Frustrated in a way

[Danno_RIP]

@Lawrence, I was just reading a post on a D7200 page on FB about this lens. A guy bought the 16-80 for his D7200. He did not find it as sharp as he hoped it would be. He was asking for input and a couple mentioned that they did require fine tuning on the D500 and likely the same on the D7200...

Thought it worth mentioning.

 

[Lawrence]

You have not said if you are a RAW or JPEG shooter ....if its JPEG and you have not put the sharpness up into the range +7 to +9 then you will be unhappy....If it raw then you have not don't the PP right though in all scenarios you must have the fine focus adjust spot on.
Agree that the 18-140 is far superior and if you need longer just crop ...

Only ever shot RAW

 

[Lawrence]

@Lawrence, I was just reading a post on a D7200 page on FB about this lens. A guy bought the 16-80 for his D7200. He did not find it as sharp as he hoped it would be. He was asking for input and a couple mentioned that they did require fine tuning on the D500 and likely the same on the D7200...

Thought it worth mentioning.

Thanks @Danno just the sort of feedback I am looking for although i do shoot a D7100 not a D7200. Probably be the same effect

 

[Lawrence]

Reading these posts has got me rethinking trying to get a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 and holding on to my primes and wide angle

I could therefor sell my 18-105 and my 70-300. Selling the 70-300 means I will be a bit short on length but I am ok with that right now

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Reading these posts has got me rethinking trying to get a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 and holding on to my primes and wide angle

I could therefor sell my 18-105 and my 70-300. Selling the 70-300 means I will be a bit short on length but I am ok with that right now

The Sigma 50-150mm was one of the sharpest lenses I ever shot on my D7100. It's one of the very few lenses, maybe the only lens, I sort of regret selling. It's a bit of an oddball focal-length wise but for all intents and purposes shot as sharp as some of my Nikon primes.

Be sure you're looking at the most recent version, I believe it's the one with optical stabilization. There's an older version with the same focal length that was nowhere near as good a lens overall.

 

[Lawrence]

The Sigma 50-150mm was one of the sharpest lenses I ever shot on my D7100. It's one of the very few lenses, maybe the only lens, I sort of regret selling. It's a bit of an oddball focal-length wise but for all intents and purposes shot as sharp as some of my Nikon primes.

Be sure you're looking at the most recent version, I believe it's the one with optical stabilization. There's an older version with the same focal length that was nowhere near as good a lens overall.

Yes Paul it is the OS one I hope to find at a good price. I could have snagged one a while back for NZ$1600.00 and I can only find one now at about NZ$1900.00 on ebay from the Russian Federation. Gulp.
The weird focal lenght makes it equivalent to a 70-200 on FX and I think that was the reasoning behind it.

In the meanwhile I shall plod on.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

The weird focal lenght makes it equivalent to a 70-200 on FX and I think that was the reasoning behind it.

Now I'm wondering WHY that never occurred to me... *facepalm*

 

[Lawrence]

Oh and I ws thinking (originally) that this would be a great combo with the 16-80 ...

 

[Ironwood]

Oh and I ws thinking (originally) that this would be a great combo with the 16-80 ...

...... or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 . Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 are other good options that would be cheaper than the 16-80.

 

[Lawrence]

...... or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 . Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 are other good options that would be cheaper than the 16-80.

OK Brad you have me interested ...

What I wnt to know is are they great options, better than most?
I don't want to buy anything and later think I should rather have bought something else. That has been my journey to date and I want to settle down.
And I do have a Sigma 10-20 f4 (been good enough for the landscapes it was intended for as I use a tripod for these shots)

 

[Lawrence]

Just noticed not all my lenses are in my signature. off to fix

 

[Ironwood]

OK Brad you have me interested ...

What I wnt to know is are they great options, better than most?
I don't want to buy anything and later think I should rather have bought something else. That has been my journey to date and I want to settle down.
And I do have a Sigma 10-20 f4 (been good enough for the landscapes it was intended for as I use a tripod for these shots)

Sorry for the delayed response Lawrence, I have been waiting until I had time to sit down in front of a real computer.

Well I don't have any of those lenses I mentioned so I can't comment on them from firsthand experience, but they seem well regarded going by comments I have read on this forum over the last few years.

Here is a link to Dxo's reviews for lenses for the D7100 - Best Standard zoom models for the D7100 - DxOMark There are links to there other tests for the D7100 once you are on their page.
The Sigma 50-150 is at the top of this list, Best Zoom models for the D7100 - DxOMark

The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 rates highly in their tests. Interesting that they rate the Nikon 16-85 only slightly better than the 18-55, I noticed a big difference when I upgraded to the 16-85, which I am still happy with. Though I have thought about selling it for one of the 17-50's as I think they would be a better lens, but I would lose the longer range.

There is a member on the forum using a Sigma 18-35 and a Sigma 50-100 on a D500, he posted some good looking shots, I am sure these lenses would perform great on a D7100 as well.
I must say I have been tempted by these new lenses, but am hesitant to buy them because I can't rule out getting an FX camera at some stage and would rather have good glass to suit that system and I don't have the money to buy twice.

