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

[robbins.photo]

Recently I did a photoshoot for some friends of a friend and after they got the photo's they insisted on paying me even though I had done it just as a favor and had no intention of getting paid. Well originally their plan was to purchase a D7000 for me however when it came time to buy the camera they got a little confused I guess and weren't really sure which camera to buy, so they put the money for the camera on a prepaid card and sent that to me instead. Ok, so now I have a lot more options and I've narrowed them down a bit, but still not really certain what my best upgrade path would be so thought I would solicit a few opinions.

At the moment I have a D5100 and it's been a very good camera for me, though at some point I will be upgrading to either a D7000 or D7100. I need better low light capability since I'll be doing some indoor sports shooting in a few months and at the moment my current 70-300 mm Nikkor 4.5-5.6 just won't be fast enough to do the job. So, I've done some poking around and with the gift card and a little extra thrown in I've got the following options:

1. Keep my D5100 and purchase a Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens with OS. If I go this route I can save up and purchase a D7000 or D7100 later, but it will most likely be a few months at least.

2. Purchase a D7000 and an older Nikkor 80-200 mm D model F/2.8. The lens won't have VR of course, but I do own a monopod and I don't have a huge objection to carrying it around with me for those instances where the VR might make a difference.

3. Hold off on buying the lens, and purchase a D7100. I can then sell the D5100 (which would actually hurt a little, it's been such a great camera for me but if I do step up to the D7100 I doubt I'd use it much) and use those funds to help purchase a 200 mm F/2.8 zoom of some sort, most likely the D model Nikkor

(edited 70-200 mm to 80-200 mm D for clarity, as KMH pointed out this was not the correct designation for the lens I had in mind)

 

[KmH]

older Nikkor 70-200 mm D model F/2.8

Doesn't exist.

It's the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Zoom Nikkor Lens

There is the older first VR generation Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

 

[robbins.photo]

older Nikkor 70-200 mm D model F/2.8

Doesn't exist.

It's the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Zoom Nikkor Lens

There is the older first VR generation Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

Well I was actually referring to the D model lens, the 80-200 mm. Slight typo there, was typing 70-200 mm so much doing searches I just sort of got stuck in that mode.

 

[Derrel]

Hmmmm...I'm not that sold on the Sigma 70-200 zooms. Rap? Bad image quality at f/2.8, as in inferior to any Nikkor zoom of comparable specification and era. I suppose maybe this is an overly broad generalization based on the first two generations of Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 zooms; perhaps their third our fourth or fifth iterations are decent and worthy of the specs. I re-read Thom Hogan's 80-200 AF-D aka the 80-200 "two-ring" review last night...it seems like a good value, and has decent optics, and I think the 51-point AF system in the D7100 might be up to the task with the 80-200 two-ring; as Thom mentions in the review, the 80-200's focusing speed is highly dependent upon the level of camera though...the focusing motor on the PRO-level Nikon bodies he says drives the 80-200 pretty well, but he has less stellar recommendations about it on the lower-end bodies. However, he references the D3x several times, so I suspect the review dates to the 2010-era, well before the lower-end Nikon bodies had the better 39 or 51 point AF systems...so...that review is seemingly a bit dated now, today.

My experience with older 80-200 one-ring models (two of them) was that the Nikon D1 and D1h could easily drive that slow clunky lens, while the D70 and Fuji S2 Pro could NOT perform as well, due to a lower-torque motor and also a lower-tech level of AF module than we now have; the AF modules in my D1 and D1h were more or less on par with the specifications of the AF module in the D70--and yet the AF MOTOR in the D1 and D1h seemed like a big-block V8, the one in the D70 more like a 4-cylinder economy engine. Meaning, the AF module is just one component; the in-camera AF motor is a second component, the AF drive's gearing in the lens yet a third component. There are also different types of autofocus...long-range, fairly simple distance-seldom-chanmges stuff is one thing...bird-in-flight is another...there's one-shot and tracking AF...some lenses are simply better, and then there are the lenses that perform at the TOP level. Some lenses are not as good as their specs might seem.

