I should point out that I am relatively new user of digital cameras. Many, many years ago I did own a 35mm single lens reflex film camera that I used for a while (I can't even remember which brand it was) but there has been a substantial hiatus in my photographic experience since then that was reawakened only since I recently retired. I have been pleasantly surprised by the substantial improvement brought about by digital cameras (not the least of which is the cost that used to be associated with buying film).
I set myself up initially with a 3 lens set up on my D7100: a Sigma 10-20 1.4-5.6 DCHSM, the latest very cheap Nikon 18-55mm dx vr 3.5-5.6GII, and a used Nikon AF-S 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 so as to cover most situations I believed I required for my new hobby. Just as an addition, I also added the flipside 200 and 300 camera bags. I have found both these bags relatively inexpensive and great when taking day trips in national parks and in the bush in that I didn't have to place my bags on the sometimes damp ground to gain quick access to my camera and lenses. I have found this a very good setup on my d7100 but I later thought I would add a dedicated portrait lens and a macro lens so I bought the Nikon 85mm 1.8G for the portrait lens and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di for the macro to add to my lens collection.
I had some time on my hands yesterday and thought I would play and compare some of the lenses in aperture mode. I first compared the 10-20 to the 18-55 at the overlapping 18mm focal length. I found that there was no real contest, the 18-55 was way sharper especially in lower lighting conditions. Maybe the VR does have a substantial effect in lower lighting conditions. This experience has led me to believe it is best to use the 10-20 at the lower focal lengths of its range and the 18-55 at other times. Strangely (at least for me) I have discovered that at all focal lengths and lighting conditions, I have had to overexpose the 18-55 by 0.7 stops to get the correct exposure but that the 10-20 was always correctly exposed on my D7100 in the same conditions. I have no idea why that is so. Maybe it is an idiosynchronacy of the specific 18-55 lens that I own. I then compared the 85mm to the 90mm indoors and outside during the day. Again I was surprised. At least in my eyes, the 90mm gave sharper images than the 85mm most of the time but both generally gave great results all the time. And contrary to what I had read, the 90mm focused very quickly (at least for my purposes). I know many photographers don't like the 90mm because it is too sharp for portraits but I love it and it has the added advantage of being a macro lens. I had also found previously that the nikon 70-300 takes great portraits in adequate lighting conditions and in most of the situations where I take family photographs. Bearing in mind that I love the 90mm and that the 70-300 has provided some great photographs of grandkids, I am now seriously considering my need for the 85mm and am toying with the idea of selling it. Any how I thought I would share these musings with you and I hope I have not been too long winded.
I set myself up initially with a 3 lens set up on my D7100: a Sigma 10-20 1.4-5.6 DCHSM, the latest very cheap Nikon 18-55mm dx vr 3.5-5.6GII, and a used Nikon AF-S 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 so as to cover most situations I believed I required for my new hobby. Just as an addition, I also added the flipside 200 and 300 camera bags. I have found both these bags relatively inexpensive and great when taking day trips in national parks and in the bush in that I didn't have to place my bags on the sometimes damp ground to gain quick access to my camera and lenses. I have found this a very good setup on my d7100 but I later thought I would add a dedicated portrait lens and a macro lens so I bought the Nikon 85mm 1.8G for the portrait lens and the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di for the macro to add to my lens collection.
I had some time on my hands yesterday and thought I would play and compare some of the lenses in aperture mode. I first compared the 10-20 to the 18-55 at the overlapping 18mm focal length. I found that there was no real contest, the 18-55 was way sharper especially in lower lighting conditions. Maybe the VR does have a substantial effect in lower lighting conditions. This experience has led me to believe it is best to use the 10-20 at the lower focal lengths of its range and the 18-55 at other times. Strangely (at least for me) I have discovered that at all focal lengths and lighting conditions, I have had to overexpose the 18-55 by 0.7 stops to get the correct exposure but that the 10-20 was always correctly exposed on my D7100 in the same conditions. I have no idea why that is so. Maybe it is an idiosynchronacy of the specific 18-55 lens that I own. I then compared the 85mm to the 90mm indoors and outside during the day. Again I was surprised. At least in my eyes, the 90mm gave sharper images than the 85mm most of the time but both generally gave great results all the time. And contrary to what I had read, the 90mm focused very quickly (at least for my purposes). I know many photographers don't like the 90mm because it is too sharp for portraits but I love it and it has the added advantage of being a macro lens. I had also found previously that the nikon 70-300 takes great portraits in adequate lighting conditions and in most of the situations where I take family photographs. Bearing in mind that I love the 90mm and that the 70-300 has provided some great photographs of grandkids, I am now seriously considering my need for the 85mm and am toying with the idea of selling it. Any how I thought I would share these musings with you and I hope I have not been too long winded.