What's the best lens combos for Nikon D7100 do you use for portraits & events?

[stevenseelig]

<p>I use the following lens 95% of the time: 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VRII. Rarely leave their respective bodies. <br>

I occasionally use a 85mm f 1.8 and a 14-24 f2.8.<br>

Bodies change pretty frequently, but lenses don't change that often. The 24-70 and 70-200 are FX lenses, but will work very well with a DX or FX body. And someday, if you go from a dx body to an fx, these will work well. The same is not true for a dx lens on an fx body.<br>

If you need really low light performance, consider the primes.</p>

[purplealien]

<p>I've just bought the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (earlier non-VR version) for events and I'm very pleased with it so far. It was very good value for money, very sharp and the focus is much quicker than my 18-105 kit lens.</p>

<p>It also focuses pretty close - it's the closest focussing lens I have, so will give me more creative options (detail shots).</p>

<p>I am using a D90 so can't offer first hand experience of how it holds up on a 24MP sensor, but the various reviews I consulted suggest it's as good as the Sigma.</p>

<p>I prefer primes (I have the 35, 50, & 85mm f/1.8 trio), but I don't think I could cover a rapidly moving event using them. I would miss a wide angle option, and would miss too many shots changing lenses (I only have the one body at the moment).</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Ziad:</p>

<p>I shoot with primes for the most part and my kit includes 28 1.8 a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8. For me when I am using my d7100 dx format camera i think that I have it covered. The new 35 1.8 is superb as well.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the various reviews I consulted suggest it's as good as the Sigma.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i had the non-VC Tamron 17-50 before i had the Sigma. IMHO, the Tamron is sharper, especially at 2.8. the difference wasnt enough for me to dump the lens though.</p>

[memory_mill]

<p>Nothing beats actual tests. All might look great on paper but if it's not taken to the field it's like chasing the wind. I guess we can say there are two camps of lenses to go with here: The zooms 2.8 and primes 1.8 I did a few tests with my 50mm 1.8 and took 2 shots indoors, low light with both wide open and stopped down to 2.8. The 1.8 was a clear winner. The question that struck me was when will i ever shoot indoor receptions/events in low light without using a flash? I have a diffuser cup and had great results shooting even with a 3.5 kit lens. Pairing the flash with a zoom 2.8 for indoors seems to be the way to go. If i need more reach i'll just get closer. For indoor sports, i'll probably need a fast 200mm (probably an f2) which i don't have the money for right now. This takes care of our indoor reception type events. Whether i'll go for a 24-70 or a 18-50 will boil down to budget.<br>

For outdoors, i guess anything can do, heck i got great shots using a 300mm f4.5, with enough distance you get enough DoF for your liking. i can perhaps add a 70-200 2.8 when i have no time to change lenses and an 85mm 1.8 for portraitures.<br>

I have a wide 11-16mm Tokina, i'll buy the Sigma 18-50 and 50-200 2.8 and later add the 85mm.<br>

That should complete my set for just about anything. Thank you all so much for your guidance and great info.</p>

[ashna_s]

<p>I use a 24mm - 85mm nikkor vr lens ... works really well, you have the ability to shoot wide and telephoto</p>

[danny_burdick]

<p>D7100 ....I have all the primes and I like the 35mm AF-S DX 1.8G wow what a super lens...but when I need a midrange tele I saved up and spoiled myself with a 17-55mm DX AF-S 2.8 very expensive but worth every penny...nothing by any third party comes close to dead on fast fast fast autofocus like the real thing...and this thing is a tank... cost me $700 used but in excellent condition...and now when not shooting primes or long distance birding...that 17-55 2.8 is setting on my D7100 24/7.</p>

<div></div>