D7100 Lens Recommendations for Portrait and Landscape

[robert_walker10]

<p>Hello! I am very much a beginner to DSLR photography and excited to get started! I've done a lot of research so far, and to be honest it is getting a little overwhelming so I thought I would reach out to all of you, as you have much more experience and knowledge than I do and see what you recommend. <br>

Right now I have purchased a Nikon D7100. I felt that where I am, and with everything I am wanting to do with the camera, the D7100 would more than accomplish this. With this camera I want to focus on Portrait and Landscape photography while traveling. I don't want to overwhelm myself and buy 3-4 lenses at once. I figured it was probably best to start out with 1-2, and master using those.<br>

Having researched the Portrait lenses, I found that the Nikon 85mm 1.8G would be a great investment and is a lot less expensive than the 1.4G. Looking at sample pictures, it looks like it would do exactly what I am looking for. So I am leaning toward going with this as one..<br>

As for the Landscape (Possibly wide angle lens) I am having a bit more trouble deciding on what to chose. Having researched this I found that the 18-35mm would be a great option, but have also heard that the 12-24mm f/4 would be even better. But again I realize there are other great lenses that I haven't research and I am open to these as well.<br>

With regards to pricing, I would like to stay under $800 for each lens if possible..<br>

My questions:<br>

Is a 85mm paired with a 24mm (or 35mm) a good range for a stater kit?<br>

In your opinion what is a really great lens for landscape photography?</p>

<p>I appreciate any feedback, thoughts and opinions. Thank you again for responding and helping a beginner into this great hobby!</p>

<p> </p>

[Member69643]

<p>One of the problems with APS-C cameras like the D7100 is the lack of decent wide angle lenses for a reasonable price. A 35mm or 24mm is not all that wide on APS-C bodies. Canon finally released an inexpensive, good quality 10-18mm lens last year. Nikon has not followed suit but there are lenses you can buy. Sigma makes a 10-20mm lens that is quite good.</p>

<p>Your portrait lens choice is quite good. Sigma also makes an 85mm with a max aperture of 1.4, but it's a bit outside your price range. Also, keep in mind that an 85mm lens is equivalent to 127mm in 35mm terms. That may be too much zoom for the portrait work you want to do. In a lot of cases, people choose a 50mm lens (75mm equivalent) instead and these can be had for between $200-1000 depending on how high a quality lens you want to get.</p>

<p>Good luck with your search! The D7100 is the smart choice from Nikon, these days. I got one too. :)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To me, 85mm is a bit on the long side as a portrait lens on a DX-format (i.e. APS-C) body such as the D7100, but if that works for you, I can recommend Nikon's 85mm/f1.8 AF-S without any reservation: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/85mm-f1.8-g-af-s/review/</p>

<p>Nikon's 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S lens, however, is now quite dated. I have tried it on the D7100, and on its wide end, i.e. 12mm, corner sharpness is rather poor. See my sample image on the following thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bTT6<br>

There is a newer, 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 DX AF-S as well as a number of third-party alternatives that are not as expensive. I would look into those. I think you are better off with a zoom, as neither 35mm nor 24mm is very wide on a DX body for landscape. While you can use those, I would suggest going with more flexibility.</p>

<p>What would be missing in this set up is a mid-range zoom.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Robert - I have heard nothing but praise for the 85mm f/1.8G. As a matter of semantics, I just want to point out you can take landscape photos with any lens. Some people associate landscape photography with wide angle lens, but this is a personal choice. So speaking personally, I find wide angle is pretty hard to use effectively. Some beginners will use a wide angle to capture a large scene, but the beginner frequently neglects the foreground or the corners. So you often end up with a boring image with very little depth. By all means, get a wide zoom (I have the Tokina 12-24 and I like it). But I encourage experimenting with normal and telephoto perspectives in your landscape photography.</p>

[jorish]

<p>Like Shun I also think the 85 is on the long side. I have it, and I took some nice portraits with it now and then, but I usually like the 50/1.8 better. And lately I've started to use the 60/2.8 micro as well. And I like that too. So, what to recommend... the 50/1.8 if you want to save money and still get a very very good lens. The 60/2.8 micro if you want a lens that can also do macro every now and then. And the 85/1.8 if you're sure you can/want to be farther away from your subject.</p>

