Lens recommendation for Nikon D7100

[Dave A]

Mike thank you for that well thought out response to my questions. In the next few days I will be posting images that I took in FL under the foliage canopy I mentioned. I will mention this post at the same time so anyone who helped me out here can see the images for themselves and thus comment as to whether noise in my images is more than would be expected in the shooting conditions and camera/lens settings.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

When you post the images for evaluating the amount of noise and the probable causes of it, you'll need to post full-size images that have not been post-processed. That's because people will need to evaluate the histogram of the capture (as opposed to the histogram of the post-processed image) and the amount of noise in the full-size image.

I don't remember whether full-size images can be posted at CiC. If not, post them at a file-sharing site and provide a link to the site.

You'll also need to provide the information about the type and size of output that you want to take into account when determining your personal tolerance for noise. As an example, if you are only concerned about displaying images on the Internet, the tolerance for noise in the full-size image is very different than if you want to regularly make 20" x 30" prints.

[NorthernFocus]

...The lens is compatible with the Nikon D7100 but the OS unit is in the standby mode for up to a minute after shooting so the scanning feature of the camera will be slowed down for that time period....

Yes this is the same phenomenon. But I didn't notice nor would care about the scanning issue. The impact on battery life was an issue for me. The OS remaining in "standby" for a minute consumes power. Keeping in mind that OS activates every time you either half-press the shutter or the BBF button whether you fire the shutter or not. So every time that's a minute of electronic load on the battery rather than a few seconds with a proper acting lens. I bought the lens with forethought assuming it would not be a problem. But as I said, for my needs it turned out that it was too much battery drain.

If one can remember to switch the OS off when not needed and/or can live with the reduced battery life, it is an excellent lens. MUCH sharper than the Nikon 16-85mm that I had used previously.

[NorthernFocus]

...In the next few days I will be posting images that I took in FL under the foliage canopy I mentioned. I will mention this post at the same time so anyone who helped me out here can see the images for themselves and thus comment as to whether noise in my images is more than would be expected in the shooting conditions and camera/lens settings...

You should recognize that our opinions will hardly be objective criteria. First, like Mike said what is "too much noise" is subjective. On top of that for someone to visually look at an image and determine if it looks appropriate for a given camera sensor/lens combination will have no basis other than (well intended) personal opinion.

But please post your shots. We'd love to see them. And we'll surely share our opinions

[Mike Buckley]

First, like Mike said what is "too much noise" is subjective.

That's of course true, but perhaps it will help for me to clarify. As an example, let's assume that Dave explains that his only concern is for output displayed on the Internet, that the full-size image is properly exposed and focused, that it displays noise at 100%, and that no noise is visible to anyone at a size that is typically displayed on the Internet. In that situation, which I don't think is particularly extreme, the feedback will probably be helpful because everyone will immediately recognize in that context that he has no valid concern about noise.

He will then have to come up with a different excuse to buy another piece of gear.

[Dave A]

He will then have to come up with a different excuse to buy another piece of gear.

[William W]

. . . I will try to add some more information and better explain what I mean by "better low light performance." . . .

Thank you for addressing my question.

I concur with much that has already been written, here below in point form, for brevity is my summary – this summary does not imply that any or all points apply to you and your skills set particularly, but they are a “check list” if you will, that you might consider:

1. ISO800 is not “high ISO” for your camera. Your camera is capable of delivering Publication Print Quality (half page A4) at ISO3200.

2. IME based upon my interrogation of many hundreds of images using >ISO 800 and those images cited by the Photographer as “too noisy” - the main contributing factor has been UNDER EXPOSURE.

3. The second main contributing factor for “too noisy” has been incomplete or inadequate Post Production and/or ignorance of how far the exposure can be pushed (to the right) for the particular camera used (it varies with cameras) and being able to still recover the highlights.

4. The main contributing factor to 2 and 3 (above) is ignorance/inexperience of the DIFFERENT functionalities of the Camera’s TTL Metering System and METERING MODES for different LIGHTING SCENARIOS.

