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

greekgod086

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 31, 2012
7
0
Hello. I'm thinking of getting a D7100 to step into a more intermediate range. My question is does the 18-105mm kit lens offer any substantial advantages over the 18-300mm DX 3.5/5.6 lens?

I use my current camera to shoot landscapes, family events, and some street shots. I have the 18-300mm described above, a 35mm DX 1.8 prime, and a 24-70mm FX 2.8 that I'm borrowing from my friend (and might purchase later on).

If the 18-105mm only offers minimal advantages then I might just get the body only.
 

MCH-1138

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2013
448
543
California
I don't see what the 18-105mm would add, assuming you are keeping all of your existing lenses (each of which it overlaps). It is smaller and lighter than the 18-300mm, but you would obviously lose a significant amount of reach (which I will assume you use).
 

greekgod086

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 31, 2012
7
0
Yes, especially if I end up getting that 24-75 lens. I think it's about 35-100 on a crop frame camera? It's more expensive and maybe a bit heavier, but from what I understand and from pictures taken it's a really nice piece of glass.

Thank you for helping me rationalize all this.
 

mofunk

macrumors 68020
Aug 26, 2009
2,421
161
Americas
When you add fast glass to any of these cameras you will get better results. 18-105mm isn't one of them. The first time I added 70-200mm f/2.8 I was wowed ! :)

If you planning to get the D7100 ... also get a plan on which lenses you will like to use the most. I started, myself, a list of lenses to use. Narrowed it down to maybe 3-4. wide angle, walk around lens, zoom lens, and a prime. The walk around (24-70mm range) is what I like to shoot. Some people like 18-200 range. Then prime, either 50mm or 105mm. 50mm + foot zoom vs 105 + no foot zoom. Last a nice wide angle.

If you have the 35mm, start shooting with that until you next move. If you think the 18-300mm will fit your needs, than keep that and maybe down the road get the 24-70mm. Having all three in you bag will fit most of your needs. The only thing is if you need to shoot in low light at a wide range, the 24-70mm may not be enough. I shot an event with the 24-70mm and a few times I needed to go wider. The 17-55mm would have worked but I didn't have it with me.
 

MCH-1138

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2013
448
543
California
I think it's about 35-100 on a crop frame camera?

Yes and no -- on a DX body like the D7100, the 24-70mm will give you a similar field of view (FOV) as what a 36-105mm would on a full-frame body (if such a lens existed). But it will give you the same FOV as the 24-70 range of any lens on the DX body. In other words, the 24-70 range of the 24-70, 18-105, and 18-300 will all look the same (with respect to FOV) on the D7100.

It's more expensive and maybe a bit heavier, but from what I understand and from pictures taken it's a really nice piece of glass.

I have not used the 24-70/2.8, but I understand that it is a great lens -- considered by many (perhaps even most) to be the go-to standard zoom on a full frame body. If you are looking for something similar, but a little wider, you might consider the 17-55/2.8. Another great lens, at least for a DX body, but I would view that as an "either-or" -- you (most likely) don't need both the 17-55 and the 24-70.
 

spacedcadet

macrumors regular
Mar 5, 2009
202
52
Workaday

With the 18-300 you are making a lot of compromises in image quality to allow for the convenicence of the massive zoom range.
That said, I don't expect the 18-105mm to be a vast improvement on that front, better yes, but probably not THAT noticeable.
Recent posts on bythom.com suggest the best sets of glass for recent Nikons, the site is also a mine of information and reviews of Nikon gear.
 

greekgod086

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 31, 2012
7
0
I had a chance to shoot a few pictures while on a field trip with the 24-70mm and I found it to be a really nice lens. The auto-focus is very swift and you kinda get used to the weight.

I would not call myself a professional photographer, but I was very pleased with a majority of the images after processing them through Lightroom.
 

MrD1sturbed

macrumors regular
May 13, 2005
201
0
Having owned both D7100 and the 18-105mm lens, I can tell you that you will not be getting any benefit getting that lens if you already own the 18-300mm. It has the exact same variable aperture throughout (of course the 18-300mm will have a larger zoom, but you'll hit the aperture ceiling right around the same 105mm mark on it as you would the 18-105mm.). Skip the kit, get the body, save the money for that beautiful 24-70mm f2.8! Happy Shooting!:cool:
 

SchneiderMan

macrumors G3
May 25, 2008
8,332
202
I had a chance to shoot a few pictures while on a field trip with the 24-70mm and I found it to be a really nice lens. The auto-focus is very swift and you kinda get used to the weight.

