Nikon DX upgrade? Body? Lenses

[bcarlson87]

I have the chance to upgrade some of my camera gear.
I do a little bit of everything, We travel a lot so I like to do a lot of nature/landscape/wildlife/flowers stuff. I do some sports action stuff and of course the standard people portrait shoots.

I am looking for honest opinions on a new body and a sharp lens. Budget isn't giant, but I have some wiggle room. I am thinking of getting the Nikon d500 and an new lens. My set up is currently DX, so i'm thinking its best to stay in that line.

What body would you get? And what lens?

I currently have:

-Nikon D5100 body
-Nikon D7200 body
-Nikon SB 700 Flash
-Nikon Af-p DX Nikko 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 G VR Lens
-Tamron 18-400mm f.3.5-6.3 Di II VC HDL Lens
-Nikon AF-S Nikko 35mm 1:1.8 G Lens
-Rokinon 8mm ultra wide angle f/ 3.5 fisheye lens
-Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 G
-Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18mm-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6 G

 

[480sparky]

Are you upgrading bodies because of something the 5100 and 7200 can't do that you need them to do? Or simply suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome?

If you're chasing sharpness in lenses, primes would be the best place to start looking.

 

[bcarlson87]

Are you upgrading bodies because of something the 5100 and 7200 can't do that you need them to do? Or simply suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome?

If you're chasing sharpness in lenses, primes would be the best place to start looking.

Upgrading because I can and to help advance my photography. Any Prime recommendations?

 

[480sparky]

You've already got a 35 and fisheye. Maybe a 20 or 24, 50 and 200.

 

[Derrel]

I would look at the Tamron 90 mm macro for flower close ups. In terms of a better performing lens in the tele-zoom category, a 70 to 200 mm f/4 AFS VR-G would be a sharp,

 

[Derrel]

I would look at the Tamron 90 mm macro for flower close ups. In terms of a better performing lens in the tele-zoom category, a 70 to 200 mm f/4 AFS VR-G would be a sharp,light weight, portable lens. The only issue however is that on DX you lose that 50 mm bottom end from the 55-200,which is very handy.The 70–200 lens is however a better lens than the 55–200 lens is.

 

[ac12]

IMHO, unless you shoot sports or FAST action, the D500 gets you very little/nothing over the D7200 for general photography.

The DX cameras can deliver sharp images, but only IF the lens does its part.
Most consumer zoom lenses are "good enough" for the average person. But don't deliver the sharpest images that your camera is capable of.
The super/ultra zooms are convenient, but do not give you the sharpest images that your camera is capable of.
Quality of different models differs, so you have to do your research.

​

REALLY study the lens reviews.
So if you want sharp, get GOOD lenses. Go with pro grade lenses or good primes.

I got the pro grade 70-200/4 and I was amazed at how much more detail it gave me, over my 18-140.
​

There are a couple of pro grade DX lenses: 17-55/2.8 and 16-80/2.8-4.
After that you have to go to the FX lenses for pro glass: 24-70/2.8, 24-85/2.8, 24-120/4, 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4 and a few others.
Primes, if they fit your need; 35/1.8, 50/1.8, . . .

To me the biggest benefit of primes is the FAST speed when you have to shoot in low light, or the specialist lenses like macros.
Otherwise I prefer zooms for general use.​

I agree with Derrel about the 70-200. It was designed for the FX cameras, and the 70mm low end is a bit long for a DX camera. But there is NO DX lens that is the equivalent of the pro grade 70-200. That is why I got a 70-200. FYI the DX equivalent would be a 45-135. The other option is the 24-120/4, but the image quality is not at the level of the 70-200.
I do not know how the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 lenses compare in image quality to the Nikon lens.

Warning. The Sigma zooms that I looked at, the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than the Nikon zoom rings. Depending on what and how you shoot, this can be a non-issue to a major problem. I shoot sports, so I operate the zoom ring with muscle memory. The Sigma lens turning in the opposite direction caused me to loose so many shots that I gave up in frustration, REJECT. Will it be an issue for you, you have to make that call. For casual use, I would say not an issue.

 

[Designer]

[QUOTE="bcarlson87, post: 3926449, member: 148904]"..nature/landscape/wildlife/flowers stuff. I do some sports action stuff and of course the standard people portrait shoots."