5. “too noisy” is (too) often reckoned by the Photographer screen viewing at 100% (or greater) and this, whilst a logical practice for many aspects of Post Processing, it is an illogical process for the ASSESSMENT of defining an ACCEPTABLE NOISE THRESHOLD: the first criterion to establish the Acceptable Noise Threshold is the OUTPUT USE(S) of the image file. Additionally the OUTPUT USE(S) of the image file are a major criterion for the choice of the ISO, in the first inst..

Concluding: In concert with due consideration of the points above - I think the best course for you would be to use higher ISO on the D7100 and evaluate: at this time I advise not to buy any new lens.

***

On the other section of your OP - with regard to the purchase criteria for a new ZOOM lens and the typical shooting scenario which you have outlined:

Firstly any consideration of a FASTER and BETTER IQ zoom lens to replace the existing compass of 18mm to 140mm, would require at least the purchase two zoom lenses, possibly three.

Breaking down the existing 18 to 140 zoom compass into three parts:

At the wide zoom range (18 to 35):
For maximum Aperture Speed you have the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM and then a selection of 17ish to 50ish F/2.8 (non-varying maximum aperture) Zooms and varying maximum zooms to 70mm.

A salient point being for any consideration of MAXIMUM APERTURE SPEED GAIN your existing lens (a varying maximum zoom) has the following Maximum Apertures available at the FLs indicated:
18mm f/3.5
24mm f/3.8
35mm f/4.2


The Standard/Short Telephoto Zoom Range (35 to 70):

There are many F/2.8 Zoom Lenses in the range 24ish to 70ish and at a non varying F/2.8. There will be more than 1 stop gain at all FL when contrasted to your existing lens which has these maximum apertures available at the FLs indicated:

35mm f/4.2
50mm f/4.8
70mm f/5

The Telephoto Zoom Range (70 to 200)

There are many 70 to 200F/2.8 options, each affording quite a substantial Maximum Aperture GAIN of 2 stops, when contrasted to your existing lens which has these maximum apertures available at the FLs indicated:

(approx). 78mm f/5.6
140mm f/5.6

One main purpose for my laying out the comparatives of the maximum aperture GAIN is because whilst at first glance it might be tempting to buy one of the 17ish to 50ish F/2.8 zooms on the premise of “the increased lens speed” I think often due consideration is not taken that at the Wide to Standard FL there is not really that much increase in the Maximum Aperture when an F/2.8 Zoom is contrasted to many the Kit Lenses.

On the other hand, there are other reasons why one might wish to replace the Kit Lens with an F/2.8 zoom in the wide to Standard/Short Tele Range (17ish to 50ish) and one good reason for that is for a general improvement in image quality – when the lens is used at the MAXIMUM APERTURE (that last clause is important).

***

My last bit of advice concerns buying the next lens – I think that many make the mistake of buying a new lens as “to replace” or “to upgrade” without placing enough consideration on how the LENS CACHE works for themselves as a Photographer, within their own WHOLE camera kit.

A very simple example which I have noted quite a few times - “Wedding Photographers” – read on forums “a 70 to 200/2.8 is a must have lens for Wedding Photographers to have in their kit” – and so many actually do go out and buy one . . .

Firstly that advice is often given without reference to the camera FORMAT being used – which (IMO) is incompetent advice at the least.

Secondly, I have caught up and or followed up with several of those who have bought a 70 to 200/2.8 and most often than not (though be it sometimes difficult to extract the information from them) – based on shots delivered/sold to the B&G: the 70 to 200/2.8 is the LEAST used lens in their wedding coverage, often accounting for less than 20% of the deliverable shots and (more importantly) the overwhelming vast majority of the shots using the 70 to 200 were shot at 200mm (mostly all being long shots in the Church).

So for those particular Photographers rather than have all those $$$$ invested in an heavy 70 to 200/2.8 - a better choice would have been to buy a (less expensive and lighter) 200/2.8 Prime or a (less expensive and lighter) 135/2 Prime and maybe a x1.4 TeleExtender or use the 135/2 and crop in Post Production.

Trust you see that simple example as a template for you to assess your choices based upon OUTPUTS – not others’ outputs but your outputs.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

1. ISO800 is not “high ISO” for your camera. Your camera is capable of delivering Publication Print Quality (half page A4) at ISO3200.

