tarun_gupta2

<p>Hi All, my apologies for a late reply. I was out of town for a trip.</p> <p>@Dieter: I will definitely check out the 80-400. For now i am so occupied in work that i could not drill down on my lens choices.<br> If you guys have some opinions/thoughts on old lens (the D ones or without silent motor ones) that are still relevant in terms of picture quality and usage, please shoot. I have read so much at Ken Rockwell and other youtube sources, but there are mixed responses.</p> <p>Thanks<br> Tarun</p>

<p>David - That's an interesting opinion. Actually 18mm is quite wide not ultra wide but still good for landscapes. I think the habit to use a tripod is something i need to develop soon. I somehow struggle with fixing a tripod and need to use more to get comfortable with it.</p> <p>Chip - Thanks for your kind words. I think there is a lot to photography. You can get the basics in some time and can get decent pics with cameras becoming more friendly even the auto mode isn't bad. But to get that extra edge where you just feel wow with your images need a lot of effort and most importantly, paying attention. Doing small things such as checking corners while composing, checking distracting areas, breathing right, thinking about what the image feels like. That thought process helps you get better images. For some, it come naturally and for some one like me, i need to think and justify to myself what makes my image click. So it requires constant learning especially from my past mistakes.</p> <p>Eric - Thanks for sharing the link. I will definitely go through this. To be honest, i am uncomfortable as is with 300-400 $ budget for tripod and do not want to go beyond this. Gitzo will be too expensive for me as this point. I will probably get a Manfretto or Vangaurd. You also mentioned 80-200/2.8. I really like that lens and am getting a good deal on a second hand lens (say $700) but i am not sure the focal range (effectively 120-300) would really be useful on D7100. It would be good for portraits for sure but for landscape work, i am not that too sure. Any comments ? </p>

<p>Tom - Thanks for your kind words and inputs. I do need a tripod for sure but I am not in habit of using tripod until unless it is absolutely necessary (say night shots/waterfalls etc). It usually requires time to setup and sometimes you do not have that liberty when you are hiking with friends. I think 80% of my landscapes are hand held and i boost ISO as per requirement. But i will surely look to improve that aspect and also look at DXO optics pro. As far as ball head goes, i am more inclined towards the ball head because that allows free movement but the con is that it might not allow panning and has limited load carry capacity. BTW, what kind of payload capacity should one look at ?</p> <p>Eric - About ultra wide lens, i agree that UWA lens have a bit of learning curve. I still need to do a bit more research into landscape lens for DX. As if the DX frame makes things easy for Tele but difficult for landscapes because of crop factor. I will deep dive into this and get back to you guys.</p>

<p>Thanks all for the valuable advice. Really appreciate it.<br> David: I think i might have not worded it correctly. What i meant was that the focal length ranges of gud FX lens like Holy trinity or landscapes ones are not very desirable of DX body because the view is equivalent to a high focal length range. Of course, DX lens on FX body isnt a great way either because the sensor is bigger and most of lens would show a dark halo/black edges or high vignetting.</p> <p>Chip and Eric: I have to agree with you. I had a similar opinion. It is not just about the quality of the lens. The changed perspective makes it entirely two different systems to be honest and thus it is difficult to find overlaps in both. It is about pledging your allegiance to one system. Having said that, we might still find some overlap in Tele side. I like 80-200/2.8ED - It is not a very expensive lens but i really don't need it for my kind of work for now. would love to try though. On the ultra wide side, DX is definitely more demanding. I do not like nikkor options for wide. I still feel Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 would be the best bet. There is some overlap for primes, specially portraits and macro ones. I am inclined towards 50mm/1.8 that would effectively be 75mm on DX. It might be a better bet than 85mm which will become a sort of mini tele on DX. and 105mm macro is also an excellent option but for now, i have not dabbled much into macro work. I am still learning/experimenting to be honest. Probably the lack of sharpness in some pictures is more to with my technique.</p> <p>Anyways, another thing that excites me about the upgrade is the Internal focus motor. That opens up plethora of opportunities for using older AI lens which i cant use with AF on D3100. I think i will do some research in that area and to find some good prime bargains as i go along in my photographic journey.</p>

<p>Thanks David. The more and more i think about this, i am leaning towards D7100.<br> Though, I do not want to rule out a possible upgrade to FX in future. The only thing that bothers me is this: If I invest in good lens for DX (including third party lens) the candidates would be probably - 17-55/2.8, 18-35/1.8, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 18-200/3.5-5.6, 11-20/2.8, 8-16/4.5-5.6, 85/1.8, 50/1.8. With exception of 85 and 50, most of these this will become useless when i switch to FX. Also, If i buy for FX lens now, their range on DX will be weird because of crop factor.<br> Any specific suggestions or lens on your mind that i could use with D7100 and still be prepared for FX upgrade 4-5 years down the line? Thanks.</p>

