Update 2:

Well I got both lenses, haven't even mounted them on a camera body yet and I just ordered a third. I discovered after receiving it the 35mm lens does not have a hard stop for infinity on the focus ring. This makes it a little bit of a PITA for nighttime photography. As I found out, autofocus does not really work at night. The lens needs to be set in manual focus. The problem with a lens that doesn't have a hard stop for infinity on the focus ring is that the focusing has to be done through the viewfinder and at night, that sucks.

So Adorama has the F-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR factory refurbished for $649. Decided to take a chance on it since that's $400 less than new in the box. Downside is only a 90 day warranty so I figure use the hell out of it for the first 90 days and see if it holds up.

Update:

Took advantage of Nikon's fall sale and ordered 2 lenses. Went with the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and a AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G.

Yes, the 10-20mm is slow, but I can't think of a better place than Alaska to play with an ultra wide angle lens. Yes, there have been times up here that I felt that 18mm wasn't wide enough.

The 35mm prime lens I plan on chasing the Northern Lights with. It was on sale for $156 which is cheap for Nikon glass. I'd like to play and see what a difference a fast lens makes for nighttime shooting. As I found out a couple of weeks ago, I need a lot more practice at night. I figured if nothing else it makes a dust cover for the camera body.

Original post:

Looking for some lens advice. A few months back I purchased the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR lens to use on my Nikon D7100. I then gave my AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens to my daughter.

Fast forward to now and I bought a Nikon D7500 relegating my D7100 to a secondary/backup camera and I'm wishing for my 18-140mm lens back to have a, "Walk around" lens for each camera body.

Original thought was to get the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR. Thinking being the faster speed of the lens would be better for chasing the Northern Lights and nighttime photography. While choking over the $900 price on the lens I discovered the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR for about $300. While not as fast, it provides a wider field of view, wider than the 18mm I currently have.

So anyone have experience with either of these lenses?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 2000Z-71,

I'd rethink your need for a zoom lens. Zoom is something most casual photographers are used to, but if you don't mind spending a minute or two cropping the pictures you actually want to use, a good prime lens will meet your needs and not necessarily break the bank.

I love my AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ($200) for low light shooting. 35mm is the smallest focal length prime lens Nikon makes currently, but it's wide enough for most anything.

Of the two zoom lenses you're looking at, I'd definitely go with the 16-80mm. The 10-20mm may have a wider field of view, but you're going to have a hell of a time with low light shooting if you can only stop down to f/4.5, IMO.

-Rob

I had a 10-20 and it had terrible distortions, as WA tends to do. Tokina makes a better alternative with much better correction, a better lens in general.

That said, I haven't used Nikon in 3 years so things may have changed.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckWall:
I had a 10-20 and it had terrible distortions, as WA tends to do. Tokina makes a better alternative with much better correction, a better lens in general.

That said, I haven't used Nikon in 3 years so things may have changed.

You're right about that.

B&H has the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens in a Nikon F-mount for sale right now at $379. That should get you where you want to go.

Hell, I might pick one up myself.

-Rob

The 35mm prime won't work with the 1.6X crop factor. It's a 50mm equivalent.

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
The 35mm prime won't work with the 1.6X crop factor. It's a 50mm equivalent.

Of course it will(??). He's shooting a D7500. It's a DX format lens - literally made for the DX sensor. The FX counterpart would have crop issues, but it's more like $1,500 and a bit faster given the full-size sensor.

I have no problem using it with my D3200 or D5600.

What am I missing?

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
The 35mm prime won't work with the 1.6X crop factor. It's a 50mm equivalent.

This depends on what you mean by "won't work." The lens in question is for the DX (cropped) format, so it _will_ work. As for the focal length, when I was shooting 35mm film, a 50-52mm lens was considered "normal" (i.e., not telephoto or wide-angle). In fact, I own the Nikkor DX AF-S 25mm 1.8G specifically for that purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
35mm is the smallest focal length prime lens Nikon makes currently, but it's wide enough for most anything.

Nikon currently makes 10.5mm, 14mm, 16mm, 19mm, 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm prime lenses.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
The 35mm prime won't work with the 1.6X crop factor. It's a 50mm equivalent.

Of course it will(??). He's shooting a D7500. It's a DX format lens - literally made for the DX sensor. The FX counterpart would have crop issues, but it's more like $1,500 and a bit faster given the full-size sensor.

I have no problem using it with my D3200 or D5600.

