amehta Loc: Boston

Even at $1800 you're close to full frame territory. But for sports/action photographers, the best APS-C is better than the "consumer" full frame. It should shoot faster and longer (fps + frames before the buffer is full), and should be built better, more like the 5D Mark III than the 6D. It should also autofocus better, again more like the 5D Mark III than the 6D.

mmike818

Rumor says 10 fps; we'll see

Wally in Austin Loc: Austin, TX

The primes listed above are light and optically very good. Also the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is optically very good and not to expensive. The 35 f1.8 for DX is a superior prime.

jfn007 Loc: Close to the middle of nowhere.

I would buy this lens! I love it. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm-vr.htm

RetiredPhotog Loc: South West Ohio

I have Sigma, Tamaron and Nikor lenses for my D7100 and they are all great. At one time I wouldn't buy anything but Nikor lenses but found advantages in all of them.

bbrown5154 Loc: Baltimore, MD

My advice, as a D7100 owner, is The Kit Lens is fine to start out with but since you are an experienced user and mentioned Portrait work I would go with a prime lens. The Nikon 50mm 1.4 would be an excellent choice. Great Glass and won't break the bank.
Curious as to why you want to "mix" your cameras?
Does the 7100 offer something you want and currently don't have.
Also there are strong rumors that that the an upgrade to the D7100 is coming out later in the year so you may want to wait for the newer model or pick up a D7100 slightly cheaper.
Sorry for the longwinded response. LOL.

mmike818

I've always been a Canon Shooter; and I Love Canon because I know Canon. I'd like to get to know Nikon as well; I think it will make me a better all around Photographer.

David Kay Loc: Arlington Heights IL

Nikon 24-120 f4. Best walk around lens. I have this on one of my bodies 100% of the time and use it 85% of the time.

mmike818

I'm gonna look that one up. Thanks Kay

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

They have quite a few to choose from, and how much you're willing to spend will narrow the selection.

I like the 28-300mm for daily use. It's an FX lens, but that's okay, and the price is reasonable.

You'll find that Nikon and Canon have different Menu systems, and that will take some getting used to. It's good for the brain, though. :D

Edit: Another consideration is brand. You can get a great non-Nikon lens for a good price, but resale will also be lower.

pasiuk57 Loc: Apple Valley, Minnesota

I was in the same boat and went with a 50mm prime f1.4 and an 18-300. I love them both

mmike818

I must admit I'm leaning toward the 50 1.4; as a first lens. I've always been partial to primes.

mmike818

Hopefully the D7100 will come down a little more in price

watchcow Loc: Moore, Oklahoma

Coming from several years of using of using Nikon film gear, when i got my first digital i didn't thing much would change. i already had lenses right? I didn't really change lenses when i was using the Kodak DCS420 (Kodak digital-converted N90)but once i started using the D70 a lot i saw the need to change. my 24-120 was obsolete at that point. i got a deal on the 18-70mm and have used it until it is now literally worn out. (it only took 9 years and 60,000 pictures) for a plastic barreled kit lens it turned out to be quite a useful part of my kit. I have retired it and am looking for a replacement. the 18-55vrII that came with my recent D5300 is optically better than the 18-70 ever was, but i miss that little extra reach. the 16-85 Nikon or the 17-70mm Sigma are what i am considering.

So far as third-party lenses, i have never been disappointed by any grade of Tokina lens ever, i have a 19-35(14 years) i used with film, and a 12-24 (8 years) that I chose over the nikon 12-24 because i borrowed both from a local dealer and after a few weeks i could not tell you which lens took which picture, so the Tokina saved me $600 with no regrets. i have a Tamron 70-300 that is about 16 years old i still use. Sigma has been more of a mixed bag for me. Some have been great, but i have had a few that were outright dogs. I still have a 28-105/2.8-4 from the film days, and it is sharp enough, but the gearing in the lens even on my N90s and D200 made that thing focus slower than a retarded snail. I have friends that have the 80-200/2.8 sigma lenses and like them, and lots of people with the 17-50 and the 10-20mm. the newer EX series with the HSM focus motors seem to be pretty decent.

I take pictures of kids and kids events mostly. i also shoot weddings and social events as paying gigs. the prime i use the most is a well worn 85mm f1.8, the zoom i used the most was that 18-70 nikon, (rest in peace buddy) and the 70-200/2.8 vr. those 3 lenses plus the tokina 12-24 and a TC-14eII teleconverter rounded out my default kit for the last 7 years. I would sometimes trade a lens out like swap the 12-24 for the 50mm/1.8 or Sigma 28-105 for lower light, or trade the 70-200 for the 70-300 for weight reduction if i was going to be on my feet all day.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Consider the 18-105mm. It is a "kit" lens, but has very good IQ. I used it on my D90 and D7000. It came as a kit lens with the D90 and when I upgraded to D7000 I bought the body only and continued to use the same lens on the D7000.