I would not call myself a professional photographer, but I was very pleased with a majority of the images after processing them through Lightroom.

I would get a 17-70mm f/2.8 by Sigma over the 24-70mm and the 18-105mm.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,537
1,644
Redondo Beach, California
Why do you recommend the Sigma over the 24-70/2.8?

First it should be easy to see why the f/2.8 lens is better. But between the two f/2.8 lenses just look at the range. 24mm is not very wide on a DX body. But 17mm is likely wide enough for any kind of normal use. It sounds like only a few millimeters but the difference between 17mm and 24mm s huge
 

MCH-1138

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2013
448
543
California
First it should be easy to see why the f/2.8 lens is better. But between the two f/2.8 lenses just look at the range. 24mm is not very wide on a DX body. But 17mm is likely wide enough for any kind of normal use. It sounds like only a few millimeters but the difference between 17mm and 24mm s huge

Right, I meant between the Sigma and the 24-70/2.8. I just think it is useful to hear why someone thinks one lens is better than another, especially when everyone's uses may vary.

I agree that 17-24 is a useful range on a DX body -- I have a 17-55/2.8 and am frequently at the wider end. So the Sigma has that going for it.

But isn't the Sigma 17-70 a variable aperture lens (f/2.8-4)? So there is a trade-off at the long end in terms of max aperture. What about IQ? I don't have any experience with that lens. Of course, it looks like it costs significantly less (new), but it sounds like the OP has an inside line on a used 24-70/2.8.

I'm not trying to steer anyone away from the Sigma. Just trying to encourage discussion and understand the recommendation. What about the Sigma 17-50/2.8?
 

SchneiderMan

macrumors G3
May 25, 2008
8,332
202
First it should be easy to see why the f/2.8 lens is better. But between the two f/2.8 lenses just look at the range. 24mm is not very wide on a DX body. But 17mm is likely wide enough for any kind of normal use. It sounds like only a few millimeters but the difference between 17mm and 24mm s huge

HUUUUGGGEEE

trump-announcement-desk.jpg


It's because the Sigma has a much more versatile reach, is newer too. ANd it's way more affordable at $500..
 

MCH-1138

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2013
448
543
California
It's because the Sigma has a much more versatile reach, is newer too. ANd it's way more affordable at $500..

Fair enough. That's why I opted for the 17-55/2.8 instead of the 24-70/2.8 -- more useful range (for what I wanted) on a DX body. Although still rather pricey (even when purchased used).

The Sigma 17-70 is variable aperture though, with f/4 at the long end, right? Might be a factor for consideration. How does it compare to the 24-70 in terms of IQ or construction/build quality?
 

SchneiderMan

macrumors G3
May 25, 2008
8,332
202
Fair enough. That's why I opted for the 17-55/2.8 instead of the 24-70/2.8 -- more useful range (for what I wanted) on a DX body. Although still rather pricey (even when purchased used).

The Sigma 17-70 is variable aperture though, with f/4 at the long end, right? Might be a factor for consideration. How does it compare to the 24-70 in terms of IQ or construction/build quality?

I haven't used neither but I know the build quality is on par with Nikon if not better this time around. I'm pretty sure yes, it's a variable aperture but it's a given really at this price.
 

greekgod086

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 31, 2012
7
0
So would that 17-70mm lens be more appropriate for landscape shots? I won't be getting one anytime soon, but it is something that I can make note of. I get my D7100 tomorrow and I have the three lenses I mentioned all ready for use.

I have some other questions regarding some settings and post shooting editing, but I'll try looking for those answers first on my own.
 

MCH-1138

macrumors 6502
Jan 31, 2013
448
543
California
So would that 17-70mm lens be more appropriate for landscape shots? ... I get my D7100 tomorrow and I have the three lenses I mentioned all ready for use.

Personally, I would not get the 17-70 if you already have the 24-70 as one of your three lenses (and intend to keep it) because there is far too much overlap between the two. I would instead look for a separate wide-angle lens (i.e., something in the 10-24, 12-24, or 11-16 range). But that's me.

If you are choosing between the 17-70 and the 24-70, you might find the wider wide end on the 17-70 useful for landscapes. Of course, you might also find that 17mm (on a DX body) is not wide enough for your needs. You can use your 18-300 lens to try that out.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.