I just have to put the spotlight on your comment, William. I see so many people talking about the so-called poor high-ISO performance of the D7100 and D7200 that I'm completely stymied. I use the earlier-generation D7000 and I always shoot handheld at Auto ISO that is limited to ISO 6400. That's only one stop more than your correct explanation that the camera can deliver publishable quality images at ISO 3200. If I get a wonderful image at ISO 6400 that isn't good enough to be published at ISO 3200 because of the noise, I really couldn't care less; I would rather get the image with a bit too much noise than not get the image at all.

Thank you also for supporting my comments that proper exposure is required to achieve the least amount of noise.

Additional thanks for support that these decisions about ISO and noise are not effectively made in a vacuum; they're to be made in the context of the user's outputs.

[NorthernFocus]

Wow, Bill, that was quite a discussion of the subject. All well stated. I completely agree with the entire discussion on the lens selection. I own one of the subject 70-200 f2.8 lenses and the only time I use it is for shooting indoor events. Which means it is one of my least used lenses. I subsequently bought the 70-200 f4 and us it outdoors when I need that focal range. It is one of my favorite lenses. Small, light, and just as sharp as the 2.8, maybe better.

Regarding you discussion of noise performance, you're spot on that what is acceptable noise level is dependent on the intended use of the image. However not all of us know in advance what the ultimate use of an image may be? So minimizing noise on every image maximizes the potential usage. Advantageous if one is building a free-lance portfolio.

It is my observation that the inordinate amount of attention paid to noise performance by amateur photographers is mainly due to pushing images to extremes by 1) underexposing during capture and "pushing" in PP, or 2) heavy cropping due to limited lens inventory and not having adequate focal length for the desired subject matter (e.g. little birdies), and 3) expecting to produce a poster size print from such pushed image.

[Dave A]

Thank you Bill for that detailed explanation on the subject. Excellent discussion.

Dave

[William W]

Thank you for the kind comments John, Dan and Dave. Yes I agree, ALL the commentaries in this thread comprise a good discussion.

*

A few other notes, specifically referring points mentioned in Post #28 and #29

[Post #28] . . . I would rather get the image with a bit too much noise than not get the image at all.

Yes. I concur. And on that in mostly all cases –a bit of Noise is better than Subject Motion Blur - this is a related point, not about ‘having too much noise’ but ‘avoiding noise’. The Photographer underestimates or is ignorant of the Shutter Speed required to arrest Subject Motion Blur – for example I see a lot of this at Camera Club Meetings where I might be Judging or be leading the Discussion – Mum and Dad photographing their kids’ sport will reel back in horror when I suggest pumping the ISO to ISO1600~3200 for a DAYLIGHT winter soccer game (for example, they are using a 70ish to 300ish F/4~5.6 Lens).

*

proper exposure is required to achieve the least amount of noise.

This is one of my pet ‘get out the soap box’ topics. Can’t be reiterated enough. For many modern cameras once we get to about ISO1600 accuracy in half stops does seriously count toward getting a better final mage apropos 'noise'.

*

decisions about ISO and noise are not effectively made in a vacuum; they're to be made in the context of the user's outputs.

Not many Photographers really think through: Aperture / Shutter Speed / ISO / Camera Viewpoint / Focal Length of Lens, based upon their output (i.e. Final Usage and Viewing Medium) - AND - many do not think through the VISION of the shot.

That certainly is NEITHER stating NOR implying that “snapshots” are unacceptable or should be avoided and also that is NOT stating or implying that we cannot “think in batches”, for example to establish the ISO for a walk in the park and set and forget the camera to an automatic mode, like P Mode and relax and concentrate on the visual elements only the framing, composition and the light.

*

[Post #29] . . . I own one of the subject 70-200 f2.8 lenses and the only time I use it is for shooting indoor events. Which means it is one of my least used lenses. I subsequently bought the 70-200 f4 and us it outdoors when I need that focal range. It is one of my favorite lenses. Small, light, and just as sharp as the 2.8, maybe better.

