Advice required - Wide lens for Nikon 7100

[i know nothing]

As the title states, I have a Nikon D7100.

I also own the following:-
1) Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8G
2) Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm 1.8G
3) Nikkor AF-D 80-200mm 2.8D

I'm not up to date with what is available in the market or what is scoring rave reviews. Naturally I have had a look at a few reviews and I'm worried that I might miss something. e.g. I was unaware until a few days ago that Sigma seem to be getting rave reviews and some places recommend them over Nikon. I see a Tokina 11-20mm lens being talked about as being better quality than Nikon. All new to me.

I'm a big huge massive fan of the 35mm (No. 2 above), I suspect it is responsible for at least 70% of all pictures I take. But... I frequently find that I want to shoot wider and it's often when I'm indoors. A good example would be a group shot and the room just doesn't allow you to walk back any further in order to get people in shot. The school play etc. Subject matter would be mostly of people in an indoors environment and the odd landscape photo.

I think I need a zoom ideally, question is, which one? Or should I go for a prime? And what should the focal length range be? Any thoughts/opinions/recommendations gratefully received!

 

[D.P.]

You seem to be missing any kind of general purpose walk about zoom.

You need to decide between flexibility and aperture. I really liked the Nikon 16-85I'm f/5.6 when I was on a crop sensor. The newer Nikon 16-89no f/4.0 is fantastic.

 

[speedyj]

I use the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 on my D7100.

Both Really good lenses.

The 17-50mm would give you something wider then your current selection and its a great stabilised walk round lens also.

The 10-20mm is not stabilised but that's not really an issue when this wide. The 15mm with the crop factor is really wide in use.

Both have been flawless in use.

 

[a1ex2001]

As with both the other replies it looks to me like you need a general purpose zoom and as it is for people indoors I'd look at the f2.8 17-50mm(ish) options sigma and tamron both make good lenses in this range and I guess nikon will offer one as well.

 

[i know nothing]

Appreciate the replies.

I've been doing the "zoom with your feet" thing mostly, and to be honest, I quite like doing that. It has forced me to think a lot more about the composition of the photo. My DSLR journey started off (in 2006) with a D70 kit which came with the Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G DX lens, I think I was a bit lazy with that lens. That camera and lens died and when I bought the D7100 I elected to go more for primes (the 80-200mm I already had from my D70 days). So the 17-50(55)mm range is somewhat familiar.

A local camera shop (I'm overseas) has a nearly new Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm 2.8G ED DX lens for sale right now for £431. I am tempted, but I kind of feel that maybe I should go wider and not duplicate/crossover focal lengths that I already have.

I will definitley take a look at the lens suggested and read up on them, thank you!

 

[a1ex2001]

Given you want to shoot people indoors I would avoid going to wide as the distortion really isn't nice! If you want to add another prime then I'd look at a 24mm or 28mm both are good for the indoor group shot thing and also double up as a nice wider lens for landscape work. Sigma make a 24mm that is supposed to be fantastic.

 

[i know nothing]

Given you want to shoot people indoors I would avoid going to wide as the distortion really isn't nice! If you want to add another prime then I'd look at a 24mm or 28mm both are good for the indoor group shot thing and also double up as a nice wider lens for landscape work. Sigma make a 24mm that is supposed to be fantastic.

I was hoping someone might bring up wide primes! I've been thinking of a 35mm (full frame) equivalent, i.e. 24mm. The same camera shop I mentioned above has a second hand Nikkor 16-35mm f4 lens for £585 and I believe that's quite a sharp lens (on FX cameras, presumably just as sharp on a DX?). Would 20mm be too wide?

 

[Holst1981]

I'm pretty happy with my nikon 16-80 2.8-4

I used to have a 17-55 2.8
The 17-50 was pretty heavy and the new lens is a better range for me, sometimes IS is handy.
But it is expensive for what it is.
Sigma 17-50 might be better value.

Personally I prefer to use a zoom for this range but as you already have quite a few primes I would look at a 24mm prime.

The new nikon 10-20 should be fairly cheap but I've not seen any reviews yet and 20mm might be a bit wide.

 

[i know nothing]

I'm pretty happy with my nikon 16-80 2.8-4

I used to have a 17-55 2.8
The 17-50 was pretty heavy and the new lens is a better range for me, sometimes IS is handy.
But it is expensive for what it is.
Sigma 17-50 might be better value.

Personally I prefer to use a zoom for this range but as you already have quite a few primes I would look at a 24mm prime.

The new nikon 10-20 should be fairly cheap but I've not seen any reviews yet and 20mm might be a bit wide.

You've touched on something that I had failed to mention and that is the new 10-20mm zoom from Nikon, it's an interesting prospect at the price I have seen mentioned. And yes, it will be very interesting to hear how it performs.