I'm starting to reconsider the value of the NEW 70-200mm f/4 Nikkor zoom, in light of the smaller size and the increased ISO capabilities and the new 51-point AF abilities; the thing is this. My experiences is that the AF-S Nikkor lenses focus as fast on a cheap body as they do on a $5,000-$8,000 pro body, at least when using center point AF. I think you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor as an investment that can be migrated forward, as opposed to an older lens that is optically, not "all that great" at f/2.8; look at the Hogan review...that lens is only "okay" at f/2.8, and that's on the lower MP bodies we had four years ago.

Sorry for the length, but some things cannot be covered in a sentence or two, and picking a tele-zoom these days is kind of a challenge. There are a lot of competing criteria; price, price/performance,max aperture versus QUALITY level at max aperture, suitability for migrating forward for the next 10,12,15 years, weight, size, portability, and so on.

 

[kundalini]

My thoughts on an upgrade path is glass first, body later. My body upgrades were a D80, D300 and D700. I gave the D80 to my son, which he is still shooting with and I still have the other two. However, most of my lens arsenal was acquired before the D300 purchase and I think only one since the D700. All my lenses have Nikkor stamped on them.

The 200mm f/2.8 is a specialty lens IMO and too short. 300mm or go home. But there are better options to begin a glass collection with than either of these.

 

[robbins.photo]

My thoughts on an upgrade path is glass first, body later. My body upgrades were a D80, D300 and D700. I gave the D80 to my son, which he is still shooting with and I still have the other two. However, most of my lens arsenal was acquired before the D300 purchase and I think only one since the D700. All my lenses have Nikkor stamped on them.

The 200mm f/2.8 is a specialty lens IMO and too short. 300mm or go home. But there are better options to begin a glass collection with than either of these.

I have no doubt that there are better options in glass available, but sadly I do not have an unlimited budget to work with - so whatever I end up with will most likely not be new and will almost certainly not be top of the line. As to 300 mm, anything in the F/2.8 realm is way out of my reach. Again, budget is an important consideration for me.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hmmmm...I'm not that sold on the Sigma 70-200 zooms. Rap? Bad image quality at f/2.8, as in inferior to any Nikkor zoom of comparable specification and era. I suppose maybe this is an overly broad generalization based on the first two generations of Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 zooms; perhaps their third our fourth or fifth iterations are decent and worthy of the specs. I re-read Thom Hogan's 80-200 AF-D aka the 80-200 "two-ring" review last night...it seems like a good value, and has decent optics, and I think the 51-point AF system in the D7100 might be up to the task with the 80-200 two-ring; as Thom mentions in the review, the 80-200's focusing speed is highly dependent upon the level of camera though...the focusing motor on the PRO-level Nikon bodies he says drives the 80-200 pretty well, but he has less stellar recommendations about it on the lower-end bodies. However, he references the D3x several times, so I suspect the review dates to the 2010-era, well before the lower-end Nikon bodies had the better 39 or 41 point AF systems...so...that review is seemingly a bit dated now, today.

My experience with older 80-200 one-ring models (two of them) was that the Nikon D1 and D1h could easily drive that slow clunky lens, while the D70 and Fuji S2 Pro could NOT perform as well, due to a lower-torque motor and also a lower-tech level of AF module than we now have; the AF modules in my D1 and D1h were more or less on par with the specifications of the AF module in the D70--and et the AF MOTOR in the D1 and D1h seemed like a big-block V8, the one in the D70 more like a 4-cylinder economy engine. Meaning, the AF module is one component; the in-camera AF motor and is a second component. There are also different types of autofocus...long-range, fairly simple distance-seldom-chanmges stuff is one thing...bird-in-flight is another...there's one-shot and tracking AF...some lenses are simply better, and then there are the lenses that perform at the TOP level. Some lenses are not as good as their specs might seem.

I'm starting to reconsider the value of the NEW 70-200mm f/4 Nikkor zoom, in light of the smaller size and the increased ISO capabilities and the new 51-point AF abilities; the thing is this. My experiences is that the AF-S Nikkor lenses focus as fast on a cheap body as they do on a $5,000-$8,000 pro body, at least when using center point AF. I think you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor as an investment that can be migrated forward, as opposed to an older lens that is optically, not "all that great" at f/2.8; look at the Hogan review...that lens is only "okay" at f/2.8, and that's on the lower MP bodies we had four years ago.

Sorry for the length, but some things cannot be covered in a sentence or two, and picking a tele-zoom these days is kind of a challenge. There are a lot of competing criteria; price, price/performance,max aperture versus QUALITY level at max aperture, suitability for migrating forward for the next 10,12,15 years, weight, size, portability, and so on.

