multi-purpose lenses

[basilio4]

can someone please guide me as to witch lenses in the 18-300mm range is best suited for a nikon d7100 camera.

[Manfred M]

So far as I know, there is only one lens on the market that is 18-300mm, and that is made by Nikon.

Sigma has an 18-250mm and Tokina an 18-270mm.

Any lens with that great a focal length means that the lens designers have made some fairly significant compromises to get such a range in the focal length (nicely said, expect some softness and distortion, especially at the extreme ends).

[basilio4]

would it be better to get two lenses, for example a 18- 70 and a 70-300mm?

[Manfred M]

Better? There are a number of tradeoffs that you deal with every time you make a choice about the lenses you are planning to buy. You have to decide which ones are important to you. I don't have any personal experience with any of the lenses you are looking at, but there are some generalizations.

1. The 18-300mm lens may have more distortion than going to the two-lens combination you are looking at, but with the greater focal length, you won't have to change your lens.

2. The two lens combination 18-70mm and 70-200mm will likely produce images with less distortion and softness than the 18-300mm, but you might lose some shots while you are changing lenses.

3. Neither of the lenses are particularly fast at the long end, so you will have to shoot with a tripod or high ISO settings when things are not super bright out.

etc, etc...


Only you can decide which trade-offs are going to be best for you.

Let me give you an example:

My wife virtually always shoots with the Nikkor 18-200mm lens on her D90, because she doesn't like changing lenses. I on the other hand shoot the f/2.8 24-70 and f/2.8 70-200 because I like the fast lenses and often shoot wide open to give me the shallow depth of field. I also bought these two knowing that I would eventually upgrade to a full-frame sensor camera and these lenses would work on that type of camera.

Personal requirements dictate what you will want to buy.

[rtbaum]

I pursued a similar path as you are contemplating. I own a D90 and opted for a Tamron 18-270. It served me well as a first lens and allowed me to determine where I wanted to proceed on my photographic journey. It now languishes on a shelf as my interests have developed to more extreme areas of macro and telephoto which require more reach, speed, or closer focusing. I never regretted my decision, but often wondered if should have opted for the two lens option.

[jcuknz]

As I have frequently said ...I was saved from the DSLR by lack of finance ... and was introduced to a bridge camera by Nikon.
It was a revelation for somebody used to a heavy bag of body and lenses, there was one minor rarely needed feature it couldn't do.
The main problems with the bridge camera is that it uses a small sensor which limits one's use of higher than base ISO and the degree of enlargement reasonably possible [ A3 maximum].
I plugged for a larger sensor bridge camera in forums over the years but was ignored
So when I read a review about MFT I decided not to wait, I didn't want the weight and size of the DSLR but MFT seemed a good intermediate step and with the 14-140 lens I have 28-280 Angfle of View which was what I had with that first wonderful Nikon Bridge which is still in use.
Since I am more interested in what the photograph is saying than looking for technical glitches I do not often notice anything wrong and usually am delighted at the image quality the gear gives me ....so if you frequent a circle of pixel peepers and the like then obviously you need the x3 zoom or better primes but otherwise .... remember it is the brain behind the camera that makes the good and meaningful photograph.

Recently I did a test of my digital stable and noted the best result came from my E-PL1 with its Pentax prime ... the camera cost me US$178 and the lens perhaps US$25 back in 1996 [ a package of two lenses and a body for US$60 from Cash Converters when I was on holiday with only MF and video camera] So if you want to go the ILC way then go for short zooms or primes but it seems like Manfred's wife I find changing lens a un-neccessary bore

[davidedric]

Well, I went the other way - but with the same result. I went for the two lenses, but then bought the Tamron 18-270 as a walkabout lens, and it sits on the shelf. If I were sensible I would sell it and buy a micro 4/3 with just one lens to start with, and take it everywhere.

[Brev00]

I started out with a Tamron 28-300 (leftover from film days) on my Nikon D90. After a year or so, I split up the zoom buying first a Tamron 70-300 vc. The idea there was to improve the quality of my action shots. I used to take pictures of my daughters' ice skating and wanted a lens with faster, more precise focusing and greater sharpness long. The additional vc worked a treat and I continue to use this lens for a variety of applications including my younger daughter's soccer. I then considered my needs in a midrange lens. Since I like to shoot flowers up close, I got the Sigma 17-70 os which has nice bokeh and a neat capacity for closeup shooting. As I have gotten to know the lens, I have expanded the uses to include landscape photography as well as portraits.

What I am trying to say is that buying two lenses gives one the opportunity to respond to one's shooting style with specificity. You can think about what you like to shoot and act accordingly. Of course, shooting with the superzoom helped give me a greater understanding of what I like to shoot. And, after a couple of years of shooting mainly with the 70-300 and the 17-70, I find myself using the Tamron 28-300 more and more. It is a great travel lens. It is light and its lack of vc, which can be a drawback, is also a plus since it does not drain my battery while I am away from home. My Sigma, with its os and hsm, is also prone to problems and is back at Sigma for the second time. So, it is a process and either decision will take you to a higher place with your photography, albeit on a slightly different path.

[GrahamS]

can someone please guide me as to witch lenses in the 18-300mm range is best suited for a nikon d7100 camera.

Your camera is only as good as the lens you use. The D7100 will not perform to it's full potential with a "superzoom" lens such as the 18-300. Buy a Nikkor AFS 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 G ED VR and a Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G IF ED VR and you will be away to the races!

Nikon 16-

[Polar01]

The two lens that Graham suggests are great lens, a step down from the very top f/2.8 lens which cost much more. I find that I use the 16-85mm on my D7000 80% of the time the rest is with the 70-300mm. Now the 70-300mm is not a fast lens as it is f/4.5-5.6 however it is as fast a light in focusing on it's subject one of Nikon's fastest focusing lens now as it will be mounted on a cropped camera it will equal the viewing area as if you had a 105-450mm on a full frame camera.
good combo

Cheers:

Allan