What body would you get? And what lens?[/QUOTE]With your list of subject matter, I think a "full frame" might be your next move. (it galls me to write that term) Since I didn't see a projected budget amount, I'll go ahead and max out your credit card for you:

D850
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR

Then give your D5100 (along with the bottom two lenses) to someone who needs it, and start collecting superb Nikon primes.

I normally would not recommend that combo, but in your case, considering what you like to photograph, this would actually make sense. (to me, anyway)

This lens won't do everything for you, but until you get that Nikon 200-500 tele, it should be fine. Also, if you're into portraiture, you'll want some nice portrait lenses.

Yup, that should get you started all right.

 

[RVT1K]

Have you considered something used or does it have to be new?

I got a used D3 from eBay for a good price and spent a couple of hundred bucks getting it cleaned/serviced and having some of the rubber parts replaced. Even after all of that, it still a very reasonable investment for what was Nikon's best camera body at the time. The only drawback I can think of (I'm sure there are others) would be that it does not have the low-light capabilities of the more modern bodies out there now.

 

[Braineack]

Take the D7200, leave the D5100.

Upgrading because I can and to help advance my photography. Any Prime recommendations?

then there's no reason to ditch the d7200 for the d500.

you have some low-end glass, replacing the 18-55 and 55-200 with sharper/faster glass could be a better investment.

 

[bcarlson87]

IMHO, unless you shoot sports or FAST action, the D500 gets you very little/nothing over the D7200 for general photography.

The DX cameras can deliver sharp images, but only IF the lens does its part.
Most consumer zoom lenses are "good enough" for the average person. But don't deliver the sharpest images that your camera is capable of.
The super/ultra zooms are convenient, but do not give you the sharpest images that your camera is capable of.
Quality of different models differs, so you have to do your research.

​

REALLY study the lens reviews.
So if you want sharp, get GOOD lenses. Go with pro grade lenses or good primes.

I got the pro grade 70-200/4 and I was amazed at how much more detail it gave me, over my 18-140.
​

There are a couple of pro grade DX lenses: 17-55/2.8 and 16-80/2.8-4.
After that you have to go to the FX lenses for pro glass: 24-70/2.8, 24-85/2.8, 24-120/4, 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4 and a few others.
Primes, if they fit your need; 35/1.8, 50/1.8, . . .

To me the biggest benefit of primes is the FAST speed when you have to shoot in low light, or the specialist lenses like macros.
Otherwise I prefer zooms for general use.​

I agree with Derrel about the 70-200. It was designed for the FX cameras, and the 70mm low end is a bit long for a DX camera. But there is NO DX lens that is the equivalent of the pro grade 70-200. That is why I got a 70-200. FYI the DX equivalent would be a 45-135. The other option is the 24-120/4, but the image quality is not at the level of the 70-200.
I do not know how the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 lenses compare in image quality to the Nikon lens.

Warning. The Sigma zooms that I looked at, the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than the Nikon zoom rings. Depending on what and how you shoot, this can be a non-issue to a major problem. I shoot sports, so I operate the zoom ring with muscle memory. The Sigma lens turning in the opposite direction caused me to loose so many shots that I gave up in frustration, REJECT. Will it be an issue for you, you have to make that call. For casual use, I would say not an issue.

Any links for those lenses you can provide? I am interested in the option of upgrading my lenses and keeping my d7200

 

[Designer]

Any links for those lenses you can provide? I am interested in the option of upgrading my lenses and keeping my d7200

The newest iteration of the venerable 70-200 is nothing but phenomenal in performance (and price). Yes, it's expensive, and I doubt if you will see any used examples anytime soon, but for someone who can afford it, it is right now the bee's knees in terms of performance. The VR should be called VRIII, but that is not how Nikon has done it. Here is a link, although you might be able to find one for a bit less by shopping around:

AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR | Interchangeable Lens for Nikon DSLRs

Then, as I wrote above; you might want to start collecting some of Nikon's best prime lenses. Unfortunately, some are now discontinued, so will not be available everywhere. However, FORTUNATELY, they can be found in good condition at a substantially REDUCED PRICE! Over the past year I have obtained some lenses that are known for their color, contrast, and depth rendition, which makes them quite nice for portraiture.

