Which D7200 two-lens combo? 18-35 + 50-150, or 17-50 + 70-200

<p>I work on a small college campus and have been given authorization to purchase a D7200 and two lenses. Both of these options just about fit within the budget. Any thoughts for one or the other? (Going FF on a D750 or even D610 would be nice, but that was declined for $$$ reasons.)<br /> <br /> Here's what I'll be shooting: indoor events, portraits, students talking with professors, general "life on campus" shots indoors and outdoors, sports action shots, graduation photos on stage, etc. My goal will usually be to get a few very nice shots from a shoot for use on the web or in print, but not necessarily to create a large set of images documenting the event.<br /> <br /> (We have another employee who will be getting a D7200 + 18-140, or some similar combo. They don't know their way around a camera as much and just take lots of general documentation photos at events, etc. We need more photos appropriate for features on our website, in print, etc.)<br /> <br /> It's been a few years since I owned a DSLR, and I shot mostly primes then, but don't want to go that route now. I just want two lenses in the bag.<br /><br />I could go with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 plus a used 50-150 f/2.8 OS:<br />I love the DxOMark ratings and reviews, but would I miss stabilization in the 18-35? I'd probably be going mostly handheld. I also like the idea of using the 18-35 for portraits where we want to isolate the subject but still have a good bit of the surroundings in the frame, such as out about campus or in our theater or bigger rooms indoors. How much of a difference would I expect between the 18-35 and the 17-50 when shooting a wide portrait around 35mm in regards to image quality and subject isolation?<br /><br />Or I could go with a Tamron (or Sigma, I guess) 17-50 f/2.8 VC plus the 70-200 f/2.8 VC:<br />By my shorter lens reaching to 50, I could step up to a 70-200 and I'd like the extra range at 200mm for some events and sports. I like that the 17-50 would be smaller and lighter weight than the 18-35 with the added benefit of stabilization. Would I wish I had gone for the 18-35 or would 17-50 suit me just fine?<br /><br />Anyone have any opinions or suggestions based on your experience carrying just two lenses, particularly any of these? Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>The 18-35mm zoom range is great on an FX body, as it can be the only wide-angle lens you need. However, on DX, IMO it is an inconvenient zoom range. You are better off with a moderate-wide-to-short tele zoom; something like 24-70mm/f2.8 on FX is very popular. The DX equivalent would be something like 17-50mm/f2.8 DX, which is also very popular.</p>

<p>I shoot events and concerts professionally with two D300s bodies, one with a 17-50mm f/2.8 (you can choose either Tamron or Sigma, I like the Tamron), the other with a Sigma 50-150 OS f/2.8. It is an absolutely great combination for shooting what you mention.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input so far! I'm curious to see if anyone else has anything to add about the 18-35, but if I went with the 17-50 as my shorter lens, would you recommend the 50-150 or the 70-200 for the longer end? I'd lean towards the 70-200, but that's without using any of them!</p>

<p>I have a D7000, and I shoot with a 12-24 f/4 Tokina, 24-70 2.8 Sigma and 70-200 2.8 Tamron. <br /><br />While some would tell you to go with shorter lenses like a 17-55 and 50-150, I find that my combination works well for me. The 12-24 is DX only, but the other two are FX, so I'm covered if I should go to FX someday. I like the extra reach the crop factor gives me on the 70-200, and the 12-24 makes up for anything I lose on the wide end of the 24-70.</p>

<p>As Craig suggests, by the same token, as I don't like 18-35 on DX, I also don't like 24-70 on DX. 24mm is only slightly wide on DX. 35mm on FX/24mm on DX could be great for group shots, but you want to leave some room to go wider. Of course, some people have a different opinion.</p>

<p>Another thing I prefer is some overlap in the zoom ranges. Let's take Craig's lenses as an example. He has a 12-24 and a 24-70. That means whenever you cross the 24mm boundary, you need to change lenses (or you use two camera bodies and mount one lens on each). That can lead to frequent lens changes. On FX, I prefer to have e.g. a 17-35mm/f2.8 and a 24-70mm/f2.8 so that there is some buffer in the very useful 24 to 35mm range on both lenses so that I don't need to change as often.</p>

<p>If you shoot landscape or studio stuffs and have all the time in the world to change lenses, maybe it doesn't matter. When you shoot events and photojournalist style, you don't want to switch lenses all the time because you can miss shots.</p>

<p>Again, there are a lot of different personal preferences. To Dave, the only opinion that matters is your own.</p>

<p>I have not used the 7200 but do use a Nikon 50mm on a 700. I would certainly recommend the 50 as it is an outstanding lens for not a lot of money.</p>

<p>I also use a 20mm Sigma which was rated better than the comparable Nikon lens. The Sigma is also excellent so you could consider a 50mm Sigma? Hope this helps.</p>

<p>I have a D7100 that I use a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8. I really like the combo. I have the non VR Tamron and I don't really have an issue. The 70-200 2.8 is the VR1 version, but it is very, very good still. I did try the Tamron 70-200 2.8 at a Tamron event and I have to say, it's pretty good. Focus is quite fast and the lens is lighter than the Nikon. The Nikon is built like a tank though and you will feel it.</p>

I loved my D7000 with Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI. You'll get best results with the Nikon lenses, but they're pricey and heavy.

