I'm an amateur, 100% and would like some professional advice on a buying new lens. I'm going to Rome on a once in a lifetime vacation in August. I have a T3i with the 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300 lens. I asked for advice a while ago about a lens for the trip and the answer I got seemed to overwhelming point me towards a wide angle 10-20, 11-16, 10-24 etc. Here's the question... Can I get the same results with an all-in-one lens like the Tamron 18-270? I'd really like to spend $500 only once. Remember I'm only an amateur, but like all armatures I constantly read UHH hoping to get possessional results. Thanks all.

I am traveling to NYC this weekend and taking one prime and my 200mm (for my Nikon D3200).

I will do mostly random street and architecture/building shots, but it is supposed to rain so I won't be switching lenses much.

In choosing between the two prime lenses, I think my considerations are speed (I believe the 35mm is faster...but probably not much difference?) and performance in low-light (they are both pretty good).

Yep. Take the 35. Slightly wider and faster.

Anything else to help me decide?

THANKS.

I am going to acquire one more FX lens before I buy a D-800e. I currently have a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and a 105g f2.8. I mostly shoot outside. Since I can't have both before I get an 800e, I am having a difficult time deciding on the either/or. I know it's a nice problem to have. I am interested in getting one of these two and I want the one that gives me an "advantage" of reaching tack-sharp shots. I realize that "tack-sharp" is up to me and not necessarily the lens. What would you do?

Hello everyone. I have been following this site for quite a while, but this is my first posting. I am hoping to get some advice from someone that has both a D600/610 and a D7100. I currently own a D200 and it has been a great camera for me. Love the layout and the feel of the semi-pro body. As long as I do not have to push the ISO too high, it performs great. My main interest in photography is high school sports. The D200 works great as long as there is plenty of light, but for night games under the lousy stadium lights, or inside a gym I am only good up to about ISO 800 before things get too grainy and too much loss of detail. So the question is, a D7100 or D610? Advantages of 7100; better focus system, more reach, slightly faster FPS and of course price. Advantages of 600, better high ISO image quality, which is very important. All my lenses are FX, including my main sports lens, the old but trusty 80-200 AF-S 2.8 By the way, I only shoot sports in JPEG so the buffer is not an issue, and I do crop most of my photos in PP. Thanks for any advice you can give me.

I'm replacing my Nikon AF-S 55-200mm 4.5 -5.6 G ED VR lens with either the AF-S 70 - 200mm f2.8 VR or VRII lens. I own a d200 body with 30,000 shutter releases, so I figure it's good for another 5-10 years of photos, and I'm in NO WAY interested in video. The reviews of the two lenses that I've read justify the doubled price of the VRII by the improved close-up focus the VRII can deliver, the 50% distortion reduction, and the fact that the VR capability is so good that a hand-held photo shot at ss 1/8 sec. is tripod sharp.

I can get the VR in nearly new condition for around 1200 or a very good VRII from Amazon or B&H for 2050.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

I need input between Nikon 10-24 mm wide angle vs the Tokina 11-16mm DX II (which has a fixed f2.8). I'm mainly wanting to shoot indoor houses for real estate website and brochures...although I know I will be using it for outdoors as well. The reviews on the Tokina DX II have been very good and are very well made...even compared to the Nikkor ones.
By the way....I'm shooting with a Nikon D5100. I'm concerned about the 10-24 in low light inside homes without using flash.
Any help will be appreciated...I'm obviously not a pro at this and want to buy right the first time. I have the Nikkor kit lens 18-55 and 55-300 that came with it, but at 18 I can't get enough of the room in the pic.
Thanks,
jerry