FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Jerry, so the 35mm in DX format would be equivalent to 53mm in FX format, I guess. I have an FX D750 and I was thinking of getting a 35mm prime instead of an FX 50mm prime for the D750. I have only a 28-300 for the D750 and so an FX 35mm prime might be a waste of $$. Although my thought is that a prime will give me better IQ than a zoom. -FiddleMaker

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Agree 100%!

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Excellent choice, but, unless there is something about the 7200 over a 7100 that is critical, you'll do far better on price getting a lightly used 7100. Still a fine camera and you'll have more money for lenses.

Drala2k Loc: Vermont

I have a D7100, for a few years now. On that I have the 18-200, a grey market nifty fifty and the 35. The 35 simply lives on my D7100. I use for family and events. This puppy is so sharp that it is a pleasure to crop with if you cannot get close enough. I only use the super zoom 18-200 when out and about and needed and the nifty 50 when outside as the reach is to much indoors. If I were only allowed to keep one lens for this camera it would be the 35 DX. This is my favorite lens for the D7100.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Something else to consider. The Tamron 16-300 covers all the focal lengths you are considering in 1 lens, Many here get very good results with that lens. Then after a time with that lens, you will be better prepaired to make a choice about a prime lens.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Since you are just starting stick with the camera and kit lens. After you have gained some experience you'll have a better idea of what you need.

Everyone is different and has different preferences. What is important to me may not be to you.

Good luck and happy shooting.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

You are getting good advice here! I'll just throw in my two cents:

First Cent: Get the 35mm DX 1.8 for sure!! Unless you plan to upgrade to full frame real soon. If so, get a 50mm f1.8/1.4 instead.

Second Cent: Consider the Nikon 70-300mm VR. It has killer reach on a DX and is also a full frame lens. I also have a faster 80-200mm f2.8, but it is so heavy I almost always choose the 70-300 to take instead. Used this lens for the multiple exposure pelican photo. It was taken (hand held) of this bird about 40 yards away on top a street lamp.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

save up and only buy FX lenses. if you enjoy photography, somewhere in the future you will want to convert to a full frame body such as the d750 or d810 or whatever is available when you are ready. that said, fx lenses will work correctly on a dx body, dx lenses will not work correctly on a full frame body. you will have much more money invested in lenses that camera bodies, so buying fx lenses as opposed to dx lenses will save you from needing to reinvest in lenses in the future. have fun

tjphxaz Loc: Phoenix, AZ

He does and it is very useful.

tjphxaz Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I agree with the idea to get FF lenses. They work well with your DX D7200 and will be there if/when you decide to get a full frame body. While DX lenses will function on a FF camera you lose close to half of the sensors resolution.
I also agree with the "learn to use one lens for a year or so" advice and would suggest the Nikon 28-300mm. On the other hand, if you think about an efficient 3-lens setup that will work for most all types of photography it would be the Nikon 10-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm. Then, a macro 105mm prime lens for extreme close-ups and a 150-600mm for wildlife. Then,.... You see where this is headed.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I believe the D7200 is offered with an 18-140mm lens (not an 18-135).

If you are interested in shooting field sports, wildlife and similar, the 55-300mm might be a good addition... especially if you can get it in a bundle for a good price.

The usual purpose for a faster prime such as the 35/1.8 would be low light shooting, a relatively compact lens at a lower price (compared to a zoom with similar speed and performance), and with a large aperture that makes it possible to strongly blur down backgrounds such as when shooting portraits. However, 35mm focal length is a bit short for a lot of typical portraiture... a 50mm to 85mm lens is more the preferred focal length for portraits, serving as short telephotos on a DX camera. On a DX camera, 35mm is a "standard" lens... serving similar purpose to the approx. 50mm lenses that many film cameras were sold in kit with, back in the old days. Those have largely been supplanted by more versatile zoom lenses now... and not everyone needs a fast prime in their kit.