Well the 70-200 mm F/4 looks like it might be a good lens with some of the newer bodies, as you mentioned - but at 1300 plus asking price it's going to be a bit out of my reach since they are new enough that it doesn't look like many used one's have hit the market yet. I'll take a look at Thom's review and see if maybe that will give me a better idea as to where to go from here - I know that no matter what I do it will end up being a trade off, just can't afford top of the line, or even a step or two down from top of the line.. lol - so I'll just have to make do with what I can afford. As to post length, no worries - you always give out a ton of great info and advice so if I need to read a bit more to get all that awesome Derrel perspective, well it's always been well worth the read my friend.

 

[Derrel]

With the D5100, you're limited to a Sigma with HSM focus. With a D7000 or D7100, the AF-D 80-200 two ring is a possibility, around $999 gray market, new from B&H.

One lens you've not mentioned is the $995 used 80-200 AF-S Nikkor, the one that was made right before the VR-1 model, for a short time. THAT will AF on the D5100.

The D5100 could also use the $1399 brand new 70-200 f/4 AF-S G VR Nikkor, which eliminates the "need" to spend the cost of a D7000 or 7100 just to be able to access the "real" quality optics of the Nikkor family of zooms.

In a way, the D5100 body carries with it a significant price penalty in terms of AF-D lens use...and the thing is a NEW tele-zoom of this quality tends to be a decade-long tool...mine is now 10 full years old...I tend to look at a Nikkor tele-zoom as a loooong-term buy, so a few hundred dollars is worth the cost over a decade.

 

[robbins.photo]

With the D5100, you're limited to a Sigma with HSM focus. With a D7000 or D7100, the AF-D 80-200 two ring is a possibility, around $999 gray market, new from B&H.

One lens you've not mentioned is the $995 used 80-200 AF-S Nikkor, the one that was made right before the VR-1 model, for a short time. THAT will AF on the D5100.

The D5100 could also use the $1399 brand new 70-200 VR Nikkor, which eliminates the "need" to spend the cost of a D7000 or 7100 just to be able to access the "real" quality optics of the Nikkor family of zooms.

Well not looking at new from B&H, most likely will end up getting something used from Ebay. I'll poke around for the 80-200 AF-s and see what all is available there, If I can get one cheap enough that might be yet another option to consider.. lol.

I do know I will eventually be upgrading to either the D7000 or D7100 - I love my little 5100 but the lack of an autofocus motor is kind of a pain so really it is just a matter of time no matter what I do about the lens. I can get a sigma with HSM and OS for just a little less than a grand from Adorama, probably cheaper used from Ebay - but like you from the reading I've done it looks like Sigma is kind of hit and miss with their quality control. So yup, lots to think about here.

 

[goodguy]

As usual in this type of questions I always think differently, I would go for the D7100 in a heartbeat, my D7000 and I never hit it off, I found the D7100 so good that even though I have the cash to get a D610 I will keep the D7100 and use it for few years till a new FX comes out and by then the D7100 will be old and ready for an upgrade.

Get the D7100 buddy
Oh and BTW from what I know the older 80-200mm is a great lens but it is also very heavy, just though to mention that as for some it might be an issue.
As for the D5100 if you will get the D7100 I doubt you will use it a lot, now the D5100 is still a good camera and worth few dollar, in few years it will not be worth much so now is the time to sell if you decide to sell it

 

[kundalini]

My thoughts on an upgrade path is glass first, body later. My body upgrades were a D80, D300 and D700. I gave the D80 to my son, which he is still shooting with and I still have the other two. However, most of my lens arsenal was acquired before the D300 purchase and I think only one since the D700. All my lenses have Nikkor stamped on them.

The 200mm f/2.8 is a specialty lens IMO and too short. 300mm or go home. But there are better options to begin a glass collection with than either of these.

I have no doubt that there are better options in glass available, but sadly I do not have an unlimited budget to work with - so whatever I end up with will most likely not be new and will almost certainly not be top of the line. As to 300 mm, anything in the F/2.8 realm is way out of my reach. Again, budget is an important consideration for me.

Totally my bad. I misread the original post when you said....

