New and looking for some help

Mr Smiley

Ive used various point and shoot cameras in the past, and have decided that id like to move into DSLR's. Ive read some here and there, and narrowed my search down to either a Nikon D5200 or a D7100.

Im really leaning toward the D7100.

I have been looking at lenses and have come to a area i know very little about. The two lenses im looking at are AF-S DX nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6g ED VR (5.8x). This is the Zoom Lens. And the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR (5.5x) the Super-telephoto zoom lens.

Im looking for an all around shooting lens for stills, family pictures, and family vacations. I may as time goes on get more into things, but Im just starting out. I have a budget of about $1600 to get started.

Thank you for your help in advance.

CRP6001

The D7100 works with every Nikon lens made since 1977, and is also compatible with most
older lenses that have been AI converted, making it the more versatile choice. I personally
would not start out with two zooms with overlapping ranges. With the 18-105 and 55-300
you would be duplicating the range from 55-105. On DX, I would want a wide zoom, such as a Nikon
10-24 or 12-24, and a fast single focal length lens like the 35 1.8 DX or 50 1.8. Any number of
telephoto lenses could fill out the long end. Don't worry about covering every millimeter.

ziggy53

I strongly recommend allowing more budget for the lenses, unless you are just looking to document and snapshot. The images that people remember are the ones which have some sort of "wow" factor, and most consumer lenses just don't pull it off very frequently.

I believe that it gets most interesting when you acquire constant aperture zoom lenses, along with a few, carefully selected, prime lenses.

Starting out, a good standard zoom with a constant aperture of f2.8 can capture maybe 60-70% of what most people use a dSLR for. Remember that an f2.8 aperture lets in twice the light of an f4 aperture, but it's 4-times more light than f5.6. An f2.8 aperture lens also activates the high-precision AF capabilities of many modern dSLRs. An f2.8 aperture also allows better separation between subject and foreground/background elements in a scene, and constant-aperture f2.8 lenses tend to have very good micro-contrast (sharpness) and global contrast, which lends to the "pop" factor of an image.

A very good high-quality standard zoom, the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF has most of the desirable qualities to look for, and used copies are available so you don't break the bank. There is a newer version with optical image stabilization, but it's more expensive and the professional testing sites indicate that it has slightly less image quality, so I recommend the original version. Just be sure to get the Nikon "F" mount version with the BIM (Built-In Motor) for greatest body versatility.

I did OK with an older Tamron 70-300mm, f4-f5.6 LD with 62mm filter threads, and found that I could get very good results in strong sunlight, if I stopped down one stop (or a little more) and stayed in the 70-200mm range. Yes, it's slow to focus and a horrible indoor and low-light lens, but it did cover my needs for around 1 1/2 years. These are also very common on the used market and very cheap to pick up. http://www.keh.com/ has a 70-300 F4-5.6 Quantaray LD TELE-MACRO (62) with hood and caps for $45USD, for instance. (In this case Tamron made the lens and Quantaray put their name on it.) Note that for Nikon mount I don't believe that these lenses have a BIM, so you would need to use a host body with the Nikon screw-drive for autofocus.

(Ultimately I got 3 - 70-200mm(ish), f2.8 lenses, plus one 70-200mm, f4 for travel, because this is a pretty important range for my work.)

Finally, I do recommend a large-aperture prime lens for indoor and night, and to give even more DOF control for some types of portraits. There is nothing less, in the Nikon lens lineup, than a Nikkor 50mm, f1.8D, and KEH has a few starting at less than $100. It's an excellent value lens and something I recommend for every starter kit. (Again, it's a "D" series lens so it needs a body with an AF screw-drive.)

Be sure to budget for a good flash as nothing improves images more than a careful dose of extra light. A good flash includes a focus-assist lamp which dramatically improves the keeper rate in indoor and low-light situations.

For body recommendations even an older Nikon D90 would work well with the above system. A D7000 would be better, and a D7100 better still, but a D90 is still plenty capable. I put more budget towards quality lenses than bodies.

Mr Smiley

Im sorry, I wasnt clear. Im looking at one or the other, not getting them both. I just dont have alot of knowledge when it comes to lenses. So for my first lens im just looking for it to have a good all around do everything right now. Then when I want to go in one direction ill buy a new lens for that.

Sand

The 18-105 is probably what you want. It is an all around lens and has a decent all around focal length for shots of the family and vacations. It will allow you to take full length portraits or group shots at a comfortable distance.
The 70-300 is a more specialized lens. It has a much narrower field of view and will require you to be much farther away to take full length portraits or group family shots. It would be better for things like kids sports and wildlife (where you can't get very close to the subject). This focal length range is also commonly used for head and shoulders portraits.
I have both of these lenses and the 18-105 lives on the camera. The 70-300 gets used when I see something that I cannot get a good photo of with the 18-105. Neither lens is great for low light or separating the subject from the background with selective focus.

bfluegie

I agree with Sand. I own a D90 and I got it with the 17-105 kit lens. After using that camera and lens for a while I added the 70-300 VR zoom lens. I use the tele zoom lens once in a while, but mostly for family shots and walking around the 17-105 is on the camera. Although, after a bit I did add a couple of primes-- the 35 1.8 DX (which is a lovely lens) and the 50 mm f/1.4 D. If you have had a film SLR in the past, the transition from P&S won't be so bad. You just have to get used to the crop factor of the DX sensor. If you have only had P&S, use the kit lens for a while and get used to what that range of focal lengths does for you. Then, when you find the limits of what you can do vs what you want to do, expand your horizons (so to speak) with another lens or two.

