Ok, this is a bit of a kick in the keester

[goodguy]

It was so much easier when those folks were going to just buy me a D7000 - now I have choices.. lol.

Get the D7100-you know you want it :mrgreen:

 

[kundalini]

You were the one mentioning financial woes. I was only giving an outsider's perspective. Your sarcasm was delivered towards a response that was well intentioned. Do you think this is my first rodeo? All too often, a few shiny coins makes one's eyes shut wide open. You are amongst the millennium.

Peace, Out

 

[robbins.photo]

It was so much easier when those folks were going to just buy me a D7000 - now I have choices.. lol.

Get the D7100-you know you want it :mrgreen:

Yes, I do want it.. little devil on my shoulder - lol. I'm seriously leaning in that direction, my current lens setup is workable but I'd really like to have something eventually that would give me better results in the gym where the lighting conditions are just bad - I'm wondering how much difference the D7100's improved lowlight performance would make - and there is something to be said for getting the 7100 now when I have the money on hand and then worrying about the 2.8 later. So really I think it's going to come down to a choice between keeping the D5100 and dropping most if not all of this on a lens or getting the D7100 and going with the cheaper D version maybe next paycheck. I'll end up compromising either way but I won't be using the 2.8 as much, my 70-300 mm VR has been a phenomenal lens and it works extremely well for 90-95% of my shooting. The other thing that I'm looking at is that the 2.8's in my price range, I can get a Sigma with the OS but I've read a lot of things about the Sigma's being a bit of a crap shoot as far as quality, so that is making it hard to justify dropping $800 + on one, I could probably get a Tamron without the VC which would be a little cheaper used but not a whole lot, or I can drop back to the D lens but of course if I do that I'll need to get a body with the autofocus motor.

 

[robbins.photo]

You were the one mentioning financial woes. I was only giving an outsider's perspective. Your sarcasm was delivered towards a response that was well intentioned. Do you think this is my first rodeo? All too often, a few shiny coins makes one's eyes shut wide open. You are amongst the millennium.

Peace, Out

Financial woes? I merely mentioned I was on a budget. Most people would not consider 1 k to spend on your hobby to be a situation where there was much woe. But your original response, frankly, was completely unhelpful. I laid out the options I considered viable at the time and your "recommendation" was to spend 3 to 5 grand, in other words about 3 to 5 times the amount on some monster 2.8 300 mm. I'm really happy that sort of purchase is feasible for you, it isn't for me - I'm not a pro and I have other priorities. While Derrel's suggestion of going a little above budget is quite reasonable, yours was frankly quite ridiculous. This not being your "first rodeo" I find it difficult to believe that you didn't realize that from the outset.

As to to the rest, sorry but I didn't see your follow up response as well intentioned, it came across as *extremely* disrespectful. If that was not your intent then I do apologize, but lets face it - you started the post with that silliness about me referring to the 200 mm supposedly as a prime when it was quite obvious what I meant and then launched into what came across as a lecture on my finances. This ain't my first rodeo either, and frankly you can hardly blame me for "mistaking" that as snark.

 

[goodguy]

Well to be honest there isnt a huge different between the D7000 and D7100 in low light performance but I am sure you know that already.
Truth to be told according to new numbers I am seeing the D5300 is slightly better then the D7100 in low light and has slightly better dynamic range so maybe even consider that.

And there is a third option, sell the D5100 and try to get the D600, this will solve all your low light problems.

 

[PaulWog]

I really truly believe in buying for what you *need* first and foremost.

The crop factor on the D7100 is nice, but I think a D610 is worth taking into serious consideration. Especially considering you're using a D5100 right now. You were already looking at upgrading your camera body anyway, so that seems to be something you really want to go for..

Congrats by the way I'm pretty sure you already have a pretty good idea of what you're going to be doing?

 

[TheLost]

In this case... i would go with glass over a body.

Your D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000 so your only adding features. And as always, Rumors of the D300 replacement start showing up each year at this time.. If we do see a D9000/D400 in FEB prices on both the D7000 and D7100 should drop (IMHO).

bodies come and go... but good glass can stay with you a loong time...

Skip the Sigma & Tamaron... and scrounge up an extra $200 (to your $1k budget) and get the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1.

 

[TheFantasticG]

If we do see a D9000/D400 in FEB prices on both the D7000 and D7100 should drop (IMHO).

I was betting a long time ago when the D5000 was released that the D300 replacement will be called the D9000.

 

[PaulWog]

In this case... i would go with glass over a body.

Your D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000 so your only adding features. And as always, Rumors of the D300 replacement start showing up each year at this time.. If we do see a D9000/D400 in FEB prices on both the D7000 and D7100 should drop (IMHO).

bodies come and go... but good glass can stay with you a loong time...

Skip the Sigma & Tamaron... and scrounge up an extra $200 (to your $1k budget) and get the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1.

