Nikon D7100 or Sigma 18-35 mm 1.8

[mireamin]

Hello,

I have a Nikon D90 which is working well. I was thinking to buy a Sigma 18-35 1.8 lens. But it also came my mind that my Nikon D90 is getting old (3 yrs old) and I need to update my camera. Which one would be a right decision? Should I update to Nikon D7100 or I should buy a Sigma lens?

Your advise is highly appriciable.

 

[astroNikon]

The Nikon d90 was announced in August 2008.
So even though you've had yours for 3 years that technology seems to be 6 years old. --> Nikon D90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is your current lens lineup ?

 

[goodguy]

Stop thinking and go get the D7100, its a fabolous camera, I have it and it never stops to amaze me, well worth getting it over the 18-35mm 1.8

 

[Designer]

Hey, welcome!

When someone starts thinking of a new lens, one question arrises; what kind of photography do you want to do? If the 18-35 is that thing that you need to do what you want, then go for the lens. Just because a camera is 3 years old doesn't mean it is soon to crap out. I've had my camera for longer than that and it still works fine.

 

[hamlet]

Stop thinking and go get the D7100, its a fabolous camera, I have it and it never stops to amaze me, well worth getting it over the 18-35mm 1.8

I personally love the d7100 and i would buy it over the d610. If Nikons new d750 turns out to be a dud then my fall-back camera is the d7100.

 

[Derrel]

I would ditch the N90 for almost any new Nikon, in a heartbeat. A heartbeat. A NEW, 24-megapixel Nikon camera will leverage every single lens you can mount on the body. Meanwhile the D90 is a late Renaissance-era digital SLR. There comes a time when the BODY is more critical than the lens set; for any demanding uses, the D90 belongs in the subset of seriously outdated equipment compared to say, the D7100. The cheapest new Nikon gives remarkably better High ISO performance, and remarkably higher resolution, and remarkably wider dynamic range, than older, $5,000 professional Nikons like the D1x or D2x, from the early and mid-2000's eras. Everybody talks about the lenses, the lenses: I stayed with older cameras wayyyyy too long, and when I finally bought a NEWER, better sensor in a newer Nikon, my capabilities with the same old lenses went through the roof.

 

[PaulWog]

Depending on the lens / lenses that you currently have, you may need a new camera body and a new lens.

It's a bit of a catch-22:
Your D90 won't perform all too well even with something like the 18-35 1.8 Sigma lens. On the other hand, the D7100 paired with an old 18-50 kit lens will be lacking as well. If you have a decent prime lens, or any decent lenses, the D7100 is a great upgrade. Otherwise, consider a D7100 *and* a new lens at the same time.

 

[goodguy]

I would ditch the N90 for almost any new Nikon, in a heartbeat. A heartbeat. A NEW, 24-megapixel Nikon camera will leverage every single lens you can mount on the body. Meanwhile the D90 is a late Renaissance-era digital SLR. There comes a time when the BODY is more critical than the lens set; for any demanding uses, the D90 belongs in the subset of seriously outdated equipment compared to say, the D7100. The cheapest new Nikon gives remarkably better High ISO performance, and remarkably higher resolution, and remarkably wider dynamic range, than older, $5,000 professional Nikons like the D1x or D2x, from the early and mid-2000's eras. Everybody talks about the lenses, the lenses: I stayed with older cameras wayyyyy too long, and when I finally bought a NEWER, better sensor in a newer Nikon, my capabilities with the same old lenses went through the roof.

If Derrel agrees with me and recommends you to get the D7100 then its a done deal, get the D7100 and personally I would have been in the camera store 10 minutes ago already

 

[Derrel]

Stop thinking and go get the D7100, its a fabolous camera, I have it and it never stops to amaze me, well worth getting it over the 18-35mm 1.8

I sometimes cruise web sites looking at pictures and think, "What was that shot with? A D800? Must be a D800." Nope...D7100...the APS-C sensor Nikons have made HUGE strides since they went to 24 million pixels and NO anti-aliasing filter array in front of the sensor surface. The D7100 produces amazing image quality, and is shot by a lot of serious amateurs and semi-pro shooters, so the PICTURES these people shoot are really very amazing. I think the D3300 and D5300 are within a whisker of the same total resolution and dynamic range qualities, but the thing that everybody's really getting with the NEW-sensor Nikon cameras is the ability to adjust the RAW images in software; the files the cameras can produce now allow you to do major "shadow lifts"--without all the noise a D90 user would be expecting. meaning you can under-expose and STILL have a usable image. And yuo can overexpose more than you could with the older cameras, and the file is not utterly useless.

 

[Derrel]

Depending on the lens / lenses that you currently have, you may need a new camera body and a new lens.

It's a bit of a catch-22:
Your D90 won't perform all too well even with something like the 18-35 1.8 Sigma lens. On the other hand, the D7100 paired with an old 18-50 kit lens will be lacking as well. If you have a decent prime lens, or any decent lenses, the D7100 is a great upgrade. Otherwise, consider a D7100 *and* a new lens at the same time.

Yeah, Paul brings up a good point. Go here, Tests and reviews for the lens Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM A Nikon mounted on Nikon D7100 - DxOMark

and look at the Sigma 18-35mm lens's total score of 28--VERY good for a zoom lens of this type, and the 17 P-MPix count, or perceptual megapixel count, of the D7100, and then click on D90 under the camera icon, and see the overall score drop to 22 and 9 P-MPix...there's a big difference between 9 and 17 perceived Megapixels....that's not "a little bit" of difference, it's striking. It's an entirely different league with the ability to crop-in at the computer, or to shoot from longer distances.

Still...it's the CAMERA that's bringing home the bacon in this...the lens is the same...but with a much newer-sensored camera, the lens is "leveraged". And it's not just resolution, you are also getting as mentioned, the wider dynamic range, the better shadow recovery, lower noise, and a MAJOR advantage at higher ISO setting being actually usable, and not just junk-producing emergency numbers on an LCD scale.