CRP6001

Mr. Smiley, when you wrote that your budget was $1600, I thought you meant just for glass.
No need to apologize, very easy for me to sit back and think of ways to spend other people's
money. Sand and bfluegie are right, a basic wide angle to short telephoto will be the most useful
lens on your budget.

Mr Smiley

What would you think about this, A Nikon D5200, Kit comes with a 18-55 MM VR lens. Then add a 50MM f/1.8 lens?

cab.in.boston

I have two Nikon DX bodies and both the 50 f/1.8D and the 35 f/1.8G. Personally, I find the 35 a much more pleasing and useful focal length on a crop body. At first I had only the 50, and found that it just too long to use in most indoor situations. I was constantly backing up and running into walls. The 35 solved this problem, as it's wide enough to be useful indoors but not too wide to get that wide-angle distortion. Now the 35 stays on my D300 about 90% of the time, indoors, outdoors, you name it. I love that lens. It's a bit more expensive than the 50 (f/1.8D version, anyway - the newer 50mm f/1.8G is a tad pricier than the 35), but the length is just better on the crop bodies. The 50 is better suited as a head & shoulders portrait lens on DX, and I've found that I hardly ever use it anymore. YMMV.

I am not really a fan of the D5xxx series, for a couple of (not necessarily good) reasons:
1) I think the articulating screen is unnecessary and to me seems like something that could break off too easily, but I understand some people will find this very handy.
2) The lower-end DX bodies (D3xxx and D5xxx) lack the front sub-command wheel. I like having the two wheels, one for aperture, one for shutter speed, instead of having to use the same one (or a button press + wheel when in manual mode ?? - I'm not actually sure how it works in M...). I know my aperture is always on the front wheel, whether in A or M, and likewise the shutter is always on my thumb, whether in S or M. This may or may not matter to you, it's all a matter of how much control you want/need on your camera, and certainly you will adapt to whatever body you have.
3) The lower end bodies do not have the in-body focus motor. This means it will not autofocus legacy lenses like the aforementioned 50 f/1.8D. That's not really a big deal these days, as all new lenses have the in-lens motor (AF-S in Nikon-speak, HSM for Sigma, BIM for Tamron). So this may not matter at all, but with the in-body motor you can use older lenses that you find used or perhaps a friend/relative has lying around from the film days.

I see that on B&H the D7000 with 18-105 and some accessories (spare battery, memory card, etc) is going for about $1000 after instant rebate (ending 1 June 13). Although it's been replaced by the D7100, the D7000 is still no slouch of a camera. You could pick that up along with the 35mm f/1.8G and still be well under your $1600 budget. Or, if you want the improvements of the D7100, it's going for $1500 with the 18-105 lens (but you're on your own for the accessories). If you also wanted the 35, you'd be over your budget by $100 or so. IMO, both of those cameras are very nice, it's hard to lose either way.

You could also get the D7000 ($900) or D7100 ($1200) body-only, the 35 prime ($200), and something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom ($474 after rebate currently). I have that lens and am very happy with it. I prefer the more limited range with constant f/2.8 aperture over the wider range variable aperture kit lens (although the 18-105 is supposedly a very nice kit lens... I have never used it so can't speak from experience). The IQ of the Tamron is very good, it's nice to have the large aperture, and again, I use the 35 prime 90% of the time anyway. You can always add a telephoto lens later down the line if you find yourself restricted by your lenses. Glass is more important than lenses for good photos.

ziggy53

cab.in.boston wrote: »

... You could also get the D7000 ($900) or D7100 ($1200) body-only, the 35 prime ($200), and something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom ($474 after rebate currently). I have that lens and am very happy with it. I prefer the more limited range with constant f/2.8 aperture over the wider range variable aperture kit lens (although the 18-105 is supposedly a very nice kit lens... I have never used it so can't speak from experience). The IQ of the Tamron is very good, it's nice to have the large aperture, and again, I use the 35 prime 90% of the time anyway. You can always add a telephoto lens later down the line if you find yourself restricted by your lenses. Glass is more important than lenses for good photos.

Excellent advice.

ZBlack

I've got a D7000 and absolutely love it. Most of the images on my sites are from this camera and some of the older ones are from a D3100 a couple years back. I too recommend considering it along with the lenses mentioned above. The 35 1.8G is an awesome lens and I much prefer it indoors for the same reasons can.in.bostom recommended. I have a Sigma 17-50 2.8 and it's pretty much my go to lens that stays on my camera unless I have a need for something else, it's a great focal range and is really sharp.