.... I can then sell the D5100 <<snip>> and use those funds to help purchase a 200 mm F/2.8 zoom of some sort, most likely the D model Nikkor

..... as meaning a 200mm f/2.8 prime lens. A completely different animal.

So, the gift card is about $700? Can you add any funds to that?

Wait, before I go any further, another mantra I live by with the cost of hobbies....... they come last place. If any camera purchase you make will adversely affect the day-to-day cost of living, supporting your family, paying you obligations and throwing some coin towards the leaner times and the end of times, screw it, it's just a hobby. Consider it money you can throw away. Spend the amount of the gift card and walk away with a smile giving thanks to your friends of a friend.

 

[robbins.photo]

As usual in this type of questions I always think differently, I would go for the D7100 in a heartbeat, my D7000 and I never hit it off, I found the D7100 so good that even though I have the cash to get a D610 I will keep the D7100 and use it for few years till a new FX comes out and by then the D7100 will be old and ready for an upgrade.

Get the D7100 buddy
Oh and BTW from what I know the older 80-200mm is a great lens but it is also very heavy, just though to mention that as for some it might be an issue.
As for the D5100 if you will get the D7100 I doubt you will use it a lot, now the D5100 is still a good camera and worth few dollar, in few years it will not be worth much so now is the time to sell if you decide to sell it

Yup, from the reading I've done the 80-200 mm is a tank. But I'm not to worried about it, I'm thinking that it will most normally get used just for my daughter's dance team performances at sporting events so I won't be walking around with it all that often, at least that's the plan at the moment anyway - as usual though very little seems to go according to the way I have it planned - lol. I could swing the D7100 now and pickup the older 80-200 mm D model a couple of paychecks down the road. It was so much easier when those folks were going to just buy me a D7000 - now I have choices.. lol.

 

[robbins.photo]

My thoughts on an upgrade path is glass first, body later. My body upgrades were a D80, D300 and D700. I gave the D80 to my son, which he is still shooting with and I still have the other two. However, most of my lens arsenal was acquired before the D300 purchase and I think only one since the D700. All my lenses have Nikkor stamped on them.

The 200mm f/2.8 is a specialty lens IMO and too short. 300mm or go home. But there are better options to begin a glass collection with than either of these.

I have no doubt that there are better options in glass available, but sadly I do not have an unlimited budget to work with - so whatever I end up with will most likely not be new and will almost certainly not be top of the line. As to 300 mm, anything in the F/2.8 realm is way out of my reach. Again, budget is an important consideration for me.

Totally my bad. I misread the original post when you said....

.... I can then sell the D5100 <<snip>> and use those funds to help purchase a 200 mm F/2.8 zoom of some sort, most likely the D model Nikkor

..... as meaning a 200mm f/2.8 prime lens. A completely different animal.

So, the gift card is about $700? Can you add any funds to that?

Wait, before I go any further, another mantra I live by with the cost of hobbies....... they come last place. If any camera purchase you make will adversely affect the day-to-day cost of living, supporting your family, paying you obligations and throwing some coin towards the leaner times and the end of times, screw it, it's just a hobby. Consider it money you can throw away. Spend the amount of the gift card and walk away with a smile giving thanks to your friends of a friend.

Sorry, the reference to the 200 mm F2.8 was clear enough given the previous, I'm referring to a 200 mm F/2.8 zoom of some sort, either a 80-200 or 70-200 based on what I can afford. As for the rest of your financial advice, gee, thanks - but completely and totally unnecessary. I make a good living and all my obligations are already taken care of, I wouldn't even consider spending this money on camera equipment if they weren't. Also for future reference the job of "my dad" has already been filled and I'm not accepting applications for that position at this time.

While I will be adding some funds to the gift card my top end is going to be $1000 at most at least for this purchase. I cannot justify going any higher than that at this time.

 

[kundalini]

Thanks for adding yourself to my Ignore list.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks for adding yourself to my Ignore list.

Well the previous post was already reported, I'm not a big fan of being cursed at - have no idea if your recent edit will matter or not. Not my call, I'll leave that up to the powers that be. As for adding myself to your ignore list to be honest I'm just fine with that. Face it, you came in here spoiling for a fight - most likely from the last dust up we had on a hammy thread. I think that's rather evident, you chose to go completely over the top and speak to me as if I were a child and lecture me about my financial obligations. So yes, I responded to your snark with certain amount of well deserved sarcasm.