If I am buying one lens to go with Nikon d7100, should I choose18-105mm or the 55-300 mm?
1594347
It is a personal preference. The 18-105 is much more versital than the 55-300 which is a zoom lens. The 18-105 covers about 75% of what you'll need if not 90% if your just a casual shooter. I'd recommend the 18-105 but if you have a 18-55 just get and 18-105 to replace it or get the 55-300 for a zoom. I have both of these lens and I can definately say the 18-105 is a better bet but if you really need a zoom lens get the 55-300.
1594348
Depends. Do you do mostly close up stuff, or landscape? If mostly close stuff, get the 18-105.
608750
i don't understand your question. i'm guessing that you want to know which one is the best choice. the best one will depend on what you do. i got the 17-70 because i notice that most of my photos will be shoot at between 18 and 80mm. i didn't want to switch between the kit lenses all the time.. also i wanted a bigger lens diameter for holding filters. i notice that that 17-50 is 77mm when my 17-70 is only 72mm.
1922050
The Nikon Version of this lens will work fine with a D7100... keep in mind the crop factor actually makes this lens a little longer than 70 - 300mm This will have more reach than the Nikon 55-200mm but not necessarily any more image quality, but not necessarily any less either. I hope this answers your question. I have this lens in Canon and I like it very well. Here is an image on my website that was taken with this lens. notice below the image is the EXIF info from the image, take a glance. http://1shutterbug.com/who-are-you-what-are-you-doing/
45804
I have no problems with it on my D7100. I have the 17-50 2.8 also, and that lens suffers from a weird issue where if you zoom into the image during playback, the pan buttons don't auto-repeat (you must press it yourself several times). That issue doe NOT affect the 50-150, and even if it did I find it a very small issue considering the image quality and price of the lens.
2004146
Definitely a newbie question, because only you can answer it. You never "need" to buy an additional lens. For years, many photographers shot with just a 50mm prime. Today, a good consumer zoom like the 18-105mm will satisfy a good 90% or more of shooting needs. However, if you desire greater creative control, better image quality (the color, contrast and corner-to-corner sharpness of the 35mm is noticeably superior to the zoom), then you might consider purchasing additional lenses. Of course, the differences are not night and day. The 18-105mm is an excellent lens, so the differences I describe are incremental. Take a look at the review on cameralabs.com to see if the differences are significant enough for you to spend the additional money.
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!
464452
I have both lenses and use them differently. The 23mm I mainly use when street shooting. But since I got the 23mm, I've don't use my 18-55 as much.
1944871
According to the tech specs for these lenses on the Nikon website, the 18-55mm zoom lens requires the 52mm filter and the 55-300mm zoom lens requires the 58mm filter.
1650133
While this lens performs well in a fairly wide variety of situations, I would recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 af-s dx or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 af lenses for portraits. Either of those will give you much better performance in lower light situations and they are both very sharp lenses. As I said, the 18-55mm is a great lens but if you want to focus exclusively on portraits, go with one of the others instead. I actually prefer the 35mm over the 50mm. Just my two cents though.
128288
This lens is designed for the Nikon One Series cameras which uses an entirely different mount than the d7100. Unless there is an adapter that I'm not aware of, you are out of luck.
1272575
I have both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 as well as the Tamron 28-300 that I shoot with the Nikon D200. I can't say if I prefer the 17-50 over 28-75 but I love both of them and find I use them both depending on what I'm shooting. If I could afford only 1 lens it would probably be the 28-75 for my type of shooting. If you;'e shooting large groups of people or need the wider angle then I'm sure 17-50 may serve you better.
1089118
Both 18-55mm and 55-250 mm lenses from Nikon have a filter size of 58mm and all these filters are 58mm, so you can use them without any issues. You can even use them with lenses of other filter sizes by employing the step-up and step-down rings (cost $5-10). However, personally, I would recommend not getting these filters and get the desired effect using filters and gradients in Photoshop.Hope this helps !!
1826885
i have a nikon d7100 with 3 lens, 50mm, 18-105mm and 55-300mm.. i try to attached my 55-300mm on it on the purpose on answering your question and put it on my bag together with the other 2 lens on both side and it fits, hope this helps
1192316
I have had the 18 to 200. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that lens. If you're predisposed towards it, I won't try to talk you out of it, BUT . . I really like the 18 to 140 on my daily carry D5200. Fits the job and fits my hands. VERY sharp with great contrast and saturation. BTW, my fair, civic gathering lens in my D300s is almost always the 18 to 300, so ya makes your choice and you take your chances. IMHO, as long as it says "Nikon" on, you can't go wrong. Pick one.
568548
200 isn't a lot more reach, but it was enough to make the decision for me. If you're concerned about weight and bulk, I'd say stick to the 45-150. Someday you can get the 100-300mm for serious reach. I think both lenses are good, so the decision boils down to personal preference.
596351
while the 10-30 and 30-100 are very good. I bought the 10-100 lens for the easy of having one lens to deal with. the nikon 1 series camera has a fast autofocus so i didn't want to slow down by changing lens.
719901
The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price. From what I've read about the 70-300: The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile. So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for. If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field and fast focusing. NOTE: Lenses are a long-term purchase more than cameras are. I have a Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8 lens I bought long ago that still works great with my d90.