<p>If the OP has the budget for the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 lens for APS-C, one lens I would consider, again, consider, is the new Nikon 16-80mm E lens: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_16-80mmf_28-4e_ed_vr/<br>

I should point out that I have never even seen one, but from what I read, it is excellent. However, at just over $1000, it should be excellent. It is f2.8 on the wide end but slower @ f4 on the long end. However, it extends to 80mm, which is convenient. But I tend to agree that this lens is on the expensive side.</p>

<p>Dave, it's very hard to predict what lenses you will find most useful because you have a wide variety of activities listed, so no real recommendations on that. However, I do own a D7200 and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and <em>can</em> comment on that. The Sigma on the D7200 is an incredible combo. I recently took it 'waterfalling' in South Carolina and am blown away by the beauty and sharpness of this lens on this camera. For me, it's every bit as good as the best reports I read about it. It focuses fast (enough) for just about anything and I think you would be <em>very</em> impressed with the IQ. Easily the sharpest lens in my bag, including the 50 f1.8 Nikon.<br>

Something you need to know about the Sigma though... it <em>IS</em> a bit of a beast. Think, 1.78# soda can attached to your D7200. Solid as a brick and built like a tank, but small it is not. Or light. I don't care about that so it's not an issue for me but it may to you. And as with any of the Art lenses, I highly recommend that if you do decide on 18-35 lens, buy the Sigma lens dock to go with it. Mine needed correction just about everywhere to bring out its best. It was well worth the asking price.<br>

You asked about subject isolation? Be careful what you ask for. Depth of field can be paper thin at f1.8 so focus placement can get critical but... the Sigma is tack sharp at f1.8 at any of the focal lengths and it would give you slightly more separation than a 2.8. And from all I've read, the 17-50s don't really come into their own until 4.0. (I don't own one so I'm only going on what I've read but we might be splitting hairs for you application). The 17-50 <em>is</em> a more versatile focal length, though. <br>

About the lack of VR on the 18-35... I have been using my D7200 in 'Auto ISO' and allow it up to ISO16000 if it needs to be there. I haven't needed VR or missed it so far. With either DxO Optics Pro or Nikon's Capture NX-D, noise can be easily dealt with if the ISO gets in the stratosphere. IMHO, both outperform Photoshop CC for high ISO RAW conversions even when using Topaz DeNoise.<br>

In all honesty the 17-50 and either 50-150 or 70-200 combo would probably do all you need it to do but I can't get over how amazing the Sigma is. No matter what else I might add to the bag, the Sigma stays. And for the record, I have owned the 18-70 and 18-105 Nikons (and sold them both to get the Sigma) but after having f1.8 constant at my disposal, I would never go back to a slow lens. All that being said, I currently own 4 lenses... The Tokina 12-24 f4.0 (early version), the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, a Nikon 50 f1.8 and the 1st generation 70-200VR (with a TC14-E teleconverter). I felt the gap between 35 and 70 was pretty big, hence the 50 but the 50 is probably the least used lens in my bag... And the 18-35 Sigma is on my camera most of the time.</p>

<p>I hope some of my ramblings are helpful.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I shot weddings for over a year with D7100 and Nikons 17-50mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VR. My suggestion to you would be D7200, Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR1. The lenses can be found used on ebay and are a good value. This will do what you want. I don't think 150mm will be long enough.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The current Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 is strangely not all that much smaller than a 70-200 f/2.8, and the gap between 50 and 70mm is not the worst gap to have. On the short end, yes, 17-50 f/2.8 is a far more versatile tool. And I'd seriously consider the 16-80 Shun mentions. I'm sure the Sigma is a terrific lens, but its zoomrange is really limited for what you're looking to do - a bit more versatility does come in handy, and f/2.8 is reasonably fast still. On the long end, I'd probably rather have the extra reach of a 70-200.<br>

So, 16-80VR, or 17-50 (Tamron or Sigma) with a 70-200 f/2.8. Enjoy it :-)</p>

<p>I feel that any combination will work. The only reason to go with the 70-200 is for sports. The 50-150 is long enough for anything with people in it. If it's not long enough you're simply too far away. The 70-200 is a little too long on DX at 70mm.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 50-150 f2.8 OS but I have the older one and used it professionally many times and it's good.</p>

<p>Whatever you have, you will always need to swap lenses at some point. I always been a two camera shooter which means you can have a wide on one camera and a tele on the other. But you still need to swap lenses. If you have a bag that you can wear and shoot out of, a lens swap is a non issue and should take you less than 10 seconds. I like the Lowepro Stealth Reporter bags.</p>

