The usual "which camera should I buy" question

[D L]

Photographing mobile small children + 18-140mm zoom range sounds good to me. My Mrs talked me into getting an 18-200mm. I was resistant as I wanted something faster/sharper like a 17-50mm f/2.8. Begrudgingly, she was right, as its amazing how two toddlers playing outside can force you to use a huge zoom range. Switching between an 18-55 kit and something longer (I had kit 55-200mm) is impossible with my little terrors for subjects. The 17-50mm is still on the list of "wants" but many decent photos have been captured at long focal lengths thanks to that 18-200mm lens (I think 18-140 will do the trick too).

Have you got a "roadmap" or even a loose idea of lenses you want to acquire as you go forward?
This could make a difference which way you want to go. I'll limit these examples to Canon, Pentax and Nikon DSLR (without making any brand a recommendation, including those not mentioned).

For example, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 (referred to by Richard) and the Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 are almost half the price of the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, at least in Australia. I'm not sure if that's true in other parts. If you head the more budget route with Sigma or Tamron, then this is a moot point.

Another example might be if you do your street photography with an unobtrusive prime? The budget friendly options are the Canon EF-S 24mm F/2.8, Pentax 35mm f/2.4 or the Nikon 35mm f/1.8. Some might rightly argue 35mm or even 24mm isn't wide enough on APS-C size sensor, but it's an example of the budget prime offerings and how you get some difference between the companies.

I can't make any recommendation. I've just thought about it and researched it a bit as I'm eventually going to have to go through the same process as you, from the different perspective of the Nikon equivalent (or close to) of the 1100D (the D3000).

One final comment is that if you are already settled on the Nikon range, you are right to strive for the D7xxx. This avoids a few issues of the D3xxx and D5xxx range for a portrait photographer.
1. The lower level cameras d3xxx and d5xxx can't do HSS (auto-FP sync in Nikon language), regardless of the flash you use. This is important for flash with fast shutter speed in outdoor portraiture.
2. The on camera flash can't act as a master flash for remote optical TTL flash triggering.
3. They lack an internal focus motor which limits the lens selection that will auto focus on these bodies.

[ionian]

Thanks David.

I had a rough plan for canon lenses, but I have pretty much made my mind up now and think it's going to be the Nikon d7100 for me, with the 18-140 lens and the 50mm f1.8 prime (i considered the 35mm but want something primarily as a portrait lens, and I want to avoid distortion, especially as the zoom will have a small amount of distortion at either end - although this is correctable in camera and Lightroom).

When thinking Canon I was planning to add the following in the near-future:
EF-S 24mm pancake
EF-S 10-18mm

...so I guess I'm going to be looking at Nikon equivalents. A very quick google suggests that the wide angled stuff for Nikon is better quality but pricier - so this may need to be postponed as it's not a priority. The 24mm f2.8 seems to be average on the Nikon, and I'm not sure it would add many advantages to the zoom for the shots I intend to do, despite being a couple of stops faster at that focal length.

It's back to the drawing board on lenses - a better camera presents the opportunity to be picky about getting good glass, but it will take longer to acquire. I'm very happy with primes, which is one of the reasons for leaning towards Nikon.

[Manfred M]

I'm trying to figure out the 50mm prime on a crop frame sensors; with Nikon that works out to be FF equivalent of 75mm; too short for portraiture and too long for other subjects. Why not the f/1.8 35mm as a "normal" lens.

I rarely use a 50mm lens on my crop frame, but find it is quite useful on the full frame.

[ionian]

It's a good point - on the canon, the 50mm comes out as 85mm equivalent (I think) which is, in my limited experience, fine for portraiture; the Nikon has a smaller crop factor which needs to be considered. Still, is 75mm so bad, especially considering my main model and muse is less than 2 feet tall (she's cute as a button but has yet to develop the language skills needed to follow instructions)...

I'm not ruling out buying the 35mm, as it is clearly a great lens at a cheap price - but would I be better served with the 50mm to start with? Not sure. Maybe I've got it the wrong way round for Nikon. Maybe I should get both - hey, they wouldn't have invented credit cards if they didn't want us to be in debt, right?

More to investigate for me.