With the built-in focus motors on basically all the new glass, I wonder how long a lot of it will last. And going with a Tamron f2.8 70-200, it might last a while... but a good new body would be 4-5 years at least, easily. I think *investment* (length of ownership) is irrelevant in this case.

With that said, good glass still might be the way to go ;P

 

[jaomul]

Is the Tamron 70-200vc in your budget. If i end up with a 70-200mm in the next year it will be a toss up between the tanron and sigma with me erring towards Tamron at the moment.

A totally different angle- a good secondhand d700. From what I read its a stop or so better than nikons crops(maybe allowing your 70-300mm be usable for what you require), has built in motor, is fullframe and one hell of a camera at its price point now

 

[RichieT]

If it was me, I would go for the better glass first. If you're starting indoor sports in a couple of months, upgrading the body would still leave you with slow glass. I used the 70-300mm a lot on my D300 for outdoor sports, but it was too slow for indoors (mostly wrestling.) I used a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (last non OS version) for indoors. I didn't notice softness wide open. What I did have is a bad front focus problem which I found out was common with this lens. (funny how these problems never show up when researching reviews) I'm not too far from Sigma HQ and they fixed it in one day. I heard one way the third parties keep prices down is that they have a wider range of acceptable in spec than Nikon or Canon. They don't reject as many lenses but may have a noticeable difference between high in spec and low in spec lenses. I would be a little leery of buying one used because of this, though that's still an option. I thought of replacing mine with the Nikon 70-200mm F4 but I kept reading after 150mm it gets soft.

 

[robbins.photo]

I really truly believe in buying for what you *need* first and foremost.

The crop factor on the D7100 is nice, but I think a D610 is worth taking into serious consideration. Especially considering you're using a D5100 right now. You were already looking at upgrading your camera body anyway, so that seems to be something you really want to go for..

Congrats by the way I'm pretty sure you already have a pretty good idea of what you're going to be doing?

Lol.. well at the moment I've got quite a few options but I think I've narrowed it down to two - keep the D5100 (which has been a good fit for me and has been doing the job admirably) and get a 70-200 mm, most likely a Nikkor without VR if I can find one at the right price. Eventually I will be upgrading bodies to the D7100 but it's not something I absolutely need to do at the moment, more of a "nice to have" sort of deal. The advantage here is that I'd have the faster glass in the bag for when I get the upgraded body, and by waiting a few months before going to the D7100 I'll most likely be able to get a little bit better deal on the body.

My other option of course is to buy the D7100 now, and pickup an older 80-200 mm Nikkor D version of the lens. It will be slower to focus but I think it will most likely still be workable, I mean it's a high school dance team not the NFL after all.. lol. That would give me better lowlight than what I have now and some other nice features - and most likely I could sell the D5100 and get enough money to cover the 80-200 mm or pretty close since the older D versions come at a much lower price tag. The other advantage there of course would be with the autofocus motor it would open up a lot of possibilities for lenses that currently are not really available to me at the moment.

I think I've pretty much scratched the Sigma/Tamron off my list, since I'll be buying used and the quality control issues are just too much of a concern that way. Either way though I don't think there's really a bad option here. As to full frame, I don't see that happening for me anytime in the near future. I've been pretty happy with APS-C up to this point and it works really well for the kind of shots I normally take - the better lowlight would be nice but for me the crop factor and the cheaper body cost make APS-C a better option for me at least for the moment.

 

[robbins.photo]

If it was me, I would go for the better glass first. If you're starting indoor sports in a couple of months, upgrading the body would still leave you with slow glass. I used the 70-300mm a lot on my D300 for outdoor sports, but it was too slow for indoors (mostly wrestling.) I used a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (last non OS version) for indoors. I didn't notice softness wide open. What I did have is a bad front focus problem which I found out was common with this lens. (funny how these problems never show up when researching reviews) I'm not too far from Sigma HQ and they fixed it in one day. I heard one way the third parties keep prices down is that they have a wider range of acceptable in spec than Nikon or Canon. They don't reject as many lenses but may have a noticeable difference between high in spec and low in spec lenses. I would be a little leery of buying one used because of this, though that's still an option. I thought of replacing mine with the Nikon 70-200mm F4 but I kept reading after 150mm it gets soft.

Yup, I've removed Sigma/Tamron from the list since I'll be going used. Just too much of a possibility of ending up with something I'll have to dump more money into to get it to work properly so I'm thinking my best bet is going to be either the Nikkor G model without VR or the older D model plus a body upgrade.

 

[Tee]

Whatever you buy, buy quick. Those prepaid cards start ticking off the dollars the longer you wait.

 

[robbins.photo]

Whatever you buy, buy quick. Those prepaid cards start ticking off the dollars the longer you wait.

Lol.. very true. Which just might end up influencing my final decision, I'll have to see what's available on Ebay at the moment and go from there.