Your opinion on upgrade path

[SnappingShark]

OK, so I am curious about my upgrade path...

A walkaround lens perhaps - other than the kit lens?
A faster zoom lens?

I know it's all subjective to what I shoot - but let's assume I shoot macros, landscape, and wildlife, with a bit of point and shoot nifty fifty fun stuff on the side.

My current lenses:
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (love)
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (want to sell)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 (love!)
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (not a good walkaround?)
Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (not that fast)
Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro (love!)

What would YOU do?
Budget $1000
Body: Nikon D7100

 

[goodguy]

Well my D7100 brother, you have a good lens line up.
I am not sure if I see a hole in your collection.
To me it looks like you have a good lens collection and sticking you with another lens really is pointless.
If you are happy with what you have then dont burn your cash.
Of course you can upgrade your excisting lens collection like getting a 20-70mm 2.8G instead the 18-105mm VR but the question is arent you happy with your 18-105mm VR ?

The only thing I would do is maybe exchange the 55-300 with the 70-300mm VR

But other then that it looks to me like you have a well balanced good lens collection and I wouldnt be running to spend my money.
Keep it for future camera upgrade.

Just my 2c

 

[Derrel]

Well, maybe find a good copy of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. ProPhoto supply in PDX had a couple refurbished ones for $200 earlier this fall at their sidewalk sale. THAT is kind of a nifty lens on APS-C...it has interesting bokeh, and it's got a nice way of rendering scenes, PLUS it's an ideal semi-normal focal length on APS-C. That is precisely why Sigma made it a 30mm lens...because a 45mm equivalent FOV lens with pretty bokeh and nice lens drawing characteristic makes a SUPERB "one-lens" option for walkabout use.

It might not sound like much difference, but 45mm on FF is different from 50mm, just as 55mm or 58mm differ from 50mm on FF. You say you want an "upgrade", so ditching the 35/1.8 G and getting a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is an upgrade.

Although I am not a fan of its slightly harshy and hashy bokeh, the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is ultra-sharp. One of the single highest-resolution lenses available these days. But again, I think its bokeh on natural-world subjects like plants and trees and shrubs, is sub-par; the Nikkor 35/1.4 G is better bokeh wise but has more chromatic aberration and is not as sharp at wide f/stops. The Sigma is "an option".

Speaking of Sigma, their new 24-105 f/4 at $899 LOOKS LIKE it might be very handy....great range, constant f/4.

Maybe add an 85mm f/1.8 G-series; it's a HIGH-resolution lens, it truly,truly is one of the finest lenses under $1699. It's sharp,light,small, unobtrusive, and focuses very fast. It's actually good enough to leverage the D7100's 24MP sensor. I own one...for the money it is simply unbeatable and it's truly "an upgrade". The older Af and AF-D 85mm 1.8 models were, well, purple-fringing and flare specialists. Crap. This lens is not crap.

Look at the 70-300 VR-G as a faster-focusing good range tele-zoom, available used for a fair price.

 

[goodguy]

Well after looking and thinking about it I guess you could get the Nikon 85mm 1.8G but I am standing behind what I said, I think you should keep your money to time you REALLY want something like a new body or have a serious crush on some lens.
To me it looks like the money burns a hole in your pocket which is something I know too well.
On top of photography I am also a watch collector, fountain pen collector, paper money, coins and medals collector and sometimes I have a strong need to buy something new and I find it VERY hard to stop myself from not buying.
Some time the need to buy is for buying sake only so be sure you really need another lens because I am sure you know upgrading your lenses is easy it just a matter of money but the real question if you really need to upgrade.

 

[ruifo]

What would YOU do?
Budget $1000
Body: Nikon D7100

I would do that:

Option 1:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras 301-306 B&H
Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM for Nikon F Mount

Option 2:
Sigma Normal 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens 310-306 B&H
Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens AFB008N-700 B&H

 

[Derrel]

I noticed a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC for Nikon just came up for sale here on TPF for $220 PAYPAL...I am in no way endorsing the seller, just mentioning that one's come up for sale just since I posted this like 30 minutes ago...

