'Daily' zoom for d7100

[Sway]

Committed what I've been told is a cardinal sin, and spoken to the other half about her Christmas present...

My other thread was geared around a good macro/portrait lens, but I simply couldn't decide between the compromises in the available options given we only have a 35mm f1.8 at the moment.

So, after a protracted negotiation, a good daily zoom lens is now top of the list. I'd love the seemingly excellent 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor, but I've been told to stop being silly.

So, any point looking past the Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 for a similar cost?

Then we'll be looking for a portrait lens to go with the best macro I can afford - the Sigma 105mm.

All suggestions welcome, but must be new or absolutely mint assured second hand.

[Gad-Westy]

Take a look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or non VC or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. Both are 'poor' man's Nikon 17-55 2.8 alternatives offering similar image quality without the build quality. Well worth a look at some reviews. Otherwise the 16-85 is a fine performer.

[creampuff]

You could also consider the Nikon 18-200. Some people rubbish it as the image quality is not as good as some mythical £2000 lens that weighs twice as much, but he 18-200 really does everything. I use it more than my....... £2000 lens that weighs twice as much!

[creampuff]

Macro - do you actually take pictures of small things?

You could forget about the macro lens and buy a portrait lens/general purpose lens which really is fking amazing: the full frame Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

[Janesy B]

creampuff said:

You could also consider the Nikon 18-200. Some people rubbish it as the image quality is not as good as some mythical £2000 lens that weighs twice as much, but he 18-200 really does everything. I use it more than my....... £2000 lens that weighs twice as much!

The IQ isn't even as good as a £250 tamron.... Sure it does everything, but not very well.

[Sway]

creampuff said:

Macro - do you actually take pictures of small things?

You could forget about the macro lens and buy a portrait lens/general purpose lens which really is fking amazing: the full frame Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

Yep, the missus loves it, so it is a requirement...

I acknowledge the quality of the 24-70, but that's some serious budget creep and still leaves gaps in the range.

Will check out the Sigma/Tamron offerings.

[Simpo Two]

Sway said:

Then we'll be looking for a portrait lens to go with the best macro I can afford - the Sigma 105mm.

So you're going to have a 35mm f1.8, a 16-85mm, a 105mm macro and then a portrait lens as well?

[Sway]

Simpo Two said:

Sway said:

Then we'll be looking for a portrait lens to go with the best macro I can afford - the Sigma 105mm.

So you're going to have a 35mm f1.8, a 16-85mm, a 105mm macro and then a portrait lens as well?

Well, when you put it like that!

I used to have a 105mm f1.nothing (1.2 I think from memory) manual focus Nikkor that cost me buttons. Bloody stunning lens for subject separation and formal portraiture. So will aim for a 70-85mm equivalent second hand.

Macro is important for the better half, and the 105 is lovely, where the other offerings seem to lack (the Nikkor 85mm could double up I suppose, but the close distance with macro is likely to be an issue for flying insects etc.), it's just too long for 'normal' portrait work but is likely to come in handy as a nice middling telephoto, especially with the option on the d7100 of a further 1.3x crop.

All subject to change over the next few months of course!

[creampuff]

I'd seriously think about getting a compact P+S camera for macro. It will cost less than just one macro lens, it will be easy to use, it will focus down to maybe 1 or 2 inches from the front of the lens and it will have larger depth of field, which you may want for macro.

Then save up and buy the Nikon 24-70

[Simpo Two]

creampuff said:

I'd seriously think about getting a compact P+S camera for macro. It will cost less than just one macro lens, it will be easy to use, it will focus down to maybe 1 or 2 inches from the front of the lens

But distance from the lens is not the same as magnification, lighting can be an issue that close and as said nervous critters will fly away. Sounds to me like the OP wants to do it as properly as budget allows, and if that means he needs a sherpa to carry his lenses, so be it

[Sway]

Pretty much that Simpo.

I'm not envisioning a scenario where I'll be wanting to take all lenses with me - hence a daily zoom for walkabouts, and so on.

I was very comfortable and proficient with both 35mm and medium format, now on a whole new learning curve a decade later with digital instead of analogue. Whilst I'm at the start of that curve, my previous knowledge means I don't want to stay there too long!

[james_tigerwoods]

Any reason why an 18-70 or 18-105 couldn't be your daily lens?

Cheap and decent enough - then add on the other special lenses?

[NormalWisdom]

I recently bought the Nikon 18-300 as my "everydayer", it is really rather good though heavy for some.

NW

[Mutley]

Can't help re macro, but I find this site helpful
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon

[woots787]

I've got a sigma 17-50 os on my d7000 and love it. pretty heavy and a touch soft at 2.8 but great value. Well built although not weatherproof and the zoom ring turns the "wrong" way for Nikon lens users. I'd really recommend one, I only use my 50 1.8 if I need to save weight now. Thom Hogan site called dslr bodies has a good lens guide on it that is worth a read.

[Simpo Two]

Sway said:

I was very comfortable and proficient with both 35mm and medium format, now on a whole new learning curve a decade later with digital instead of analogue. Whilst I'm at the start of that curve, my previous knowledge means I don't want to stay there too long!

You've done the physics, you just have to add the electronics, aka digital imaging. And of course you can change the speed of the film mid-card

You may get a dip in results until you get the hang of it but then you will be off and away...

[Sway]

Cheers guys, some reading for tonight.

Simpo - thanks for your comments, although it doesn't feel that way at the moment! I am adding in the complication of colour for the first time, it just wasn't feasible as a colourblind person to consider in the days of film...

Great shots on your website, and I really like your ethos as a 'bloke with a camera', very man with van!

Edited by Sway on Monday 9th December 19:33

[Simpo Two]

I hadn't picked up on the colour-blindness; interesting. So where I see '56' in the Ishihara plates you see an electric rabbit called George?

Digital imaging opens up infinite possibilities for black and white, because there are infintite ways to convert colours into greys (or colour tints). You may enjoy using Photoshop's 'channel mixer' function.

Thanks for the kind comments - though I'd like to upgrade to 'Man with a Jag' please!

[Sway]

I meant the name, not the general calibre!

Sorry, posted up a couple of threads in this section over the last few days, but yes, I'm colourblind.

Had to get a special dispensation whilst at uni to skip the colour modules, which surprisingly was hard work - as though they'd never had a colourblind fine art photography student before.

My tastes, and aims are very different now - I'm no longer a stoned, idealistic hippy with delusions of changing the word one image at a time. I'm a stressed project manager with two kids and little hair!

Decision is made after some reading and a chat with the missus - gonna go for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8, and stretch the budget a little and throw in the Nikkor 50-200 kit lens as a cheap way of covering the bases, with image quality where it matters. That'll do to get us started, along with CS5.

Accessories will be next in plan, filters/tripod/etc.

Then more lenses once I've shot several thousand pounds worth of 35mm film equivalent!

[Simpo Two]

Sway said:

Then more lenses once I've shot several thousand pounds worth of 35mm film equivalent!

Ah yes; the more you shoot on digital the more money you've saved, thereby providing more money for extra stuff. Splendid logic

I shot my last roll of film in 2004; it was a surprise and rather profound when I realised 'That's it..'.