The example of the Wedding Photographer and the 70 to 200/2.8 was multifaceted: in addition to the Wedding Photographer not using the lens enough to attain adequate shots for money invested, my implication was that many simply do not have the funds to buy the lens in the first place and or allocate funds to such a lens when those funds should be allocated to other equipment: the greatest example of this is the number of “Wedding Photographers” who go out with ONLY one camera body and/or ONLY one Speedlite and/or no insurance and a "contract" that they downloaded free as template from the internet . . . but carrying their prized 70 to 200/2.8. . . and the credit card interest used to buy it.

Lens and Camera buying choices and criteria for personal use, are different: but the point I wanted to make was when making those choices I think it is still wise to consider usage for the dollar spent . . . but on the other hand if it simply gives one great joy to own a 600/4L then that too is a consideration for a personal purchase: as an example - all my business life neither I nor my company have ever owned a 400/2.8 - but I have used one and still do, quite often.

*

. . . what is acceptable noise level is dependent on the intended use of the image. However not all of us know in advance what the ultimate use of an image may be? So minimizing noise on every image maximizes the potential usage.

Agree, that we don’t always know the final use: but in reality I think that we do mostly all of the time. Also, this point highlighted an omission which I made - I meant to state clearly that as a general rule we should try to keep the ISO as low as possible.

This is where Preparation and Procedure (or lack of same) have an impact. Some Photographers simply don’t have a procedure for choosing: Aperture; Shutter Speed; ISO; Camera Viewpoint; and Focal Length – often they simply have not thought about a procedure for ALL of those elements, many I note think about Aperture and many of those think only - “Shallow Depth of Field” for Portraits and “F/16 for Landscapes”. I’d suggest that there’s a lot more to think about.

*

. . .inordinate amount of attention paid to noise performance by amateur photographers is mainly due to pushing images to extremes by 1) underexposing during capture and "pushing" in PP, or 2) heavy cropping due to limited lens inventory and not having adequate focal length for the desired subject matter (e.g. little birdies), and 3) expecting to produce a poster size print from such pushed image.

Yes, I agree – certainly add both “heavy cropping due to not adequate Focal Length [or getting closer]” and also: “[unfounded expectations] to produce a poster size print from such pushed image.” to the list.

*

Yes good discussion, thank you so much.

WW

[Dave A]

I said I would provided a couple images without any editing. Here is one. I'll post another.
I tried using Dropbox to link to but the meta data was stripped.

[Dave A]

Another unedited image.

[William W]

Some comments on the first image where the EXIF states that it was at ISO800 so I assume this was one of the images about which you had ‘noise’ concerns.

This image appears to be underexposed. Although I did not measure, my experienced guess is that the image is between about 1⅔~2 ⅓Stops underexposed. Initial evidence is the histogram:



*

Roughly Adjusted here:



The (major) reason that the image is underexposed is likely the METERING MODE in combination with the AUTOMATIC CAMERA MODE which were selected.

EXIF reveals the METERING MODE used was CENTRE WEIGHTED AVERAGE and the CAMERA MODE was A MODE (Aperture Priority ), Exposure Compensation = 0.

In CWA Metering Mode, although the meter takes into account the whole frame, the Meter will bias (weight) the exposure to a small area in the centre of the frame. In this case the whole of the biased (weighted) area used for the meter’s calculation would be the path - and the meter would interpret that as “Photographic Grey” – which it probably wasn’t – it was probably lighter than photographic grey?

Also the resultant exposure calculated by CWA is often dependent upon the TYPE of Lighting Scenario that it is metering. In this particular image there is basically a slab of lighted area (the path) and a slab of shadow area (the trees) and not much in between. This is evidence by the “Two Bump” Histogram.

Although I haven’t used Nikon for several years, my guess is that the TTL Meter’s Algorithm for CWA in your camera and for that particular lighting scenario really did “average” a slab of shadow area with a slab of light area (which it calculated DARKER than it actually was) and the result was a general underexposure of the whole image.

Your Camera User Manual will probably provide a few scant details about when to use CWA Metering Mode – possibly good for backlit portraits and the like.