<p>As for landscape work, and also very versatile; maybe the 17-50/2.8 by Tamron? The non-stabilised version. They've had a v1, a v2, and now a v3 with stabilisation. The v2 is still readily available and seems to be slightly better than the v3 IQ-wise. Cheap (for a 17-50/2.8), light, and pretty good.</p>

<p>You could check out some tests at photozone.de if you want some more info on the various possibilities.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p> I'm not sure why everyone immediately thinks "the wider the better!" when asked to recommend a landscape lens. Once you get shorter than around 16mm on DX (or 24mm on FF) it gets really quite difficult to compose without including a great deal of foreground or sky - because remember the angle of view increases in the vertical as well as horizontal direction. And panoramas can be easily created by stitching these days.</p>

<p>Besides, there's no "standard" landscape that demands the widest possible angle-of-view. Some views look far better when a longer lens is used to create a compressed perspective; for example side-lit rolling hills, distant mountain ranges, an autumn-coloured woodland, an avenue of trees, etc. Therefore I see no reason why excellent landscapes shouldn't be taken with an 18-35mm zoom. I know that my 14-24mm full-frame zoom rarely gets used at its widest setting for landscapes. For architecture yes, but not natural scenes. And sometimes the temptation to use an ultra-wide lens, simply because it's available, blinds one to other visual possibilities. Better to adjust your inner vision to the lens or lenses you have, than to unthinkingly jump for the widest-angle option. Just my half-penny worth of opinion.</p>

<p>In fact a 17-50mm lens would cover both landscape and portrait use more than adequately on a DX camera. Perspective is governed by distance, not by the lens used.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Therefore I see no reason why excellent landscapes shouldn't be taken with an 18-35mm zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So far on this thread, nobody has suggested that excellent landscape cannot be taken with a 18-35. However, the only 18-35mm zoom that is a DX lens is the Sigma f1.8, which is big and heavy, and f1.8 is typically not needed for landscape.</p>

<p>Nikon's 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S is an excellent lens also, but it is FX and 18mm is not particularly wide on DX. Of course a landscape image doesn't have to be wide angle, but having a wide zoom gives the OP more flexibility such that the OP can try out different focal lengths, as I said earlier:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would suggest going with more flexibility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On DX/APS-C, the 18-50mm (or 16-70, etc.) range is more typically covered by a mid-range zoom, which the OP didn't mention but seems to be an obvious hole, which I also pointed out in my earlier response.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Robert, I agree with Shun - a mid-range zoom would be a good idea. Since you are a beginner, you may be well served by a little patience before spending your full budget. I have the new 18-55VR lens, and it is a great value! You can get a refurbished copy for less than $100. It is small and sharp and has great VR. </p>

<p>The 18-55 could at least serve as a landscape lens until you have a better idea of what kind of landscape photography you want to do. The 18-55 <em>could</em> technically serve as a compromise portrait lens, but it is a small aperture lens so it won't be able to achieve the same shallow depth of field look as the 85mm f/1.8. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Shun, I remember the days when a 24mm lens on 135 film was considered quite exotic and the standard first choice of wide-angle was a 35mm focal length. Nobody in those days really considered themselves limited by "only" having a 24mm or 28mm lens, and excellent landscape and street photography was being regularly turned out. The range of available focal lengths on large and medium format film was even more restricted, and still is to a lesser degree.</p>

<p>I would debate that nobody really "needs" a 10mm lens on DX, and that having more focal length range doesn't necessarily lead to better pictures. In fact getting to know the result you're going to get from a single fixed focal length and learning to see like that lens is a great exercise for improving your ability to pre-visualise a picture and seek out suitable subject matter.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Rodeo Joe, I don't buy those "in the old days" arguments for a second. Once upon a time, ASA/ISO 25 was "fast" film too, but we are now in 2015 and the standards and expectations have changed. People will laugh at your old standards.</p>

