Just Picked-up a New Nikon 7100 DSLR!

[exar333]

Just grabbed a new Nikon 7100 along with the following lenses:

• 18-200mm Nikkor lens
• 35mm fixed Nikkor lens

I have been using the D90 for a long time, but really have just been getting into cameras just recently. My wife is a pretty big photographer, but she is just getting out of older film SLRs that she used in college and is making the digital change finally.

Questions for those out there, I would like some advice on some other nice items to complement what I have. Assume I am not a pro, and would like to do a variety of stuff like some close-ups, vacation pics, family pics, and just fun stuff around the house and so forth.

What (if any) additional lens filters are helpful? I heard a polarized is nice, is that true?

Would a better be flash be helpful? if so, do I need to drop bank on it, or are they recently affordable? I don't plan to sink a ton more $$$ into it just yet.

I really like the 18-200 so far because it has awesome range to avoid swapping lens for vacation pics. I hated swapping lens on the fly for the D90 when I wanted close vs. sort-of far off pics. The 35mm is really nice for around the house, plus it's small (light) and has a great 1.8f-stop for low-light pics.

-mildly-experienced camera operator

 

[blastingcap]

close-ups, vacation pics, family pics, and just fun stuff around the house and so forth.

I really like the 28-200 so far because it has awesome range to avoid swapping lens for vacation pics. I hated swapping lens on the fly for the D90 when I wanted close vs. sort-of far off pics. The 35mm is really nice for around the house, plus it's small (light) and has a great 1.8f-stop for low-light pics.

-mildly-experienced camera operator

Since you hate swapping lenses, the 18-200mm becomes viable, even the 18-300mm if you need extra reach. Pair it with the 35mm f/1.8 for low-light indoor photos, or with a flash and you should be set.

If you want macro closeups try a Raynox DCR-150 or 250 filter.

Polarizers will create unevenly dark skies if used with wide angles, and they also reduce incoming light by a stop so use them only when you want their effect, e.g., to reduce water/foliage glare.

If you don't mind swapping lenses more often, a 16-85mm + 70-300mm combo is quite nice. The 70-300mm Tamron VC or Nikkor VR lenses can both be used for portrait shots if so desired... just shoot at maximum focal length and largest aperture (300mm @ f/5.6) and you'll get some decent bokeh.

You don't seem to need ultrawideangle so I won't even bother going there and besides the 16mm can get you to 24mm FX-equivalent which is enough for many casual users.

 

[exar333]

Since you hate swapping lenses, the 18-200mm becomes viable, even the 18-300mm if you need extra reach. Pair it with the 35mm f/1.8 for low-light indoor photos, or with a flash and you should be set.

If you want macro closeups try a Raynox DCR-150 or 250 filter.

Polarizers will create unevenly dark skies if used with wide angles, and they also reduce incoming light by a stop so use them only when you want their effect, e.g., to reduce water/foliage glare.

If you don't mind swapping lenses more often, a 16-85mm + 70-300mm combo is quite nice. The 70-300mm Tamron VC or Nikkor VR lenses can both be used for portrait shots if so desired... just shoot at maximum focal length and largest aperture (300mm @ f/5.6) and you'll get some decent bokeh.

You don't seem to need ultrawideangle so I won't even bother going there and besides the 16mm can get you to 24mm FX-equivalent which is enough for many casual users.

Thanks, that gives me some great stuff to consider. Appreciate the response!

Definitely enjoying the camera so far, and looking forward to spring finally arriving so I can get outside and start doing some more shooting.

 

[Indus]

16-85mm is a good variable aperture lens for close/ far off. It's razor sharp and better than the 28-200. Honestly it's so sharp that at 85mm, you could crop the image from 24 mp to 6 mp to give it that 200mm and it'd be giving you better quality than the 28-200mm at 200mm.

Exchange that lens if you can and get a Sb-700 flash if you can. A bounce flash makes a world of difference in pictures.

 

[Anteaus]

Grats on your purchase. I really liked my D7K before I moved to the D600. I love my D600 but the D7100 still makes me drool.

 

[RCFB]

The circular polarizer (CPL) can have a very good impact on your photos (take the glare off the surface of water, eliminate the glare on windows, etc), as long as you are in the proper position to the sun. If you aren't in a good position, you can get some ugly blobs of darkness on your photos, which I know from experience.

Here are a couple videos showing how to use a polarizer, and there are many more on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cFjwu82LdY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qxrL9SdywM

Common advice about choosing a CPL, or any filter, is that if you buy good lenses make sure that you buy a good quality filter; because you don't want to put a sub-par piece of glass in front of expensive glass.

