Need help choosing a lens for d7100, thanks:).

Hey, I need help choosing lens. I would something good for all around and that could be used for indoor gatherings..and ack, the lighting is florescent inside the building where I would shoot for those gatherings. I have a Nifty 50 but, my inexperience showed when I tried to take group shots and some were out of focus, when using a larger f-stop. Fail. Also, the 50 was too large of focal length sometimes when I wanted a tighter shot. I will need some kind of zoom lens indoors as the settings are not permitting at times to get too close to people. I used that 55-200 lens and I know that's too long and yes, they also came out slightly out of focus. I would need as much zoom as possible for indoors and also something I could use for closer portraits, tighter group shots. I wish not to use flash, as again, flash isn't really permitting where I would shoot. So, limited here! Can you pros help? Here are the ones I am thinking of, looking for Nikkor glass preferably:


1)16-85mm, wondering if this would have enough zoom, heard of vignetting on this. Also, would the 3.5 be a large enough f-stop? Good lens, yay or nay?
2) 18-140mm, this hasn't come out right? It's pretty much a kit lens, no?
3) 18-105(kit stuff, no?)
4) I really don't think I can swing it but I am looking at the 28-70 2.8, but just don't think I can do it.. would like a cheaper alternative. What are your thoughts on Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70? Or the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm 2.8 All crap? Lol. But wondering if 70 is enough zoom anyway. I know one really can't do too much zoom indoors.
5) Or should I just get a 35mm 1.8 and a 85mm 1.8 and switch lenses all the time? I don't wish to switch..that would suck and I'd miss out on tons of shots doing that.
Gasp..too many choices.

I also would like nice bokeh for closer shots..do I need to buy two lenses here or what?! *help*.


This would be for a Nikon D7100.


Any help for this newb is appreciated! And please don't all say 28-70mm, I don't think I can do that one..it just looks nice, pipe dreams.. lol. Plus again, may need more zoom. Thanks!!!

Personally I love my Nikon f3.5/5.6 18-105mm; it's the lens that's on my camera unless I know I need something else. No, it's not perfect but it does *so* much *so* well that it rarely comes off my camera and what it doesn't do well is easily corrected for in post processing. It's your "Jack of all Trades, Master at None" sort of lens. Also, at some point you need to stop thinking in terms of, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking yourself, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?" One train of thought leads to glass acquisition, the other leads to better photography.

That being said, don't dismiss Tamron, Tokina or Sigma lenses. All of those companies make some extraordinary lenses that can equal, or surpass, Nikon-branded glass. Do yourself a huge favor and simply dismiss brand loyalty right now and understand that every lens purchase must be looked at individually if you want to maximize return on your investment.


......

kalliela said:

I also would like nice bokeh for closer shots..do I need to buy two lenses here or what?! *help*.

This would be for a Nikon D7100.

Any help for this newb is appreciated! And please don't all say 28-70mm, I don't think I can do that one..it just looks nice, pipe dreams.. lol. Plus again, may need more zoom. Thanks!!!

Click to expand...

What is your realistic budget?

You can't get a nice bokeh indoor for wide angle shots indoor since there won't be enough separation. You will also need a flash if you decide to get a lens that has a f3.5-5.6 aperture.

For Nikon the 17-55mm f2.8 will get you the desired ranges. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is much cheaper.

You mention not wanting to use a flash and that's going to have a significant impact. With that in mind, a 2.8 zoom may be important. Maybe you could find a used Nikon 17-55, or check out the Tamron Glenn suggested.

Hey thanks guys! I am still debating what the budget will be, lol. Good to know I will have to use a flash if I use a bigger f-stop. Newb question, but why is that? Not enough light, not fast enough? It makes a lot of difference between a 2.8 and 3.5 huh? I am not really experienced much with flash, so it makes me nervous! lol. I don't have a good flash anyway. So the cheaper brands are ok sometimes? I just want quality. I'd rather not fork out all the cash. I mean, that one Nikon is like 2k. But will I be wasting my time on the cheaper ones? Not being a loyalist, if there is a good cheaper one, I'd go for it. But heard Nikon is the best, then I hear Nikon 'snobs' open their minds and get cheaper ones sometimes. Thanks again guys!!!

Sorry, double post..so how long of zoom can I get away with indoors? Should I just focus on a 2.8 ap? I will need more zoom than 50 at times. Thanks.

kalliela said:

... Good to know I will have to use a flash if I use a bigger f-stop. Newb question, but why is that? Not enough light, not fast enough? It makes a lot of difference between a 2.8 and 3.5 huh? I am not really experienced much with flash, so it makes me nervous!