I'm leaning towards a 24mm (35mm equiv.) prime, f1.8 is fast enough, but I've already noticed that the Sigma f1.4 is approx. the same price as the Nikon f1.8. I'm guessing you gentlemen would recommend the Sigma over the Nikon? Are there any trustworthy lens comparison websites?

I see no reason why I couldn't add the new Nikon 10-20mm at a later date if it turns out to be a worthwhile lens.

 

[Energize]

On a crop camera the Sigma 17-35mm f/1.8 seems like an obvious choice, just as fast as a prime, gives you the wide angle you want, and functions as a general walkabout lens. You might as well sell the 35mm you have to pay towards it.

Do you ever find yourself using the 50mm? Reason I ask is because starting off with a 35mm and 50mm is fairly unusual.

 

[D.P.]

Appreciate the replies.

I've been doing the "zoom with your feet" thing mostly, and to be honest, I quite like doing that. It has forced me to think a lot more about the composition of the photo. My DSLR journey started off (in 2006) with a D70 kit which came with the Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 3.5-4.5G DX lens, I think I was a bit lazy with that lens. That camera and lens died and when I bought the D7100 I elected to go more for primes (the 80-200mm I already had from my D70 days). So the 17-50(55)mm range is somewhat familiar.

A local camera shop (I'm overseas) has a nearly new Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm 2.8G ED DX lens for sale right now for £431. I am tempted, but I kind of feel that maybe I should go wider and not duplicate/crossover focal lengths that I already have.

I will definitley take a look at the lens suggested and read up on them, thank you!

"Zoom with your feet" is a a horribly simplified concept that i wish people woudln't teach beginners. You can't zoom with your feet, you can only change location with your feet which will change perspective. If you don't actiely consider both fclalaneth and distance to subject then you will never learn perspective. Zooming with your feet and not changing focal lengths is just as bad as zooming with a lens and not changing location.

Since prime lenses make it harder to change focal lengths because you will need to own multiple lenses, carry them with you and swap them in the filed I recocmend a zoom lens for beggienrs (and anyone who wants to reduce weight and costs, and save time or the risks of getting sensor dirty). Just don't get lazy with a zoom lens, use it how it is designed.


The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens, built like a tank with wicked fast autofocus. It is designed for professional use so is quite big and heavy compared to the 3rd party options.

 

[i know nothing]

On a crop camera the Sigma 17-35mm f/1.8 seems like an obvious choice, just as fast as a prime, gives you the wide angle you want, and functions as a general walkabout lens. You might as well sell the 35mm you have to pay towards it.

This is one of the reasons I started this thread... I wasn't even aware that lens existed! I will certainly take a look at it.

Do you ever find yourself using the 50mm? Reason I ask is because starting off with a 35mm and 50mm is fairly unusual.

No, I don't use it that much, I bought it second hand pretty much on a whim. It's a great lens and it has it's uses, but my main lens is the 35mm by a long stretch. I bought the 35mm and the camera body together initially.

"Zoom with your feet" is a a horribly simplified concept that i wish people woudln't teach beginners. You can't zoom with your feet, you can only change location with your feet which will change perspective. If you don't actiely consider both fclalaneth and distance to subject then you will never learn perspective. Zooming with your feet and not changing focal lengths is just as bad as zooming with a lens and not changing location.

I was certainly guilty of the latter! As a by the by, if I were to compare my photos from my D70 days with the 18-70mm lens to my photos now with the (mostly) 35mm and 50mm primes, there is no comparison. They've changed the way I look at a photo, I find myself thinking about the shot far more, the composition, the overall quality of my photos has much improved. Perhaps it would help if I were to describe myself as an "enthusiastic amateur" who's still learning!

Since prime lenses make it harder to change focal lengths because you will need to own multiple lenses, carry them with you and swap them in the filed I recocmend a zoom lens for beggienrs (and anyone who wants to reduce weight and costs, and save time or the risks of getting sensor dirty). Just don't get lazy with a zoom lens, use it how it is designed.

I have no problem changing lens, whether it be in the field or anywhere else. I've never (touch wood) had a problem with a dirty sensor. I've come across those who literally never change a lens because they're petrified of getting dust inside, I'm not one of those. Every now and then (normally every couple of months) I have a cleaning session, whole bag gets emptied out on the dining table.

The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens, built like a tank with wicked fast autofocus. It is designed for professional use so is quite big and heavy compared to the 3rd party options.

I won't lie, I am tempted. I will pop down this coming weekend and have a look at the second hand one I mentioned above.

 

[i know nothing]

In the end I paid £420 and bought the second hand Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. I'm still playing with it and so far I have only used it outside, so wouldn't like to comment on what it's like indoors. The shots I took outside were spot on, the most noticeable thing was the great contrast.