D7100 vs D7000 + Single prime question?

86JR · 18 Oct 2013 at 13:17

Hi. Was about to order a D7000 but the D7100 is out, I was just wondering what the differences were in laymans terms and is it worth the price difference?

I also want to stick to Primes this time around - so if you had to choose a prime and stick with it, what would you choose? I am not going to buy anything like 24g/35g/85g/135 etc until I am proficient... I realise from the past I have a lot to learn so I am just starting again really.

I was looking at the following.
Nikon 35mm 1.8G
Nikon 85mm 1.8G
Nikon 50mm 1.4G

Which one would you choose?

James J · 18 Oct 2013 at 13:28

28g instead. About 35mm equiv on crop and performs very well also

Janesy B · 18 Oct 2013 at 15:09

If were only buying the one prime, go with the 35.

dannyjo22 · 18 Oct 2013 at 15:24

85mm for me, of course it all depends on what you shoot but for me 55-85 is my most used range.

Amp34 · 18 Oct 2013 at 16:06

Janesy B said:
If were only buying the one prime, go with the 35.

I bought one last week and I've got to say after using it extensively for 3 days (was on holiday and needed an emergency lens) I'm not too happy with it. I used to have a Canon 35 f/2 on my 400D and loved it, sharp, little distortoin or other problems. The 35g seems the opposite, it's sharp but has a lot of distortion, CA and fringing. I'm guessing it's a sweet spot of a FF lens on a crop sensible vs a crop lens on a crop sensor but I wouldn't recommend it. There must be better Nikon fit 35mm lenses around.

35mm is a lovely focal length (or 28mm) for general shooting, I just wouldn't recommend the g.

Janesy B · 18 Oct 2013 at 16:14

Maybe the Sigma would be the better bet?

Amp34 · 18 Oct 2013 at 16:33

The sigma is supposed to be pretty soft at the edges. Possibly a good portrait style lens (if you like the focal length) but not necessarily for landscape where you want edge to edge sharpness.

K.C. Leblanc · 18 Oct 2013 at 16:45

Really depends a heck of a lot on what you want to shoot. The 35 will probably be the best walkabout lens. I've got one and it's great for close up portrait work in low light, but when I go out for a wonder I tend to get out the Tamron 17-50 instead.

Also for the price of the 85 1.8 you could afford both the 35 f1.8 & the 50 f1.8 af-s.

86JR · 18 Oct 2013 at 17:57

I had the nifty fifty before on the D300s and D70 and to be honest, I rarely used it. It was super sharp etc but I found it was not wide enough for what I needed, also it was too shallow to hold properly on a gripped D300s.

D.P. · 18 Oct 2013 at 18:20

twoblacklines said:
Hi. Was about to order a D7000 but the D7100 is out, I was just wondering what the differences were in laymans terms and is it worth the price difference?

I also want to stick to Primes this time around - so if you had to choose a prime and stick with it, what would you choose? I am not going to buy anything like 24g/35g/85g/135 etc until I am proficient... I realise from the past I have a lot to learn so I am just starting again really.

I was looking at the following.
Nikon 35mm 1.8G
Nikon 85mm 1.8G
Nikon 50mm 1.4G

Which one would you choose?

The 7100 has a higher resolution sensor without an antialiasing filter, so providers more details and crispness. Noise and dynamic range are similar. It also has the 51pt pro autofocus of cameras like the D800, the points cover most of the scene. That is the biggest differences.

For prime lenses I would probably go for the 35mm f1.8G DX but it really depends what you want to shoot.

86JR · 19 Oct 2013 at 02:42

When you look through the viewfinder, is it a single rectangle which you can move around? This is what I loved the most about my D300s, as you could selectivly focus on something that is not directly in the middle of your viewfinder, and then if you or the target moved, it would track it.

MrWhippy · 19 Oct 2013 at 11:38

I bought a D7000 about three weeks ago. Paid less than £500 for the body.
For me I couldn't justify paying over £200 more for the D7100. It was a value for money argument for me.

Anyway, it's a stunning camera, I doubt you'll be disappointed with either model.

D.P. · 19 Oct 2013 at 12:38

twoblacklines said:
When you look through the viewfinder, is it a single rectangle which you can move around? This is what I loved the most about my D300s, as you could selectivly focus on something that is not directly in the middle of your viewfinder, and then if you or the target moved, it would track it.

Th auto focus is basically a tweaked version of what you had in the D300s, same AF points and modes but works better in low light and has better tracking.

K.C. Leblanc · 19 Oct 2013 at 15:08

twoblacklines said:
I had the nifty fifty before on the D300s and D70 and to be honest, I rarely used it. It was super sharp etc but I found it was not wide enough for what I needed, also it was too shallow to hold properly on a gripped D300s.

Well then the 85 really won't be a good idea.

But are you sure a prime is the answer?

86JR · 19 Oct 2013 at 22:35

No... but the only zoom I can think of is the 24-70 which is not wide enough on a crop.

James J · 19 Oct 2013 at 22:41

twoblacklines said:
No... but the only zoom I can think of is the 24-70 which is not wide enough on a crop.

Kit lens would be though. The nikon 24-70 is very front heavy on a D7000 also (know this from experience)

D.P. · 19 Oct 2013 at 23:43

twoblacklines said:
No... but the only zoom I can think of is the 24-70 which is not wide enough on a crop.

What about eh Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 then, rock solid and great performance, basically a 24-70mm for crop.

Amp34 · 20 Oct 2013 at 01:25

It's a good lens, shame it doesn't have VR. I have it and it is great (if a rather heavy for its range*) lens.

*but then it's the only true pro grade dedicated crop lens out there AFAIK. Properly weather sealed and fully metal outer body.

I've come to the conclusion that walkabout lenses on crop bodies are always going to be a compromise. Either go primes and have the annoyance that comes with that, get a long range zoom and suffer consumer build quality** and more important slow glass or end up with a fast zoom (such as the 17-55) but always feel like you need longer focal lengths. I guess the same argument can be made for all zoom ranges but I think they are not so bad because they all have a speciality, i.e. you put the 12-24 on because you want wide, or you put the 70-300 on because you want long.

** some consumer build quality being better than others...

D.P. · 20 Oct 2013 at 04:07

^^ and it is no different on full Frame though with the likes of 24-70 and 70-200mm f/2.8 vs 24-120mm f/4 and 70-300mm f/5.6 etc. You trade focal length with aperture and build quality. Image quality of even the slower lenses is phenomenal though, my 16-85mm is every bit as sharp and contrasty as my Nikon 24-70mm, but has a much more useful focal range. Same with my 70-200mm f2.8 and 70-300mm, the f/2.8 pro zooms sit there gathering dust as they are just less useful for the most part.

Columbo · 20 Oct 2013 at 10:16

It's also too sodding big and heavy for what it is (17-55mm), I shot for half a day with one a few years ago and I wanted to smash it up.

I'd much rather have the Tamron or Sigma 17-50's over the Nikon, they are about as sharp, cheaper, smaller and have stabilization built in.
It also felt about as balanced as a hippo on a seesaw on my D7000 and you would really have to be Nikon fanboy to justify one imo.

The 16-85mm is simply a better all rounder in my eyes.