<p>It was the OP who brought up the 12-24mm DX lens. All I am pointing out is that while Nikon's own 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S might have been a pretty good lens when it was first introduced in 2003, when a 6MP DSLR was typical, it is no longer a good lens on today's 24MP DSLRs. Once again, time has changed. Since I don't shoot wide with DX any more, I am not that familiar with the current DX wide-angles. However, for more flexibility, I would get something wider than 24mm for FX, i.e. wider than 16mm for DX. I'll leave it to those who are more familiar with current DX wide zooms to make specific recommendations. I think the best choices are probably the third-party wide zooms.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Quite frankly, I would look at one lens for the time being - the 16-80/2.8-4. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To Robert Walker, the OP: Excuse me for asking you a very basic question, since we don't know you at all. Are you familiar with the difference between FX (full 35mm frame) and DX (APS-C) and the so called "crop factor" on DX bodies?</p>

<p>I ask because on FX, at least IMO 85mm would be great for portrait and 18-35mm is also my preferred zoom for landscape, on FX.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>People can scoff at "old fashioned ideas" all they like Shun. I'm simply trying to point out that the human skills of having an eye for a picture and composition will outlive and make insignificant any advances in technology or optics.</p>

<p>To make an analogy: any fool with a computer and some free open-source software can make a studio-quality audio recording these days. But has song-writing and the general standard of music improved as a result?</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I do a lot of landscapes with the D7100. See my folders. I would agree with suggestions for a wide angle zoom that you can afford. My inexpensive 18-70 kit lens (and the 18-105) has done quite well and is sharp enough on the edges. There is a lot of sample variation with these lenses, so you have to test them. Mine is excellent. Spending more gives you a range of brands. Again, test any lens you buy and get a different one if the edges aren't sharp enough. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>assuming the OP purchased the camera body only, i second Dieter's recommendation of the 16-80 as a do-it-all starter lens. 18 on DX isnt particularly wide, and the 18-35 Nikon on a DX body doesnt particularly make a lot of sense, given the other options. i do like shooting wide, although it's not for everybody, but if i was looking for a DX UWA right now, i would either scoop the tokina 11-20/2.8 or the 11-16/2.8 (at closeout prices). I think the 16-80 makes more sense overall if one is new to digital photography; it's long enough on the long end for portraiture, just wide enough on the wide end for wide-angle, and has a reasonable fast aperture of 2.8-4. i would definitely recommend adding at least one fast prime, maybe for portraits, to the mix. but i also agree 85 on DX is longish unless you plan on shooting outdoors a lot. a 50mm like the 50/1.8G gives you a bit more latitude indoors, although 75mm equivalent focal length is just a squeench too short for portraits for my taste. But a lot of people use 50mm lenses on DX or APS-C bodies specifically for portraits. if you got that with a 16-80, you'd really only need the prime lens for low light, subject isolation and bokeh shots. if you prefer full-body portraits, the inexpensive 35/1.8 G is pretty sharp. and, if you're ok with manual focus, Voigtlander makes a 58/1.4 which is pretty close to an 85 on DX.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>I have a D7100. My usual go to lens is a Tamron 17-50mm. You can shoot landscape with this lens too. Like this <a href="/photo/17743621">one</a> .<br /> I did buy a 10-24mm Tamron as well, which is a little more tricky to use. It shines outdoors at F5.6 - F8, but it can get soft around the corners. The 50mm is a really good lens like everyone says, but when I first got the camera, I kept my 35mm 1.8G DX on it. 35mm on APC is a "normal" lens and you can learn a lot by not being able to zoom. Makes you concentrate more. It's $199, but you can find a good used one for less and it takes excellent photos.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Robert, you just got a body, nothing else? If you got the kit lens with the camera, why not just use that for a while until you get a feel for what you're missing?</p>

[raczoliver]

I personally find the 85mm a very useful focal length on

both FX and DX, albeit for slightly different purposes. On

DX it is great for headshots, while on FX I use it more for

head and shoulder type portraits as well as a general

walk around lens. In fact, like many others, I use a

135mm lens on FX quite a lot, which gives a similar

angle of view to the 85 on DX.

 

I have never used a lens that was wider than 24mm on

FX or 16 on DX, and never missed it, but that's just me.

