What should I upgrage first? Camera or lens?

[Destin]

I am currently shooting a nikon d40 with a 55-200, 18-55, and 50 1.8, and I mainly shoot high school sports to sell the photos to parents. I also have an sb-600. I pretty much can't stand having low-end gear, but I'm a starving college student so cash is tight. I've been doing pretty good with what I have, but I know my gear is limiting me.

I currently have $800 to spend and I'm not sure if I should spring for a new body (d90), or a sigma 70-200 2.8. My plan is to get one, then use it to earn money to buy the other. Which one should I buy first and why?

I'm leaning towards the lens, just because shooting football with an f5.6 has been (nearly) impossible.

 

[Neil S.]

I am currently shooting a nikon d40 with a 55-200, 18-55, and 50 1.8, and I mainly shoot high school sports to sell the photos to parents. I also have an sb-600. I pretty much can't stand having low-end gear, but I'm a starving college student so cash is tight. I've been doing pretty good with what I have, but I know my gear is limiting me.

I currently have $800 to spend and I'm not sure if I should spring for a new body (d90), or a sigma 70-200 2.8. My plan is to get one, then use it to earn money to buy the other. Which one should I buy first and why?

I'm leaning towards the lens, just because shooting football with an f5.6 has been (nearly) impossible.

Normally I would say glass.

Thats a pretty old body though.

I recommend everyone step up to 12 MP+ now that it is easy to do so.

 

[yepp]

i'm sorta in the market to upgrade to a dslr and am waiting to see what the d90 replacement will be like before I decide. I know I'm going with nikon because from the photo's i've seen they show better detail than canon (noticed canon's are brighter normally but it seemed to drown out the detail alittle in the few photo's i looked at). Don't know if you're willing to hold out on not buying the D90 because it's just about out of date in a few months but the choice is yours.

I originally started looking with the new Canon 2ti. Their lenses are so much cheaper. Then thought about the 60d; isn't quite what I'm looking for considering the price. The D90 or replacement and D5000 seem to be where I'm at. Guess I'll find out soon if the real specs get released soon. If I could afford it I'd go full frame (canon 5d looks amazing, haven't researched the nikon D700 much) because I've done a little research and really like wide-angle lense shots and landscape photography. Med-High ISO quality is important to me as well since I find my self wanting to take a lot of low light shots and my old sony CS p200 really doesn't cut it lol

 

[photoface]

I think its better to go with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens now.I do understand the body is quite old but I would suggest to wait for few months so there will be new products in the market and than you might get some more choices and can consider buying it by christmas.

 

[Sharfy]

I am currently shooting a nikon d40 with a 55-200, 18-55, and 50 1.8, and I mainly shoot high school sports to sell the photos to parents. I also have an sb-600. I pretty much can't stand having low-end gear, but I'm a starving college student so cash is tight. I've been doing pretty good with what I have, but I know my gear is limiting me.

I currently have $800 to spend and I'm not sure if I should spring for a new body (d90), or a sigma 70-200 2.8. My plan is to get one, then use it to earn money to buy the other. Which one should I buy first and why?

I'm leaning towards the lens, just because shooting football with an f5.6 has been (nearly) impossible.

Lense is a good investment as told by my advisers....

 

[Overread]

If you upgrade your camera body and not the glass the light you have to work with will still the be the same as before, you might get a little improvement in image quality, but not much. You will of course gain improved ISO, AF and other features of upgrading your body, but the quality of your final results won't be massivly different.

Now if you upgrade the glass in front of the camera body you will get a big difference - a noticeable difference in the quality of your final results. I would say even though your camera body is older you would get more improvement with a new lens - that means a better product for you to sell to help finance toward a new camera body.

 

[ghache]

I think in his situation, a faster body would be better.
what you need, faster/better autofocus, better iso.
A 2.8 fast glass wont do miracle if shooting sports with a D40.
You already have a 55-200 and that lens should be fine for outside sports and even inside if your using your sb-600


For really low light events, i would rent a lens since its cheap.

I would upgrade body, for 800 you can get a nice second hand body...or i would wait a few months to see whats coming out

 

[Derrel]

The D40 does "okay" at elevated ISO settings...I think I would say go for the 70-200 lens first.

 

[mwcfarms]

Whats that link that Kundalini posted a couple days ago that froknows guys. Have to find it. What the 5 year deal I think.

Photography, Digital Camera DSLR & Lightroom How To — FroKnowsPhoto D3000 Project – Your 5 Year Plan

 

[Destin]

Thanks for all the responses guys, I think I've decided on getting the lens first, and then the camera in like 4-6 months. That way I have a shot at the d90 replacement if is out by then and worth it. As soon as my mountain bike sells on ebay I'll be ordering the lens.

 

[kundalini]

How about saving up another couple of bills for the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8? I haven't compared the two, just a thought, but the Nikon optics, build and performance are good.
80-200mm f/2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan

 

[supraman215]

I'm not sure about the sigma 70-200, but the nikon 80-200 will not auto focus on your camera. So just keep that in mind, that can be challenging in sports photography.

 

[ghache]

I'm not sure about the sigma 70-200, but the nikon 80-200 will not auto focus on your camera. So just keep that in mind, that can be challenging in sports photography.

All these lens will autofocus on the d40


• Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC
• Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6
• Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 DG
• Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 DG
• Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM
• Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG MACRO
• Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6
• Sigma 100-300mm F4 DG
• Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG
• Sigma 300-800mm F5.6 DG
• Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX
• Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM
• Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG
• Sigma 180mm F3.5 EX DG
• Sigma 300mm EX DG
• Sigma 500mm EX DG
• Sigma 800mm f5.6 EX DG

 

[Destin]

I'm not sure about the sigma 70-200, but the nikon 80-200 will not auto focus on your camera. So just keep that in mind, that can be challenging in sports photography.

That's why I'm going with the sigma, the 80-200 is AF-D and wont AF on my d40. Even if down the road I get a d90, I plan on keeping my d40 as a backup and would like the lens to be compatible with it.

I tested out the sigma at my local camera shop and it is built like a tank. I would rather have the nikon glass for sure, but I can't justify the extra cost. It looks like my bike just sold on ebay for $900 so I'll be ordering the lens in the next few days

 

[supraman215]

I'm not sure about the sigma 70-200, but the nikon 80-200 will not auto focus on your camera. So just keep that in mind, that can be challenging in sports photography.

That's why I'm going with the sigma, the 80-200 is AF-D and wont AF on my d40. Even if down the road I get a d90, I plan on keeping my d40 as a backup and would like the lens to be compatible with it.

I tested out the sigma at my local camera shop and it is built like a tank. I would rather have the nikon glass for sure, but I can't justify the extra cost. It looks like my bike just sold on ebay for $900 so I'll be ordering the lens in the next few days

Awesome! Maybe I'll look at the Sigma also since it's cheaper than the 80-200.