greg_alton

<p>Shun's advice is sound. Note that if you want the 'same' coverage or view (roughly) as you had with your film camera, the Nikon kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) together with the camera are very reasonably priced. That may make sense as a starting point and then see if you need more.</p>

<p>You did not say what you are using the lens for - I personally think having a lighter lens for use makes a lot of sense. You may consider getting this other lens for occasional or casual use, and use the 80-200 when you need it for its advantages. At any rate, I'd not sell the 80-200 until you're sure this other lens fits your needs.</p>

<p>I checked mine (bought in Europe) and got a 'your camera is affected by the issue.' Will have to figure out what to do. I certainly haven't run into the issue yet, and frankly, from what I've seen of what causes it, don't think I'm likely to shoot in such circumstances.<br> Will be happy to hear from others their experiences and what is actually done.</p>

<p>I may be missing something, but what did you do when you said you were 'calibrating' the lens? Were you using live view and comparing to what you get when you use regular autofocus? Or some other procedure?</p>

<p>A lot of good suggestions and I'm going to muddy the waters further: from the original post it sounds like this is a new hobby and there will be a lot of travel planned. That's one reason I'd suggest focussing on technique and the way you see things and what works _for you_ and what _you need_ before spending a lot of money on the best kit.<br> For travel, you may find (and many others do, too) that a small compact camera that you can fit in your pocket and can produce good images is more useful and fits your style more than another lens for your 'real' camera.<br> I personally don't get along with compact digital cameras, but The Ex-Ms. produces images that I often envy - just for the 'eye' she has - with her iPhone. The only thing of use I get from my phone is pictures of stuff I want to remember.<br> Go with what works, which will take some time to figure out, rather than what others say is 'best.'</p>

<p>From personal experience, I did not like the 18-200, but I would second Tuomas' point that the 18-55 kit lens is an excellent travel companion for DX - light and useful. And not so painful if it somehow gets broken or whatever. It's easy to underrate it or discount as just a basic kit lens, but for travelling and general use, it does the trick.<br> I actually use (until recently) the Sigma 17-50 frequently. Obviously it's better for low light and a quality bit, but it is substantially heavier. I find switching out to a lighter lens is always a revelation and the difference in weight immediately noticeable.<br> Of course, depends on the kind of travel and tasks to hand.</p>

<p>@kent, you asked about the Helios 85 mm. I've used one and while it's an interesting lens, it's really a specialist lens (or a lens oddity, if you prefer) - it only works in stop-down mode (and of course manual focus). It does have an interesting look, but I wouldn't even put it in the running for comparison to the Nikon.<br> It is, however, cheaper - now ~$200 or so, or a little more than half the (local) price (for now, as mentioned above) of the Nikon f1.8G. This shows the effect of the ruble - I think the ruble price has stayed the same as when I looked at it a couple of years ago, when the US$ equivalent price was close to $400. If you can get it at current ruble price, it might be worth playing with, at ~$400 it was frankly ridiculous - or only for the hard-core collectors and experimenters.</p>

@kent, generally prices in Russia are higher than the US for imported equipment but mostly due to VAT (18%) and comparable to Europe. With the drop in the Ruble there is some equipment imported before still available at 'old' prices. It is a temporary thing.

I would guess the replacement to the d7100 will now be the d7500. D750,d5500, etc. Just a guess though.

<p>For my uses, the 1.8G. Excellent autofocus and price, size/weight. I can't compare directly the image quality but 1.8G is very good, and I don't need the extra half-stop (for light or DOF) that badly - which for me applies equally to the 1.4D or 1.4G versions.<br> If you are in Russia, note that it is currently available at a lower price than almost anywhere else in the world, at least at market ruble rates. (Although probably true for the other Nikon lenses too).</p>

<p>On the Sigma zoom direction (opposite of standard Nikon): I have the 17-50 and this doesn't bother me much - I thought it would be far more annoying than it is in practice.<br> Most of the time you adjust fairly quickly after you put the lens on - in my case, at least, I barely register it as an issue. The other thing is that this is the type of lens you tend to leave on for a while, it's not a specialist lens, so you generally don't have that feeling of adjustment very often. (Of course, if you're the type that has three cameras around your neck at all times, maybe it would be more of an issue)<br> I suppose everyone is different, but I found this much more of an issue with manual focus cameras/lenses. Focussing was much more instinctual and visceral, and anything that threw off the feel (for lack of a better word) could be really disruptive and lead to missed shots. Back then, I wouldn't have thought of buying a lens that focussed 'the wrong way.'<br> Zooming to me is not like that, and I can't recall ever feeling I missed a shot because of the zoom direction.</p>

<p>I'm in the group that has never had a problem with Nikon products - except for things that were physically broken. With digital cameras, I'd just buy from places to which you can return it.<br> I'm gobsmacked that (in Andrew Sacco's case above) that Nikon is still repairing cameras last made over 30 years ago.</p>