Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geoffc" data-source="post: 309985" data-attributes="member: 8705">LOL, I'm not completely mad. Sorry if it wasn't clear but the lens was for my wife as she would then have Tokina 11-16 2.8, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon 70-200 VR II 2.8 as&nbsp; her trinity so to speak. She also has the Nikon 10.5 2.8 fisheye, 35mm 1.8g and Tamron 90mm macro to answer her other requirements. Good as the 18-200 is as a general purpose lens, in the mid range it&nbsp; was the only compromise she had in terms of image quality hence the Sigma. I think she now has a good DX line up and is pretty much what I would be shooting if I my D7100 was my main camera. Maybe not the 10.5 fisheye but she loves it!!When I went FX I made a conscious decision to get the 16-35 F4 and 24-120 F4 versus the 14-24 and 24-70 2.8 lenses because they better suited my needs with more reach and VR. Cost didn't really come into the equation, it was just a nice bonus. I never tend to need/miss the 2.8 for light reasons so the only thing I lose is shallower DOF.&nbsp; I have revisited the 24-70 thinking several times and always end up concluding that the 24-120 is better for my personal use in the mid range. I've seen a lot of people on forums go from the 24-70 to the 24-120 because the package is a better fit for them. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geoffc, post: 309985, member: 8705"] LOL, I'm not completely mad. Sorry if it wasn't clear but the lens was for my wife as she would then have Tokina 11-16 2.8, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon 70-200 VR II 2.8 as her trinity so to speak. She also has the Nikon 10.5 2.8 fisheye, 35mm 1.8g and Tamron 90mm macro to answer her other requirements. Good as the 18-200 is as a general purpose lens, in the mid range it was the only compromise she had in terms of image quality hence the Sigma. I think she now has a good DX line up and is pretty much what I would be shooting if I my D7100 was my main camera. Maybe not the 10.5 fisheye but she loves it!! When I went FX I made a conscious decision to get the 16-35 F4 and 24-120 F4 versus the 14-24 and 24-70 2.8 lenses because they better suited my needs with more reach and VR. Cost didn't really come into the equation, it was just a nice bonus. I never tend to need/miss the 2.8 for light reasons so the only thing I lose is shallower DOF. I have revisited the 24-70 thinking several times and always end up concluding that the 24-120 is better for my personal use in the mid range. I've seen a lot of people on forums go from the 24-70 to the 24-120 because the package is a better fit for them. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD [/QUOTE]

Verification