Click to expand...

Start here: Four Flash Fundamentals

kalliela said:

I don't have a good flash anyway. So the cheaper brands are ok sometimes? I just want quality. I'd rather not fork out all the cash. I mean, that one Nikon is like 2k. But will I be wasting my time on the cheaper ones? Not being a loyalist, if there is a good cheaper one, I'd go for it. But heard Nikon is the best, then I hear Nikon 'snobs' open their minds and get cheaper ones sometimes. Thanks again guys!!!

Click to expand...

I can suggest either the Yongnuo 565ex or the slightly less expensive Yongnuo 468-II. Either one would serve you well for getting started.


.....

Horoscope Fish said:

Start here: Four Flash Fundamentals



I can suggest either the Yongnuo 565ex or the slightly less expensive Yongnuo 468-II. Either one would serve you well for getting started.


.....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice so far guys, please keep it coming! thanks!

you can hardly go wrong with a 16-85 vr. It would be good to have a flash anyway if you are willing to learn how to use it.
​Another good alternative is a good used 18-70. It was a better than average kit lens and is well regarded.

kalliela said:

Sorry, double post..so how long of zoom can I get away with indoors? Should I just focus on a 2.8 ap? I will need more zoom than 50 at times. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The reality is that there is no one do it all lens. Don't expect a lens that has a fast aperture such as 18-200mm f2.8 VR, that is cheap and lightweight.

Try the ones that I've suggested. Do some research and take baby steps on what your goal is. Stay within your budget once you figure that out. I tend to recommend the more expensive stuff but we are wasting our time if they are above your allocated budget.

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC (Vibration Compensation) Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: TAMRON: Camera & Photo

Hey thanks, I know I can do up to about maybe 7-$800 maybe. If it gets into the $1200+ range, that's where I take a step back for now. I am not sure if I got that question answered. How much of a zoom can I get away with indoors? Don't mean to be wasting anyone's time, just kind of new here. thanks.

So, should I get two lenses? A zoom and a portrait lens? I need to zoom in more than 50mm for these shots, thanks.

I should have mentioned this before but this would be for a church setting for special events. I need something discreet with some zoom, I was standing in the back of the room most of the time(unless it was for smaller group shots) and it's a pretty good sized room. Maybe a 17-55 and a 70-200 at 2.8 would have me covered? Without flash? Lookin at some bucks here but is that what I need?

I tried looking at your profile to see which lens do you currently own. It doesn't show anything and I find that hard to believe.

If you have the Nikon 18-105mm lens, you should be able to determine the length that you'll need for portrait. 50mm on a DX camera is typically ideal for indoor or 85mm is your place has more room.

I thought I filled out my profile, I own only the Nifty 50 and the 55-200mm Nikkor. Lol, that 70-200 at 2.8 is like 2400 bucks, out of the budget. I wonder if I should get a nice 17-55 and a cheaper zoom? Which brand is the best of these for a 2.8 zoom?

Tokina
Sigma
Tamron? Or is Tamron and Sigma the same? Thanks!

And what about the 28-85 2.8 lens with no VR? That may shake a bit. Idk.

Or, should I get a nicer zoom, not $2400 though and a cheaper wide angle? Your help is much appreciated.

I still think the 18-105 is your best bet. From what I can tell it's answers your needs:

kalliela said:

...Something good for all around and that could be used for indoor gatherings...

Click to expand...

The 18-105mm will do this.

kalliela said:

the lighting is florescent inside the building where I would shoot for those gatherings.

Click to expand...

White balance will fix this. No lens can compensate for florescent lighting.

kalliela said:

I have a Nifty 50 but, my inexperience showed when I tried to take group shots and some were out of focus, when using a larger f-stop. Fail. Also, the 50 was too large of focal length sometimes when I wanted a tighter shot.

Click to expand...

You need something wider than 50mm. Like, say for instance 18mm, or 35mm... Like the 18-105mm will give you.

kalliela said:

I will need some kind of zoom lens indoors as the settings are not permitting at times to get too close to people. I used that 55-200 lens and I know that's too long and yes, they also came out slightly out of focus. I would need as much zoom as possible for indoors and also something I could use for closer portraits, tighter group shots.

Click to expand...

The 18-105mm will do this.

kalliela said:

I wish not to use flash, as again, flash isn't really permitting where I would shoot. So, limited here!

Click to expand...