You can get a general purpose zoom lens or go with two

primes, either one works, but you'll develop a different

approach to photography. One description of the

difference, which I recently read on the net, said "a prime

lens draws you to the picture, while a zoom draws the

picture to you". I think that's a very appropriate way of

putting it. Either one will get the job done. I think the

more sensible approach is to use primes more in the

beginning, that way you learn what each focal length

gives you, and you will better appreciate the versatility

of a zoom lens later on. Instead of twisting and twirling

the zoom ring around to find a picture you like, you will

roughly know what focal length you want to use even

before you look through the viewfinder, and only use the

zoom ring to make slight adjustments to your desired

crop.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm not in the school of thinking that landscapes require wide angles. In fact, I think many landscape photos are quite boring because they're taken at too wide an angle without getting something particular in the frame commanding attention. The point is, using wide angles effectively is something that takes time. Starting out with the normal (18-55-like) range is easier.<br>

The best landscape lens I've had was the 16-85VR. The newer 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR is quite possibly a better lens still, and it could serve perfectly fine as your only lens for the time being. I would avoid getting a fixed-focal length lens until you're familiar with how the different focal lengths on your camera work out, and which focal length you prefer using (as many noted: 85mm is long-ish for portraits, but this is very much a matter of personal preference).<br>

If you can find the D7100 kitted with the 18-140VR or 18-105VR - both are fine choices too, actually. Or, as Michael asked, if you got the body with some lens, start using it first, get used to it and worry about other lenses later when you know better for yourself what you find lacking.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Portrait -- I use a 50, doesn't matter which one. I open it up and shoot available light with today's cameras, back to the D200. I love the results far more than the old days of flash for everything indoors.</p>

<p>Landscape is harder, several good recommendations above.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 85 is too long for many portraits but on DX that length is fantastic for really close-in faces or for getting more distance between you and the subject. For head and shoulders portraiture, the 50mm offerings from Nikon are a really good idea actually. For family and group shots where you have room, the 35mm DX is wonderful, too.</p>

<p>When I shot DX I had the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 which was a fantastic lens. But, to be honest, after the novelty wore off, I found I didn't really shoot much of use at those really wide angles. Good thing the new version of that lens goes from 11 - 20. That is an awesome range, basically 17.5 - 30mm field of view. It's a nice lens to have, but most of my favorite landscape images were shot between regular wide angle (about 28mm f.o.v., 18mm on a DX camera) to about 60 or 70mm.</p>

[robert_walker10]

<p>Thanks for all the feedback and responses! It has all been super helpful for me.<br>

To answer some of the questions people have been asking:<br>

Shun Cheung: I know that DX is a cropped version of the full framed FX, but other than that I honestly don't have much experience using either.. Or to even know my preference. One question I do have is, if I were to get the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G lens (which states it is a FX lens and can be used with DX DSLR cameras) can I use it in both modes on a D7100? Apologies if that is a stupid question.. I am just new to this.</p>

<p>Michael Darnton: Yes, I only purchased the body. No lens at the moment. I wanted to research and find the best lens for me at this moment in time.</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the feedback. I think with the Portrait lens I am either going to go with the 50mm or the 85mm. I might just stick with that and learn more as the landscape side of things there are so many different options.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>if I were to get the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G lens (which states it is a FX lens and can be used with DX DSLR cameras) can I use it in both modes on a D7100?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While not being Shun, an answer all the same :-)<br>

The DX cameras have no FX mode - FX is a larger sensor, and a smaller sensor cannot simulate a larger one. FX cameras can do DX mode - the smaller (DX sized) part of the sensor is read and stored in this mode.<br>

Again, consider to start with a good zoom lens to determine which focal length you'd prefer for portraits. It's not so that 50mm is wrong, or 85mm is wrong - anyone making statements that one is too short or too long is expressing a <em>personal preference</em>, not a fact. But in the end, being a personal preference, it also means none of us can tell you what is right. A normal midrange zoomlens can help cover both focal lengths and help you understand which one works best for you. Plus, getting started with a single focal length can be rather frustrating as there are many photos you cannot take (i.e. a group photo with a 85mm on DX is quite difficult).</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I'm sorry if this is a repetition, as I didn't read all of the arguments in this thread: your D7100, as a DX camera, does not have an FX mode. You can use an FX lens such as the 85mm f/1.8g on either FX cameras (if you were to get one in the future) or your D7100.<br>

BTW, I like 85mm for portraits on my D7100, don't think it's "too long" although I sometimes use other focal lengths.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>I think he means using the D7100 in DX and 1.3x crop mode. The answer is yes, but using the crop mode will further cut down your field of view. But it will increase your shutter rate, which is helpful when shooting birds and animals.</p>