 

[Lawrence]

Sorry for the delayed response Lawrence, I have been waiting until I had time to sit down in front of a real computer.

Well I don't have any of those lenses I mentioned so I can't comment on them from firsthand experience, but they seem well regarded going by comments I have read on this forum over the last few years.

Here is a link to Dxo's reviews for lenses for the D7100 - Best Standard zoom models for the D7100 - DxOMark There are links to there other tests for the D7100 once you are on their page.
The Sigma 50-150 is at the top of this list, Best Zoom models for the D7100 - DxOMark

The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 rates highly in their tests. Interesting that they rate the Nikon 16-85 only slightly better than the 18-55, I noticed a big difference when I upgraded to the 16-85, which I am still happy with. Though I have thought about selling it for one of the 17-50's as I think they would be a better lens, but I would lose the longer range.

There is a member on the forum using a Sigma 18-35 and a Sigma 50-100 on a D500, he posted some good looking shots, I am sure these lenses would perform great on a D7100 as well.
I must say I have been tempted by these new lenses, but am hesitant to buy them because I can't rule out getting an FX camera at some stage and would rather have good glass to suit that system and I don't have the money to buy twice.

I very nearly pulled the trigger on the 50-`50 over the weekend and may yet still do it.

The FX/DX question has been kicked around in my head for some time and I think I have settled on being content with the DX - note the word "think"

 

[Ironwood]

I very nearly pulled the trigger on the 50-`50 over the weekend and may yet still do it.

The FX/DX question has been kicked around in my head for some time and I think I have settled on being content with the DX - note the word "think"

Are you tempted by the Russian ?
I see there is a ebay seller with new ones, AU$1999 for Nikon mount and about $1300 for Canon mount, not sure why the difference in price.

The only reason I am tempted by the D750 is the low light performance, otherwise I am still happy with my D7100, I just wish it would handle low light better.

 

[Marcel]

OK Brad you have me interested ...

What I wnt to know is are they great options, better than most?
I don't want to buy anything and later think I should rather have bought something else. That has been my journey to date and I want to settle down.
And I do have a Sigma 10-20 f4 (been good enough for the landscapes it was intended for as I use a tripod for these shots)

Oh boy, settling down when we hang out on forums like this one to be tempted with all the new gear that come along every other month... Your's is a pious wish, but I fear that the never ending Nikon Acquisition Syndrome is spreading all over the world. And there is NO vaccine for it.

Settling down means to stop watching the new stuff that comes out and just use your gear until it stops working. Now I really wish it could be so simple...

 

[hark]

Are you tempted by the Russian ?
I see there is a ebay seller with new ones, AU$1999 for Nikon mount and about $1300 for Canon mount, not sure why the difference in price.

The only reason I am tempted by the D750 is the low light performance, otherwise I am still happy with my D7100, I just wish it would handle low light better.

I've taken photos in my church's Sanctuary with both my D7100 and D750. The Sanctuary isn't overly bright by any means. Since I can't use flash, my ISO is around 1600. There is a noticeable difference in noise between these bodies that I tend to use the D750 (and even my D610) then crop instead of using my D7100. My temptation is to get a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter for FX instead of cropping. Temptation...ya gotta love it.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Yea, I have my heart set on the 200-500 f5.6, but at twice the weight of my old 300mm f4 screw focus, I can't believe it will be a handheld lens, despite the reviews.

Rob, While there are certainly lighting conditions which will make a tripod necessary, the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 is certainly capable of being utilized by hand. I had the opportunity to try one on a D750 at a shop in April, and I was quite comfortable hand-holding it for a short while. Just so you know, I typically use a monopod or a tripod for any lens with a focal length of about 200mm or more.

I'm not saying I want to shoot it hand-held all day, though.

WM

 

[mauckcg]

There is always the Sigma 17-70 C. Very sharp little lense and it works with the USB dock so you can update firmware and tweak the focusing to the nth degree.

 

[Lawrence]

Are you tempted by the Russian ?
I see there is a ebay seller with new ones, AU$1999 for Nikon mount and about $1300 for Canon mount, not sure why the difference in price.

The only reason I am tempted by the D750 is the low light performance, otherwise I am still happy with my D7100, I just wish it would handle low light better.

I agree - probably its biggest weakness but ...

Not as bad as I first thought.



This was quite a high ISO if I remember correctly
ISO 12800
f 5.0
1/250

 

[Lawrence]

Are you tempted by the Russian ?
I see there is a ebay seller with new ones, AU$1999 for Nikon mount and about $1300 for Canon mount, not sure why the difference in price.

The only reason I am tempted by the D750 is the low light performance, otherwise I am still happy with my D7100, I just wish it would handle low light better.

I didn't understand that price difference either.
The Russian scares me a bit (I'm not 100% convinced the cod war is over)