<p>@Eric: Thanks for a detailed post. I will definitely look at those options. Some responses from my side:<br> “im not sure what is so limiting about the 3100” – A couple of things. Slow AF, layered Menu, less sharp pics and struggle with low (not a big issue). Probably some of it is my fault or the lack of a sharp lens. I have some photos at the following link that will give you some idea about my capability. Please feel free to give your comments:<br> https://500px.com/tarungupta7<br> @David: Thanks for your 2 cents David. TO be honest this does seem to be the most practical option. I don’t mind one time investment but what bothers me are the recurring costs of lens upgrades<br> @Chip: Thanks for the comment. The 24-120 is not a bad lens to be honest. A friend of mine recommended to start with that but higher FX lens cost a bomb. E.g. 16-25 and the holy trinity are just out of my reach if I do not earn money from photography<br> @Rodeo: Thanks for the info. That does look like a good tool. I will check it at leisure. I don’t think I have anything against D7100. Probably, FX vs DX is more psychological than a real thing.<br> @Tuomas: That’s a good advice. Thanks.<br> @Nick: Completely agree with you. Thanks. FX is difficult for Tele work unless u spend on teleconverters and long range lens.<br> @Rodeo: Yes. The D750 kit is roughly 1.4L in India i.e. nearly 2100 USD and D7100 body only is around 850 USD. It’s not that D7100 is dirt cheap but those 1200 odd $ can go into lens. I am not sure if I am that much into portraits but I do like landscapes and nature photography. I do occasional unpaid gigs for my friends and that when 35/1.8 comes in handy.<br> One request please: Following is a sample of some of my images over last 3 years. I feel that I have used my kit lens a lot and though the image was sharp I could not get that tack sharpness. Can you please comment that is it the technique or the equip or both. Thanks a bunch again for your valuable feedback.<br> https://500px.com/tarungupta7</p>

<p>Thanks for a detailed response Dieter. I will check the new Tokina lens for sure. FX is a bit aspirational for me now just because of the budget. Otherwise, I would not have hesitated and just bought it right away. Probably, I will upgrade to FX some day when I have sufficient liquidity.<br> Having said that, I also want to learn and improve my skills further and that is where I found my D3100 and lack of fast lens limiting specially the 18-55 lens, which though a decent lens to start with, does not come close to say Sigma 18-35/1.8.<br> Anyways, thanks again. Any suggestions on good tripods. I own a very basic one but it too heavy and not too sturdy. I should not be complaining as i got it around 40-50$ range.</p>

<p>Thanks for your inputs Kent and C.P.M. van het Kaar.<br> I am gravitating towards D7100 and not D7200 because even though it is an upgrade, D7200 is very costly and will defeat the purpose of significant price difference. D7100 is almost as good as D7200 and no slouch by any means. If I go for DX format, I need to get a good tripod (say 300$) and Landscape lens (say ~ 600-700$). Any recommendations?<br> For FX, Is 24 wide enough?<br> I know a lot of questions but I am preparing for a 10 day trip to hill and want to really get some good shots that are not limited due to lack of equipment.<br> Thanks again.<br> Tarun</p>

<p>Hi All,</p> <p>I am new here and need to seek some help from experts over her. Currently, i have the following equipment for over 3 years:<br> Nikon D3100 + 18-55 Kit lens<br> Nikon 35 mm F1.8 DX<br> Nikon 55-300 F4.5-5.6 DX</p> <p>I am interested in Landscapes, Nature, some amount of portrait and general purpose photography. I use 55-300 a couple of times in a year when I visit a wild life park. Apart from that, my needs on Tele side is limited.<br> Now coming to the question, I have been using 35 mm lens and like the results but somehow, I feel that I need a better body and am considering an upgrade. I am currently struggling between D7100 and D750. Following are my considerations:<br> 1. D750 + 24-120 will cost me around 1,40,000 INR in India and D7100 body only around 57,000. There is a significant price difference and even if I buy D7100, I will have to get a good landscape and general purpose lens such as Tokina 11-16 mm or Sigma 8-16mm and also a good geenral purpose lens like Sigma 18-35 F1.8 or Sigma 17-55 F2.8. Mean another 1,00,000. Which option does look good ?<br> 2. Is a FX body significantly better in image quality than DX? D750 vs D7100 in this case<br> 3. If I go for D750, would you recommend getting 24-120 or any other general purpose lens. Eventually I will buy 16-35 dedicated for landscape but I am hoping to get buy with 24 mm for landscape for now. It is still better than kit lens that I have.</p> <p>I know a lot of questions and decisions, but any suggestions would help. Thanks for your time.</p> <p> </p>