 

[SnappingShark]

I think Goodguy has hit the nail on the head. I want to spend money.
I will be stepping up to FF at some point, so I am factoring that in now when getting new lenses.

The 70-300mm sounds appealing as it works on FF as opposed to the 55-300 which doesn't (without DX mode).
The 85mm also sounds good, but my portraiture isn't as prominent.
I'm going to rule the 30mm out too, as I have the 35, and the 50 and the 18-55 which all cover the 30 (just not as well).

So ... based on that, and looking around, comparing stuff. I've actually narrowed my results down to:
Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8

Now to just research some more. I've gotten help from your replies, I have to admit.

 

[goodguy]

I think Goodguy has hit the nail on the head. I want to spend money.
I will be stepping up to FF at some point, so I am factoring that in now when getting new lenses.

The 70-300mm sounds appealing as it works on FF as opposed to the 55-300 which doesn't (without DX mode).
The 85mm also sounds good, but my portraiture isn't as prominent.
I'm going to rule the 30mm out too, as I have the 35, and the 50 and the 18-55 which all cover the 30 (just not as well).

So ... based on that, and looking around, comparing stuff. I've actually narrowed my results down to:
Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8

Now to just research some more. I've gotten help from your replies, I have to admit.

I felt you man, I really did.
Its like one buying juncky feels his soul brother :mrgreen:

Ok I have exaggerated but the need to buy and spend money is in all of us, the smart thing is to direct this "need" to spend money on something you really need.
I made a carrier on spending money on stuff I didnt want or need, convinced myself I want it and once I did I lost interest in it in less then a second.

Personally I think 70-200 is just too short of a range especially if you will get an FX body in the future.
The Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 is a lens that got a lot of good reviews but I heard the chance on getting a lemon is much higher then its Nikon equivalent.
I actually was considering to get it but after talking to few people I decided its like buying a D600, you might his an angel or a lemon, you simply don't know and I am not a gambling man, maybe you are.
In return instead of it I got the 24-85mm VR, not as good as the 24-70mm but its plenty sharp, is for FX body and cost a fraction of the 24-70mm 2.8.
I also plan on going FX in the future so all my lenses are FX so thats one of the reason I sold my 18-105mm VR and got the 24-85mm VR

Sell the 55-300 and get the 70-300mm VR then stop, think real hard and if you still have the need to spend money then get something your heart really want.

Good luck.

 

[SnappingShark]

Well, I decided to actually upgrade my long lens.
I went for the Tamron 70-200 2.8 - got a pretty good deal on it - only thing is it won't arrive for approx a week (down side of saving $250 on it I suppose).

I'll sell my 55-300 - I rarely used the 300 range.

 

[robbins.photo]

I think Goodguy has hit the nail on the head. I want to spend money.
I will be stepping up to FF at some point, so I am factoring that in now when getting new lenses.

The 70-300mm sounds appealing as it works on FF as opposed to the 55-300 which doesn't (without DX mode).
The 85mm also sounds good, but my portraiture isn't as prominent.
I'm going to rule the 30mm out too, as I have the 35, and the 50 and the 18-55 which all cover the 30 (just not as well).

So ... based on that, and looking around, comparing stuff. I've actually narrowed my results down to:
Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8

Now to just research some more. I've gotten help from your replies, I have to admit.

Well I can second the vote for the 70-300mm Nikkor, it is an amazing lens. I do wish it were a little faster sometimes, but boy in good lighting conditions it's really hard to beat for image quality.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, I decided to actually upgrade my long lens.
I went for the Tamron 70-200 2.8 - got a pretty good deal on it - only thing is it won't arrive for approx a week (down side of saving $250 on it I suppose).

I'll sell my 55-300 - I rarely used the 300 range.

Lol.. well didn't read down this far initially but I don't think you can go wrong there - I've been looking at picking one up myself eventually, the 300 mm does a fantastic job but sometimes I really need something a bit faster, especially shooting indoor sporting events. Let us know how the new lens works out.