Be a little careful where you buy. Some online sellers are scammers. If you find offers significantly lower than what Adorama and B&H Photo in NYC offer, be very suspicious. Those are probably the two highest volume authorized & reputable dealers in the US... And anyone offering very much lower prices pretty much has to be cutting corners somewhere!

EDIT:

DO NOT "save up and buy only FX lenses". The D7200 is a DX camera and can use both FX and DX lenses.... however FX or "full frame capable" lenses are going to be bigger, heavier and more expensive. It also seriously limits your selection, buying only FX lenses...

All that makes no sense what-so-ever when buying a DX camera. For one, it's entirely possible you'll never need or want an FX camera, so the extra you spend now to get FX lenses will just be a major waste of money. Plus, say some day you do get an FX camera. Most likely you'll have no trouble selling off any DX lenses you've been using in the meantime, to upgrade to FX lenses then.

The only people who should restrict themselves to "FX only" are those who only use FX cameras or who use both formats now or know for certain they will be buying an FX camera in the very near future. But, even then, anyone keeping a DX camera in their kit still might have good reasons to keep a few DX lenses to use with it.

I happen to shoot Canon, but it's the same with them as it is with Nikon. I do happen to use both crop and full frame cameras... And while most of my lenses are full frame (and thus able to be used on both), I have a few crop-only lenses as well: two ultrawides and a compact macro/portrait lens.

I've also had occasion to sell a lens or two, and they do not tend to depreciate anywhere near as rapidly as the cameras. A DSLR I bought ten years ago now sells for about 10% what it cost me new. Lenses I bought around the time and have used on that camera, as well as several generations of subsequent models I've upgraded to, typically still sell used for around 75% what I paid for them... Heck, in some cases I could recoup every penny I spent and a few even sell for more now so I could make a profit on them! That's like using those lenses for free for ten years!

So, I really wouldn't recommend passing up a good value in a bundle for either the 18-140mm or the 55-300mm DX lenses. For the 18-140mm, there simply is no good FX alternative. The FX 24-120mm f4 VR comes the closest, but you lose some significant wide angle coverage and end up spending $1100 instead of the $300 that the DX 18-140mm costs you in kit. For the latter telephoto zoom, the Nikkor 70-300mm FX VR would be able to serve as well, but is a bit larger, heavier and about twice the price...$500, instead of the $250 that the 55-300mm can be bought for in a bundle. So, you'd end up spending more than $1000 more to "only buy FX lenses", and would still need a wider angle lens too.

Similar is true of the 35mm lens, too. There are both DX and FX 35/1.8 Nikkors available... But the DX lens costs under $200, while the FX sells for more than $500. (Canon doesn't offer a lot of crop-only prime lenses yet... just a 24mm, 40mm and a 60mm Macro... AFAIK. So most of my primes are full frame capable lenses and usable on both camera formats.)

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

This is what I did and I'm extremely happy I did it this way.

ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

I would suggest the 18-140MM f3.5-5.6 kit lens versus the 18-135MM, which I believe is considered the 'high-end kit' offering for the D7200. I have this lens and it is sharp at 18MM, 140MM and everything in between. Learn how to use your DSLR and as you do, you will find what inspires you, which may then lead you to other lens selections. I had the 55-300MM and found the slight improvement in reach to be a bit disappointing. I enlarge to make up the difference. I also found Darrell Young's book "Mastering the Nikon DXXX" to be very helpful and a great complement to the owner's manual. I would suggest renting or borrowing before making anymore lens purchases.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

OK, thanks. I just noticed that I can get a copy thru Amazon.com
-FiddleMaker

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

I'm a Canon shooter so I can't comment on the Nikon lens' quality but as a fairly newcomer to photography I can tell you that you WILL want a longer lens. I bought a bundle when I got my camera, which included a 70-300mm lens & I quickly decided I had made a very good decision. Even though it wasn't a high quality lens, it allowed me to fill the frame with my subject at times that the 18-55mm kit lens wouldn't have. Also, due to the longer focal length I could produce better out of focus backgrounds. My advice then would be to get the 70-300 and have fun.

Walt