My view is to treat these User Manual Notes as starting point suggestions and at the first possible opportunity make comparative shots for the same lighting scenario using CWA and MATRIX and learn how your Camera’s TTL Meter works and what information it is providing to you, in various different Lighting Scenarios

My view also is that Nikon’s MATRIX MODE is difficult to bring unstuck for most Lighting Scenarios and that MATRIX METERING mode would have got you closer to a correct exposure for that lighting scenario.

*

The other element about TTL Metering to consider is generally the Meter will be conservative even in modestly aggressive Lighting Scenarios, that is to say the TTL Meter will not want to blow too many highlights as its first action, instead it will drop the exposure to conserve the highlight detail.

Note in this image there appears to be some dappled sunlight on the path and my guess is even if you used MATRIX MODE the TTL Meter would not have blown those areas . . . and arguably a small portion of those areas could have been pushed to the limit of the DYNAMIC RANGE of the sensor and still have been recovered in post production. In other words even if you used MATRIX MODE I think that the image would still have been a tad underexposed.

If you want to over-ride the TTL Meter when you using an Automatic Camera Mode, such a A Mode; then use Exposure Compensation.

WW

(If you want copies of those Histogram images then download them because I routinely clear the server of other people's images.)

[tclune]

This image appears to be underexposed.

I guess these things are always debatable, but my sense is that the OP got the exposure just about right. The darkness of the path is part of the attraction of the image for me. Making the path sunnier also makes it less interesting -- there's a "heart of darkness" vibe that is sacrificed in the brightened up image, at least for me. FWIW

[William W]

I guess these things are always debatable, but my sense is that the OP got the exposure just about right. The darkness of the path is part of the attraction of the image for me. Making the path sunnier also makes it less interesting -- there's a "heart of darkness" vibe that is sacrificed in the brightened up image, at least for me. FWIW

The ARTISTIC INTERPRETATION of the FINAL IMAGE is neither in debate nor in discussion.

The image supplied was "without any editing" and Dave's query was concerning "too much noise".

The relevant factor is the INITIAL EXPOSURE of the image file is underexposed. i.e. the Photographer did not use all the DYNAMIC RANGE available (evidenced by the Histogram as mentioned).

*

The FINAL IMAGE can be made with a lighter or darker path and a lighter or darker shadow area to suit a number of artistic tastes - that is an act of POST PRODUCTION.

But if the EXPOSURE of the shot is not correct at the time of the shutter release, then the shadow areas will render more noise than necessary, and this was the OP's concern and was the concern which was being discussed in Post #34.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

The (major) reason that the image is underexposed is likely the METERING MODE in combination with the AUTOMATIC CAMERA MODE which were selected.

I have pretty much decided that the reason an image presented here such as this one that is not an action shot and probably did not have rapidly changing light is underexposed is because the photographer either didn't check the histogram immediately after taking it or doesn't understand how to use the histogram. The former situation is really easy to fix and the latter situation is somewhat easy to fix. I'm not trying to be glib; I'm trying to be helpful.

[Mike Buckley]

Dave,

I don't see any noise in either image at the size uploaded here. Regardless, a discussion of noise is irrelevant for me if we don't know what your intended output is going to be when evaluating noise.

If you upload full-size JPEGs to Dropbox and then provide a link to the folder that we can click, the EXIF data will not be stripped when we download your images to our computers to evaluate them (at least not if you don't change the default settings; I don't even know if they can be changed).

[Dave A]

Bill excellent explanation of what you are seeing. Certainly gives me ideas of what to try and more importantly why I should. I was using CWA for close up work and never thought about changing it for more general photography. Lots to remember of which should become second nature with experience I guess.

Dave

[Dave A]

Mike right now my output is mostly web based but I also just recently started printing some images (commercially) to see how they look. I just did several 10x12's and an 11x14. I expect I will have more enlargements printed but not too large, probably between 10 to 14 inches on long side.

I'm also a little embarrassed to say that I don't really understand how to read the histogram. I read a little and watched a video or two but haven't grasped what it all means. If you know of a good video or an article that would help me comprehend the histogram I would appreciate it.

Dave