What am I missing?


-Rob

I believe 4MUL8R is saying a 35mm lens (whether it's a DX or FX lens) on an APS-C camera will have an effective field of view equal to about a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. It's not that it won't work, that narrow field of view is not practical for a walking around lens, in my opinion, unless you have a lot of room to back up.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
35mm is the smallest focal length prime lens Nikon makes currently, but it's wide enough for most anything.

Nikon currently makes 10.5mm, 14mm, 16mm, 19mm, 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm prime lenses.

In DX format? I was speaking relative to his camera.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
35mm is the smallest focal length prime lens Nikon makes currently, but it's wide enough for most anything.

Nikon currently makes 10.5mm, 14mm, 16mm, 19mm, 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm prime lenses.

In DX format? I was speaking relative to his camera.

-Rob

Only the 10.5mm is a DX lens, but it doesn't matter.

On a DX body, FX and DX lenses work exactly the same way and the only difference is that FX lenses tend to be physically a little larger and heavier than DX lenses (and often more expensive, more robust, and optically better, because the DX lens lineup is weighted more towards consumers and the FX lineup more towards enthusiasts and pros).

A lot of people actually specifically recommend buying FX lenses for DX camera bodies so that if you eventually buy a full-frame camera body you aren't stuck with a bunch of DX lenses that will require shooting the FX camera in crop mode where it only uses a DX-sensor sized portion of the larger FX sensor.

The 35mm f/1.8 DX lens is by all accounts a very good lens and a fantastic value given how inexpensive it is. All the Nikon primes in shorter focal lengths are a lot more expensive (and some are very specialized, like the PC-E tilt-shift lenses), but they are available.

Update at top.

Nice choices. I think you have a good combo there.

I have the same 35mm Nikon lens. It's a great lens.

For landscapes, I use the TAMRON 10-24MM F/3.5-4.5 I picked up used at KEH. It's been OK. Fun I find my iPhone is often easier to get landscapes these days.

After many years of professonally relying on zooms -- 16-35, 24-70, and 80-200, primarily -- I am now of the state of mind that you can never go wrong with a GOOD, fast prime lens.
Here's why: it forces you to get on your feet and move in order to find the perfect angle, height, etc. to get your shot.
It just opens the door to so many things.
I am enjoying the hell out of my new 85 f/1.8 lately.

My apologies for the multiple posts.
Not sure what happened here.

Double post.
Sorry.

And yet another Double post.
Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:
Update:

Took advantage of Nikon's fall sale and ordered 2 lenses. Went with the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR and a AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G.

Yes, the 10-20mm is slow, but I can't think of a better place than Alaska to play with an ultra wide angle lens. Yes, there have been times up here that I felt that 18mm wasn't wide enough.

The 35mm prime lens I plan on chasing the Northern Lights with. It was on sale for $156 which is cheap for Nikon glass. I'd like to play and see what a difference a fast lens makes for nighttime shooting. As I found out a couple of weeks ago, I need a lot more practice at night. I figured if nothing else it makes a dust cover for the camera body.

Original post:

Looking for some lens advice. A few months back I purchased the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR lens to use on my Nikon D7100. I then gave my AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens to my daughter.

Fast forward to now and I bought a Nikon D7500 relegating my D7100 to a secondary/backup camera and I'm wishing for my 18-140mm lens back to have a, "Walk around" lens for each camera body.

Original thought was to get the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR. Thinking being the faster speed of the lens would be better for chasing the Northern Lights and nighttime photography. While choking over the $900 price on the lens I discovered the AF-P DX NIKKOR 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR for about $300. While not as fast, it provides a wider field of view, wider than the 18mm I currently have.

So anyone have experience with either of these lenses?

I have a D7500 also; phenomenal camera. It allows you full and total control if you want it or you can set it to become increasingly automated to the point where it does everything but point itself at the subject and press the trigger.

I have set up mine in back button focus mode and I my usual lens is the 18-140/f/3.5-5.6G. I also have the faster 18-300/f3.5-5.6G, the 40/f2.8G Micro, the 35/f1.8G and the 10-20/f4.5-5.6G.

I recommend the books by Steve Perry @ backcountrygallery.com.

Update 2 at top

Curious why you didn’t go with a full frame format body when you switched, especially for night time/low light photos, the difference is extreme. When my wife was doing he professional photography thing, looked a bunch at Ken Rockwell’s website and found the information there very informative and (I felt) unbiased.