satya_a

I know that we are way past the eclipse, but I have a question on this topic... When I was young, we had several used x-ray films and we put together two or three of them (not sure how many exactly) to watch partial eclipse with naked eye. Does anyone know if that is a safe option and can be used for cameras as well? If yes, then do you know where one could buy a few sheets of x-ray film instead of using some pictures of broken legs and other body parts? Thanks.

If in your situation, I would not get rid of the D750 just because it will lose value. So what? Why do you need to sell it after a year at that lower value? Why not use it as long as it lasts? On the other hand, another $2000 camera that you buy today may lose even more value! So, it's not any better. Coming to your question, if your D750 doesn't have enough resolution for landscapes or you have another such reason, then it is a good idea to think about replacing it. As others have pointed out, D810 is probably Nikon's best landscape camera as of yesterday (did D850 come out today?) All the best.

<p>Steve: That is an excellent picture.<br> As I said before, the 18-105mm is a very good kit lens. And from all the reviews I have seen, the 18-140 is comparable. Especially with the discount when bought with a camera, they have excellent price-performance benefit over all other lenses. Of all the affordable lenses I have tried, nothing produced visibly better results than my late 18-105mm.<br> Thomas: I agree that 20mm is not very wide on DX but is closest to the 35mm FX focal length I am looking for. It sure is a bit expensive.<br> Owen, Jim, Delwyn, others: I understand your recommendation of 35/1.8 DX and completely agree with it. There is no better lens at $200. I use it comfortably outdoor/bigger space. When using indoor, the 35mm is not wide enough for me. I grew up with a 36mm film camera and feel at ease with that focal length (~24mm on DX). I am not used to lenses wider than that. Even at 28mm FX, I have spoiled many shots with bad composition.<br> I am looking forward to try 24-85 VR, 16-85 VR and Tokina 12-28 f/4. I will borrow them from friends for a few days or rent them from a local store when available. I am not buying/returning this time.<br> Many online recommendations say not to buy lenses with overlapping focal length but I find that impractical. For example, the 18-140 will serve most general situations. At specific times only something like Sigma 18-35/1.8 can do the job. When one can afford, I think it is useful to have these multiple lenses.<br> Until I find that right combination, my DX 35/1.8, 50/1.8G and 70-300 VR will find good use.<br> Thanks.<br> Satya</p>

<p>Thanks to all for sharing your opinions and suggestions so far. This will help me zero in on one or two lenses from a wide choice out there. I will look up more reviews and tests of the lenses you have recommended.<br> I did not consider Sigma 18-50/2.8 earlier but it seems to be a good recommendation. After trying and returning three lenses I am hesistant to try another until I am sure of it. That is the main reason for my post.<br> Wouter:<br />Your question is very valid and in line with my observations. When I say indoor lighting, it is mostly CFL/LED lights that are 'warm' type not 'daylight' type. I get close to natural looking colors with WB set to around 2700K, except when there is a mix of outside light from the windows. Shadows quickly turn a lot darker under these lights.<br> I did notice with my 18-105 that it had some difficulty due to the flat lighting or low contrast you mention but it did better than the 24-120 VR, 18-200, etc. Just as occasional bad pieces, may be I had a good one! In outdoor daylight, they are all very close to each other. The 18-35/1.8|A produced consistently better pictures in any lighting.<br> Sorry, 24-85VR was a typo; that is not one of the leses I tested.<br> I notice from test results that 17-70 doesn't show much improvement from D7000 to D7100. Does that mean it is lacking in resolving capability for the new 24MP DX cameras?<br> What I feel strange about Sigma lenses is that their zoom rings are not consistent in direction. The 18-35|A is consistent my my Nikon. So was the discontinued 50-150/2.8 OS. The 17-70|C and 18-300|C are the opposite. Does it bother others or do you just get used to it?<br> I probably should try the Nikon 16-85 VR and hope that it will perform better than some bad reviews suggest.<br> I did think about 18-140 ($200 discount if I find a friend buying new camera). It has similar performance as 18-105 and metal mount. I may still miss a faster lens at 24mm but will the flash solve that problem?<br> I do have a bounce flash but haven't actively used it. I need to get used to the bounce technique and learn which way to bounce in different rooms for best results (because one has vaulted high celing while the other has low false ceiling).<br> I wish Nikon made a 24mm/DX lens that matched the optical quality of the DX 35/1.8G even if it was f/2.8 and priced 50% more. I have everything else I need except this :)<br> Don't hesitate to share other viable recommendations or suggestions on details above.<br> Thanks.<br />Satya</p>

<p>Hi, I have seen many recent posts about D7100 and lens questions. None of them fits my situation. Hence this, which may bear some resemblance to other questions.</p> <p >I stopped using a kit zoom (since it broke) and want to replace the wide angle range with a good prime. Based on my shooting preference and needs, the following are my focal lengths:</p> <p >* 30-35mm (DX 20-24mm) - 40% - missing a lens in this range</p> <p >* 50mm - 30% - I use 35/1.8 DX lens</p> <p >* 85mm - 10% - I use 50/1.8G</p> <p >* Tele zoom - 20% - I use 70-300mm VR (travel, outdoor events, etc.)</p> <p > </p> <p >What I need is a prime lens for indoor/family pictures, that performs well on D7100. I noticed that 'affordable' zooms don't perform so well on this camera. I tried 18-200 VR II, 24-85 VR, the older 24-120 VR and Sigma 24-70/2.8. None of them produced images visibly sharper than the 18-105 kit lens but they're all heavier and/or more expensive. I did not try the Nikon 16-85mm DX or Sigma 17-70|C because of so many mixed reviews. I never tried a prime lens in this range.</p> <p > </p> <p >The only lens that produced excellent IQ was the Sigma 18-35/1.8 but it had other issues. First and foremost, it was too heavy to carry around all day. Second, because it's a zoom, its range is neither true wide-angle nor a standard all-round. It is a good substitute for 20mm, 24mm, 28mm AND 35mm primes (that's actually great) but it is too heavy as a primary lens for my use.</p> <p > </p> <p >What would you recommend for good IQ/performance on D7100:</p> <p >1: Nikon 20/2.8D (my first preference if it is up to D7100 performance)</p> <p >2: Nikon 24/2.8D (my second preference if it is up to D7100 performance)</p> <p > </p> <p >Other less preferred options I think about are:</p> <p >3: Going back to Sigma 18-35/1.8 if it's the best option (knowing that I will probably use it less than I want to, due to its weight)</p> <p >4: Nikon 20/1.8G (don't know if it outperforms the Sigma but costs as much and is significantly lighter)</p> <p >5: Tokina 12-28/f4 DX zoom (probably as good as brand name zooms in this range but significantly cheaper)</p> <p > </p> <p >Thanks!</p> <p >Satya</p>