<p>Which brings me to my next point. You need more than just a camera and two lenses. For instance a good camera bag. And a flash if you are going to do anything indoors. And things like memory cards and what not. Personally I like at least a tripod for some shots but also a monopod. If you intend to shoot any video you need to take that in account as well. <br />Let me add some software to that as well, for instance photoshop. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the gap between 50 and 70mm is not the worst gap to have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>depends. it's actually more impactful in some ways on DX. That 20mm is right in the middle of the portrait range, i.e. 75-105mm equivalent. for indoor portraits, that's probably right where you want to shoot a fair amount of the time. in my own experience, having used tamron 17-50, sigma 17-50 OS, sigma 50-150, and nikon 70-200 VRII, i would go with 50-150 on DX -- unless 50% or more of my shooting was sports/outdoors. Bokeh on 17-50 is nothing to write home about, and i wouldnt expect the 18-35 to be substantially better in this department, just a bit better in terms of subj. iso and especially low-light -- although for non-static subjects, 1.8 could be very thin as Tom mentions. if you can live with a 2x zoom range, the 18-35 seems like an optical winner, but i'm thinking that may not actually matter so much for this type of work, which may be more documentary-style than artistic/editorial.</p>

<p>I'd also like to add that subject isolation on wide focal lengths is not really something that you can do on DX.<br /> You need f1.4 and FX for that.<br /> This is especially true on web sized images. Depth of field is dependent on print size and viewing distance.</p>

<p>Also image quality is not critical on the web or even when used in marketing material up to the the 8x10 size. Getting good colors, contrast and sharpening right is more important.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For giggles, I thought I would include a picture of what the D7200 and the Sigma are capable of. This shot was taken at ISO 16000, during the day. F2.0 @ 125th/second and shot with the 1.3 crop factor turned on. This was converted in NX-D with no alterations to sharpening or noise, etc. I'll send two pictures to show clarity and depth of field and ISO/noise. The 1st is the complete capture and the 2nd a 100% crop. The depth of field is extremely shallow. With the 1.3 crop this comes in @ 38mm although taken at 19mm. BTW, using crop factor in the D7200 @ 35 = 68mm.</p>

<p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Crop.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>This shot was taken at ISO 16000, during the day. F2.0 @ 125th/second and shot with the 1.3 crop factor turned on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ISO 16000? or 1600? seems like you could have just used a faster shutter and lowered the ISO .</p>

<p>ISO 16000. It was early in the morning and had been raining. Very overcast. I use/was using Auto ISO and chose the shutter speed and f-stop. Camera chose the ISO.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>ok, but you are asking us to evaluate the optical quality of a lens with a shot you took at ISO 16000 on a DX body. obviously its pretty noisy. and with smeared pixels from NR. stands to reason if you really want that lens to put its best foot forward, you'd give us a 1.8 or f/2 shot at base ISO.</p>

<p>Given the description of use in the OP, I assumed (and maybe falsely) that the ultimate optical performance isn't the most important thing here. The lenses are chosen to do a job, and need to be flexible enough for that. All the tests I've seen of the Sigma 18-35 show it is an impressive performer, and I don't doubt it is. But it isn't really the point here. Its zoomrange, reading the needs in the OP, could very well be problematic. If all-out optical performance was the key, the suggestion would be a nice list of primes anyway.<br>

Eric, true it catches part of the portrait range, though 70mm on DX is really quite nice for portraits too (the old 105mm lenses never were a bad choice either, after all, and still aren't). But yes, if one expects a fair number of portraits, it's right to consider if that gap wouldn't be a bit nasty. My preference for the 70-200 was more because of sports, where the extra bit of reach would be nice. It is a balancing act, and the OP probably has something to chew on to check where the priorities (or the best compromise) would be.</p>

<p>I'd advise getting some flash gear rather than blowing all the budget on wide-aperture lenses. Formal portraits need formal lighting, plus the high ISO ability of the D7200 is pretty astounding. The D7200's BI popup flash is very limiting. A Tamron VC 70-200 f/2.8 zoom (which has great IQ) will have portraits and sport pretty much covered, but I'd save money on the wide-angle end where a wide aperture is often unnecessary. Like group/team shots for example - where you'll need to use off-camera lighting equipment for decent results.</p>

<p>BTW. The optical quality of the 18-140mm VR kit lens is more than adequate for web and publication purposes, and doesn't need to be stopped down to gain adequate depth-of-field. Best bang-for-the-buck I've yet seen in a Nikon lens.</p>

<p>P.S. to the above post.<br>

Either I've been extremely unlucky with Sigma lenses, or they just make a load of c**p! I've just had the zoom ring of one of their "Apo" lenses seize up solid on me. That'll make it an almost 100% failure rate in one form or another (unacceptably poor IQ or build-quality) from every Sigma lens I've ever owned.</p>

Option 2. This is an easy call. You're talking about work where getting the shot is much more important than having the

most sharpness possible. You want practical gear only. With the 18-35 DX lens and the 50-150 you could get more

sharpness in some shooting situations (but with the obvious limitations of handheld shooting) but you can't go from group

shot focal length to the short tele you want for individual shots without changing lenses.