I've bought a couple filters from this company, as they have a good reputation. Just one place you can peruse.
http://www.2filters.com/

Good luck with your new camera and accessories!

 

[irse]

If you don't use flash that often, a SB400 is a nice small flash. Congrats on your D7100. I just got mine last week.

 

[exar333]

Thanks everyone for the great suggestions. Definitely need to pick-up some filters and a flash, and I will see how the lenses shake-out and what we like. I definitely see us getting more fixed lenses, but I would rather get more experience and then figure out what works best for our needs. Hopefully the two we have now will get us by until we get a chance to grab a few more.

Thanks specifically to RCFB and irse for the specific suggestions on filters and a decent flash. I will check those both out!

 

[iGas]

The circular polarizer (CPL) can have a very good impact on your photos (take the glare off the surface of water, eliminate the glare on windows, etc), as long as you are in the proper position to the sun. If you aren't in a good position, you can get some ugly blobs of darkness on your photos, which I know from experience.

Here are a couple videos showing how to use a polarizer, and there are many more on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cFjwu82LdY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qxrL9SdywM

Common advice about choosing a CPL, or any filter, is that if you buy good lenses make sure that you buy a good quality filter; because you don't want to put a sub-par piece of glass in front of expensive glass.

I've bought a couple filters from this company, as they have a good reputation. Just one place you can peruse.
http://www.2filters.com/

Good luck with your new camera and accessories!

2filters.com seems to be a great find.

I wished that I found your message earlier, because I just ordered 2 Kenko filters at 3% lower quality than Marumi DHG Super Circular, and cost $20 more.

 

[blastingcap]

2filters.com seems to be a great find.

I wished that I found your message earlier, because I just ordered 2 Kenko filters at 3% lower quality than Marumi DHG Super Circular, and cost $20 more.

Going by the published %'s are misleading because there are so many other factors involved. The only comprehensive filter tests I've seen are by a Polish site, the English-language version being lenstip.com

E.g.,

http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html

http://www.lenstip.com/119.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test_-_supplement.html

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html

And even Lenstip isn't 100% comprehensive. For instance, many people say they dislike how hard it is to clean Hoya's HMC filters and their variants (except Hoya HD which is far easier to clean), but Lenstip doesn't take that into their numerical consideration. And what about durability and anti-cold-weather-lockup? Brass filters are better than aluminum, but once again, brass-filter filters do not get any bonus points at lenstip.com. But at least lenstip even tries to be comprehensive unlike other sites.

 

[iGas]

Going by the published %'s are misleading because there are so many other factors involved. The only comprehensive filter tests I've seen are by a Polish site, the English-language version being lenstip.com

E.g.,

http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html

http://www.lenstip.com/119.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test_-_supplement.html

http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html

http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html

And even Lenstip isn't 100% comprehensive. For instance, many people say they dislike how hard it is to clean Hoya's HMC filters and their variants (except Hoya HD which is far easier to clean), but Lenstip doesn't take that into their numerical consideration. And what about durability and anti-cold-weather-lockup? Brass filters are better than aluminum, but once again, brass-filter filters do not get any bonus points at lenstip.com. But at least lenstip even tries to be comprehensive unlike other sites.

I based the number off Lenstip review.

I also own 2 B&W CP, 2 Tiffen CP, and 1 Hoya CP filters.

 

[Munky]

Not to rain on your parade, but good photos come from having the creative vision to capture interesting images, and being at the right place at the right time. I would work on that instead of worrying about gear.

 

[blastingcap]

I based the number off Lenstip review.

Can you show me where Lenstip gives an overall % transmittance number or something? Surely you can't be saying that Lenstip gave the Marumi Super a 3% higher "score," since it ranks lower than the Kenko they tested. Perhaps you are talking about a different site.

 

[iGas]

Can you show me where Lenstip gives an overall % transmittance number or something? Surely you can't be saying that Lenstip gave the Marumi Super a 3% higher "score," since it ranks lower than the Kenko they tested. Perhaps you are talking about a different site.

http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

Overall Ranking

Marumi DHG Super Circular P.L.D 72 mm -- Result[%] 78.9

Kenko PRO1D Wide Band C-PL(W) 72 mm -- Result[%] 75.5

 

[blastingcap]

http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html

I was looking at the wrong page when I was looking at the rankings, you're right that the Supers rank slightly higher.

