Nikon Micro 60mm AFD would be a good macro lens for a crop sensor, the seemingly default choice of a 105mm is just too long for anything else (based on setting my 18-200 to 105 and taking pictures of the kids).

Good choice, I had that lens and it was very good. I swapped it for a 105mm as the 60mm didn't have much working distance for macro.

[ExPat2B]

Nikon 85mm DX Macro lens

[Yellabelly]

Son has the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on his D7200 and I can vouch for the sharpness of the lens both central and edge to edge. I have to say that it is much sharper than my Nikkor 17-55 f2.8, that I used on my old D200 and it was supposed to be THE standard for Nikon Dx cameras.

[conkerman]

The 17-50 will be along shortly, but my first priority is a macro/portrait lens. I'm a total newb to macro shooting, but I have a thing for close ups of flowers rather than bugs. And going longer than 60mm on a APS-C sensor makes portraits abit too unwieldy.

I have a used 60mm f2 tamron reserved for pickup locally. I'm not sure whether this is a real alternative to a Nikon.

[andy-xr]

Tamron 90mm is stupidly sharp, a little too sharp for portraits as sometimes you need a little bit of give for skin, especially on ladies. But, it'll do it and do it well. It's not the quickest lens to focus, for macro you'll probably be on MF to help it out and then if you want to let the AF do it's thing you can. Very phallic though

[Simpo Two]

Yellabelly said:

Son has the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on his D7200 and I can vouch for the sharpness of the lens both central and edge to edge. I have to say that it is much sharper than my Nikkor 17-55 f2.8, that I used on my old D200 and it was supposed to be THE standard for Nikon Dx cameras.

Could it be perceived sharpness because the D7200 has more than twice as many pixels than the D200? Swap the lenses around to see (and if shooting JPG remember that sharpening is added in camera).

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 9th September 12:19

[Yellabelly]

Simpo Two said:

Yellabelly said:

Son has the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on his D7200 and I can vouch for the sharpness of the lens both central and edge to edge. I have to say that it is much sharper than my Nikkor 17-55 f2.8, that I used on my old D200 and it was supposed to be THE standard for Nikon Dx cameras.

Could it be perceived sharpness because the D7200 has more than twice as many pixels than the D200? Swap the lenses around to see (and if shooting JPG remember that sharpening is added in camera).

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 9th September 12:19

John, he recently shot a wedding with the Sigma on his D7200, I checked it on the laptop and when zoomed in on the brides eye the detail was incredible, I wouldn't call it perceived I'd call that real sharpness!

[Simpo Two]

Yellabelly said:

John, he recently shot a wedding with the Sigma on his D7200, I checked it on the laptop and when zoomed in on the brides eye the detail was incredible, I wouldn't call it perceived I'd call that real sharpness!

Yes but you're not comparing like with like. The camera has 2.4x the resolution and you don't know what sharpening was applied in post. Science dictates that to reach an accurate conclusion you can only change one variable at a time. You're changing the camera, the lens, the processing and the photographer.

[justin220]

Really interested to find out how you get on with it, if you don't mind posting your thoughts?

I'm still rocking a D40x and tempted to upgrade.

[conkerman]

Well.

I have a Sigma 17-50 arriving tomorrow. For £250, you can't really go wrong

First thoughts on the D7200 are.

It is a sturdy bugger.

Low light performance kicks the arse of the D90. Been cocking about with the 50mm F1.8. I like it

I haven't picked up a macro lens as I need to learn a bit more before spending out some dosh. Which is unusual for me.

[conkerman]

Sigma 17-50 arrived today.

Based on the few shots I managed to get off around the house earlier, It's really rather good.

I am extremely please with my purchase.

[conkerman]

Need to get out and do some 'proper'shots with this new combo.

I think my 50mm F1.8 is now redundant. I'll have to keep an eye out for a Sigma 50-150 OS, If I can find one.
That along with a Macro should cover most eventualities.

Then I have a D90 and Nikon 18-200VR spare.

[andy-xr]

conkerman said:

keep an eye out for a Sigma 50-150 OS, If I can find one.

I had one and used it for lots and lots of headshots. Was great, just the right focal length for portraity type stuff and a bit of general walkabout to get detail shots. f2.8 at 150mm was a bit tricky but passable. I tended to use it mostly on a tripod and have studio lighting set up though, so speed and aperture werent my number 1 priority. I sold it when I got the 28-300, which was a really really good all rounder and it made me eat my words when I'd said superzooms were all st

[justin220]

Thanks for posting your thoughts.. Very tempted myself!