[Polar01]

Simon: sometimes lens can surprise you, one I liked was the Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 now it is a pricey lens, more than the cost of the D7100, now an old lens which ended production in 1999 is the 28-70mm 3.5/-4.5D is a gem hiding in plain sight. As it is a FX lens, on your D7100 it would be as if you had a 34-105, personally I love the little guy and I mean little, small dia. than a 50mm and only a little longer. Great for street work, and the best thing you can get it about $70.00 on-line, I picked it up at an auction for $5.00 .
Just a couple of thoughts.

Cheers: Allan

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Don't forget to at least look at the 18-200 Nikon lens. For someone, such as yourself, on a budget it is hard to beat as an all around lens. Mine is rarely off my D7000.

[ionian]

Allan - it looks like there's a whole world of new lenses to look at - I'm in photo geek heaven researching them all.

Alan - I've had a look at the 18 -200, but the deal I plan to get bundles the 18-140 at a significant discount. From various sources, the 140 is the sharper lens, although that extra reach could be very useful. Still, I'm confident that I have the right lens for my needs.

I've decided to get the 50mm f1.8 as well as some budget af macro rings for experimenting with the prime - not expecting scintillating results with that set up but would like to know if macro is for me without spending out. I'll look to add a wider angle lens (possibly the tokina), but this is some way down the line, a real macro lens if I take to it, and then see where I'm at.

I also think I'll ask for the Shanny speedlight as a birthday present in a few months - bang for buck it seems very good for an on camera flash, though not great for off camera stuff, but the price is very appealing and the reviews I've seen make it seem a real bargain. Anyone tried it?

That's the next few years of spending sorted then!

[Saorsa]

I've decided to get the 50mm f1.8 as well as some budget af macro rings for experimenting with the prime - not expecting scintillating results with that set up but would like to know if macro is for me without spending out.

You will want to pick up a 52mm reversing ring too. That is an excellent macro combo if only because f1.8 gives you enough light to focus manually

Here is a little writeup on reversing lenses. https://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/201...versing-rings/

[rtbaum]

Just to add to your confusion. I started with a Tamron 90mm Macro on my D90, with this you get 1:1 and a really nice portrait lens.

[JHzlwd]

I have several Nikon bodies, including the D7200. To my surprise, the D7200 is giving my D800 a real run with its high pixel density and remarkably low noise + high dynamic range. Excellent value considering the D800 is almost 3 times as expensive. I find myself using the D7200 more and more because it is lighter, smaller and quieter. There's no beating full frame but the D7200 is so close it makes you wonder.

The matter of having to buy new lenses is significant. If you have a considerable investment in Canon lenses it would certainly be rational to stick with that brand. Canon makes great gear. But if you are considering Nikon the D7200 is an excellent choice unless you want to spend a lot more. I would skip the D7100 just to get the much better image buffer.

[ionian]

Ok, decision made - despite the last minute indecision about the newer or older model, I've pulled the trigger on the d7100. The better image buffer was tempting but I will need to use it infrequently and the saving has allowed me to pick up a variety of extras, including the speedlight, macro tubes and reversing ring, and filters. This will expand my horizons significantly. I also noted that the older sensor on the 7100 is supposedly better for highlight details, not that I'm sure my eyes (or the size of prints I usually end up producing) will be able to tell.

Glass-wise, as I mentioned above, it's the 18-140mm with VR and the 50mm f1.8. The 35mm will probably be on my birthday list, although I may be better served getting a shorter focal length. That's general shooting well covered without having to carry much. My old camera and glass are ebay-bound...

I'm going to be stalking the postman for a few days!

[Donald]

Ok, decision made - despite the last minute indecision about the newer or older model, I've pulled the trigger on the d7100.

I'm sure you will enjoy it and make many fine images.

[Dave Humphries]

I'm sure you won't regret the D7100 Simon, in usability terms alone, over a basic entry level model like the 1100D, it should keep you smiling

I love my D7100, although two features I would like are the adjustable LCD and the bigger buffer (of the D7200), but I certainly can't justify upgrading on my limited finances.

If you don't need those, that's great, correct decision!

[mrinmoyvk]

I'm sure you won't regret the D7100 Simon, in usability terms alone, over a basic entry level model like the 1100D, it should keep you smiling

I love my D7100, although two features I would like are the adjustable LCD and the bigger buffer (of the D7200), but I certainly can't justify upgrading on my limited finances.

If you don't need those, that's great, correct decision!

Adjustable LCD at a price of less buttons on body (to be precise)