If flash is out of the question then you're going to have to either increase your ISO or use a slower shutter speed possibly with a tripod or monopod if you have to really drop the shutter speed. Remember, handheld shots should be taken at a shutter speed that is twice your focal length, so if you're shooting a 55mm lens your shutter speed shouldn't drop below about 1/125.

So yes, while faster glass is nice, those really wide apertures can have razor thin depth of field when you increase focal length; this is why shooting at f2.8 for things like portraits and group shots is not a good idea and you compensate by using flash or a higher ISO or a lower shutter speed and a tripod or monopod. As has already been said, no one single lens can do it all.

If you go with too large an aperture with too much focal length you're going to have problems with depth of field; you mentioned having that issue in your first post and how focal length affects depth of field doesn't seem to come up much in conversation around here but it something you need to be aware of.

If you want really deep depth of field AND a wide aperture so you can keep your shutter speed up and/or your ISO down, you're going to need a wide angle. But of course a wide angle is going to make your subject look further away in the frame at the same distance so you may need to compensate by moving in closer or, as we say, "zooming with your feet".

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I have a Tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 wide-angle so I'm going to use that as an example. For now, we will just assume our subject is 10 feet away:

Using a 16mm focal length at f 2.8, depth of field is almost 4 *feet* in front of the subject and 20 *feet* behind the subject.
Using a 55mm focal length at f 2.8, depth of filed is about six *inches* in front of the subject and about six *inches* behind the subject.


......

Idk, someone said if I drop under 3.5 ap I will need a flash, I wish not to use it..I know but I wish not to use a tripod either, as they are action shots and don't want to lug a big tripod around. I miss shots too that way.

I looked at the prices for the expensive gismos, 17-55 at 2.8 is about $1900 and the 70-200mm is $2,400? That's so pricy, I don't want to buy used. It's like buying a used car, no? I mean, that's just risky. I don't think I can dish out 4300 bux right now. Dang. It's just if I get that 18-105, I know I will want that ap open more. Crazy how much Nikkon charges but I guess it's optics, so, I guess I can see that. But dang!

kalliela said:

... someone said if I drop under 3.5 ap I will need a flash.

Click to expand...

Ignore that person, they have no idea what they're talking about. You can compensate by increasing ISO or reducing your shutter speed if you don't want to use flash.

kalliela said:

I looked at the prices for the expensive gismos, 17-55 at 2.8 is about $1900 and the 70-200mm is $2,400? That's so pricy, I don't want to buy used. It's like buying a used car, no? I mean, that's just risky. I don't think I can dish out 4300 bux right now. Dang. It's just if I get that 18-105, I know I will want that ap open more. Crazy how much Nikkon charges but I guess it's optics, so, I guess I can see that. But dang!

Click to expand...

How often do you reeeally expect to be shooting at radically wide apertures like f 2.8 at 200mm? Because THAT is what you're paying for when you shell out $2K for a lens like that, the option of shooting at 200mm at f 2.8 which, I'll stick my neck out and say most sane individuals would rarely use.

You seem really stuck on this concept of shooting with wide apertures and I'm not sure why. Photography is a juggling act and you're gong to have to learn to balance and compensate. There's just no way around it. Good luck with whatever you decide.

Thanks so much, it's been a photo 101 refresher! I have taken classes, just been forever. I've been taking notes. So, let me get this clear, an 18-105 is good or will I also need a wide angle lens? Should be covered in that 18-105, right? I think I want bigger aps to let more light in so that I can avoid grain by going with a larger iso and also keep the shutter up. Thanks.

kalliela said:

Thanks so much, it's been a photo 101 refresher! I have taken classes, just been forever. I've been taking notes. So, let me get this clear, an 18-105 is good or will I also need a wide angle lens? Should be covered in that 18-105, right? I think I want bigger aps to let more light in so that I can avoid grain by going with a larger iso and also keep the shutter up. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The 18-105mm will go to 18mm. For reference you might want so see this Focal Length Simulator.

I might suggest you do some test shots with you D7100 at higher ISO's; I would have no issue whatsoever with going to ISO 1600, or even 3200, if it meant the difference between "nailing the shot" and missing it entirely. Not too mention that most decent post processing software is really good at eliminating digital "noise" with a few mouse clicks. Maybe you need to consider investing in some good software?

Just remember photography is always a Yin/Yang scenario; always. It's just a matter of choosing which Yin/Yang scenario you're prepared to deal with in order to get the shot in your camera to match the shot you have in your head. Then too, at some point you need to stop asking yourself, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking yourself, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?"

The first question leads to equipment acquisition, the other leads to better photography.


.....

Horoscope fish, you got any work/flickr acct, interested in seeing some pics of yours, thanks!