That said, the Lenstip scale is an arbitrary scale and 3% doesn't mean much. There are factors even Lenstip doesn't factor in (which I touched on), and the Kenkos do better in flare/ghosting tests apparently which imho are more important than the Supers slightly better blue extinction scores. Those Kenkos are good, I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[Silenus]

If you don't use flash that often, a SB400 is a nice small flash. Congrats on your D7100. I just got mine last week.

This. I have an SB-400 and an SB-800 myself. The 400 is is nice because it is very small and light, and quite inexpensive. Just be aware it is very limited compared to the big flashes. It cannot be used as a commander or remote and it only swivels vertically. So for occasioanlly snapshots where you want some ceiling bounce (which is still hugely better than direct on camera flash) it is great. If you want to do anything more fancy you will want an SB-600,700,800,900 ect.

 

[randomrogue]

This. I have an SB-400 and an SB-800 myself. The 400 is is nice because it is very small and light, and quite inexpensive. Just be aware it is very limited compared to the big flashes. It cannot be used as a commander or remote and it only swivels vertically. So for occasioanlly snapshots where you want some ceiling bounce (which is still hugely better than direct on camera flash) it is great. If you want to do anything more fancy you will want an SB-600,700,800,900 ect.

I was going to comment on the recommendation of the 400 as well. It's very limited so make sure it's what you're really looking for. Personally I like being able to bounce off walls or anything. Sometimes there's no way to bounce of the ceiling (church) and sometimes there's a color that would screw up your whole photo.

It's cheap though. If you want to use a cable to bring it off camera it might be a lot better but that kinda defeats the purpose of it. I personally use a SB-700.

 

[tdawg]

Check KEH.com for a used SB-600 or SB-700 (-800 or -900 if you want to spend the extra money). Having access to a speedlight that can act as a slave to the built-in flash is good fun. Nikon's wireless lighting system they've created with their modern speedlights works well and is a lot of fun.

 

[exar333]

Check KEH.com for a used SB-600 or SB-700 (-800 or -900 if you want to spend the extra money). Having access to a speedlight that can act as a slave to the built-in flash is good fun. Nikon's wireless lighting system they've created with their modern speedlights works well and is a lot of fun.

:thumbsup:

I will check it out! I would rather just have one flash, if the 400 is rather limited.

 

[tdawg]

:thumbsup:

I will check it out! I would rather just have one flash, if the 400 is rather limited.

I bought the 400 since it was much cheaper than the 600 at the time and less conspicuous, and it produced some nice shots, but it basically just collects dust now. Whenever I reach for a speedlight now, the 600 gets the nod.

 

[irse]

I keep the SB-400 just in case I need a flash. When I know I'll need one, I take a SB-800. A SB-800 is too big to carry around all of the time. A SB-400 on ebay cost only about $100

 

[exar333]

I keep the SB-400 just in case I need a flash. When I know I'll need one, I take a SB-800. A SB-800 is too big to carry around all of the time. A SB-400 on ebay cost only about $100

That makes sense. The 400 looks very compact and would be easy to throw in a small camera bag, 'just in case' you need a flash better than the built-in. I don't know if I would want to carry the big flash around much.

 

[RCFB]

Not to rain on your parade, but good photos come from having the creative vision to capture interesting images, and being at the right place at the right time. I would work on that instead of worrying about gear.

This is a GREAT point to remember! I like to look at various photo sites when researching camera bodies and lenses. It's also a good way, sometimes, to see creative angles or subjects that people choose. However, it's also amazing to see how bland and uninspiring many of the images are that are taken with expensive, pro-sumer gear (full-frame bodies, high-dollar lenses, etc.).

While there are many helpful sites for composition and such, this site is, by far, my favorite.

http://www.youtube.com/user/photoexposed/videos?view=0

But camera gear is fun to shop for (or even just research). :biggrin:

 

[matthew abner]

Great Camera. With 18-270 lens it is a compltete kit

 

[exar333]

This is a GREAT point to remember! I like to look at various photo sites when researching camera bodies and lenses. It's also a good way, sometimes, to see creative angles or subjects that people choose. However, it's also amazing to see how bland and uninspiring many of the images are that are taken with expensive, pro-sumer gear (full-frame bodies, high-dollar lenses, etc.).

While there are many helpful sites for composition and such, this site is, by far, my favorite.

http://www.youtube.com/user/photoexposed/videos?view=0

But camera gear is fun to shop for (or even just research). :biggrin:

Totally agree.

I wanted a nice camera with a good range (to start with) of lenses to experiment with. I am definitely not too proud to admit that my skill will be the limiting factor for quite some time, and not the equipment.

So far it has been a lot of fun and I am really digging the new camera. I love to learn new things, and there is just so much to learn in the world of photography.