D7100, 18-105mm question.

[greekgod086]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[SchneiderMan]

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.

 

[MCH-1138]

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

Why do you recommend the Sigma over the 24-70/2.8?

 

[ChrisA]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[MCH-1138]

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]

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]

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]

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.