No links, because you need to know which exact lens you're looking for before you start your search.

Good luck!

Oh, and you might be able to sell your D5100 and the two "kit" lenses privately to ease the pain of buying something else.

 

[ac12]

The newest iteration of the venerable 70-200 is nothing but phenomenal in performance (and price). Yes, it's expensive, and I doubt if you will see any used examples anytime soon, but for someone who can afford it, it is right now the bee's knees in terms of performance. The VR should be called VRIII, but that is not how Nikon has done it. Here is a link, although you might be able to find one for a bit less by shopping around:

AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR | Interchangeable Lens for Nikon DSLRs

My issue with that lens is that Nikon moved the zoom ring to the front of the lens. To me that seems like it would be difficult to use/zoom hand held. I would have to actually try it to see what the balance and handling is like. I like my 70-200/4 with the zoom ring where it is, which is perfect for handheld use. I hold the lens at the balance point of the lens+camera, and my fingers easily turn the zoom ring. Maybe if you shoot on a monopod, then a front zoom ring is farther from the monopod so your hand has more clearance.

 

[ac12]

IMHO, unless you shoot sports or FAST action, the D500 gets you very little/nothing over the D7200 for general photography.

The DX cameras can deliver sharp images, but only IF the lens does its part.
Most consumer zoom lenses are "good enough" for the average person. But don't deliver the sharpest images that your camera is capable of.
The super/ultra zooms are convenient, but do not give you the sharpest images that your camera is capable of.
Quality of different models differs, so you have to do your research.

​

REALLY study the lens reviews.
So if you want sharp, get GOOD lenses. Go with pro grade lenses or good primes.

I got the pro grade 70-200/4 and I was amazed at how much more detail it gave me, over my 18-140.
​

There are a couple of pro grade DX lenses: 17-55/2.8 and 16-80/2.8-4.
After that you have to go to the FX lenses for pro glass: 24-70/2.8, 24-85/2.8, 24-120/4, 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4 and a few others.
Primes, if they fit your need; 35/1.8, 50/1.8, . . .

To me the biggest benefit of primes is the FAST speed when you have to shoot in low light, or the specialist lenses like macros.
Otherwise I prefer zooms for general use.​

I agree with Derrel about the 70-200. It was designed for the FX cameras, and the 70mm low end is a bit long for a DX camera. But there is NO DX lens that is the equivalent of the pro grade 70-200. That is why I got a 70-200. FYI the DX equivalent would be a 45-135. The other option is the 24-120/4, but the image quality is not at the level of the 70-200.
I do not know how the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 lenses compare in image quality to the Nikon lens.

Warning. The Sigma zooms that I looked at, the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than the Nikon zoom rings. Depending on what and how you shoot, this can be a non-issue to a major problem. I shoot sports, so I operate the zoom ring with muscle memory. The Sigma lens turning in the opposite direction caused me to loose so many shots that I gave up in frustration, REJECT. Will it be an issue for you, you have to make that call. For casual use, I would say not an issue.

Any links for those lenses you can provide? I am interested in the option of upgrading my lenses and keeping my d7200

Go look them up on Nikon USA's site, and the various review sites.
Google is your friend.

 

[Braineack]

The newest iteration of the venerable 70-200 is nothing but phenomenal in performance (and price). Yes, it's expensive, and I doubt if you will see any used examples anytime soon, but for someone who can afford it, it is right now the bee's knees in terms of performance. The VR should be called VRIII, but that is not how Nikon has done it. Here is a link, although you might be able to find one for a bit less by shopping around:

AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR | Interchangeable Lens for Nikon DSLRs

My issue with that lens is that Nikon moved the zoom ring to the front of the lens. To me that seems like it would be difficult to use/zoom hand held. I would have to actually try it to see what the balance and handling is like. I like my 70-200/4 with the zoom ring where it is, which is perfect for handheld use. I hold the lens at the balance point of the lens+camera, and my fingers easily turn the zoom ring. Maybe if you shoot on a monopod, then a front zoom ring is farther from the monopod so your hand has more clearance.

I've had issues with longer/heavier lenses with the zoom ring too close to body. They probably did it for this reason.