Next purchase - Lens or camera body?

D

daveminnich

Senior Member
I currently shoot with a D90 and have the following lenses: Nikon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, and a Nikon 55-200mm 4-5.6.

I have about $600 available to spend right now on a piece of kit. I'm stuck between a used body as an upgrade to the D90 (either a 7100 or 7200) or a new lens. If I go with a lens, I don't know if I want a better quality telephoto zoom, a super wide angle zoom, a nice prime or two, etc.

I shoot primarily portraits, landscapes, candid shots of gatherings, and architecture.

If you were me, what would you do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Is the 50 1.8 a G or D lens? From the sound of it, you have good wide and normal lenses with the 17-50 and 50 prime. I don't know as much about the D90, so I am leaning that way for the better low light performance to go along with your lenses.

If you were to replace/add a lens, I would probably go after the 55-200 for something like the 70-300 for better reach and performance. But honestly, for everything except maybe the candids, I think you have the glass you need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
daveminnich said:
I currently shoot with a D90 and have the following lenses: Nikon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, and a Nikon 55-200mm 4-5.6.

I have about $600 available to spend right now on a piece of kit. I'm stuck between a used body as an upgrade to the D90 (either a 7100 or 7200) or a new lens. If I go with a lens, I don't know if I want a better quality telephoto zoom, a super wide angle zoom, a nice prime or two, etc.

I shoot primarily portraits, landscapes, candid shots of gatherings, and architecture.

If you were me, what would you do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would buy a refurb D7100 if I only had 600 dollars . A major upgrade over the D90. Your first 2 lenses are fine for what you're shooting.
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
RocketCowboy said:
Is the 50 1.8 a G or D lens? From the sound of it, you have good wide and normal lenses with the 17-50 and 50 prime. I don't know as much about the D90, so I am leaning that way for the better low light performance to go along with your lenses.

If you were to replace/add a lens, I would probably go after the 55-200 for something like the 70-300 for better reach and performance. But honestly, for everything except maybe the candids, I think you have the glass you need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Low light performance on the D90 is fairly shitty. I'm leaning that way too.

I will more than likely grab this like new used 7100 from Adorama: https://www.adorama.com/us 859500.html

I love lenses though. So even though the logical decision is a body, I'm still torn haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
daveminnich said:
I love lenses though. So even though the logical decision is a body, I'm still torn haha
Click to expand...

If you could see my pool table, you would understand my level of lens addiction. :)

The D7100 is a great camera. After you do that, you can really start to take advantage of the Sigma Art series primes. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
RocketCowboy said:
If you could see my pool table, you would understand my level of lens addiction. :)

The D7100 is a great camera. After you do that, you can really start to take advantage of the Sigma Art series primes. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Primes are so cool. I had a ton of them when I shot Canon years back. They may not be versatile, but there's just something about the experience of using your feet to zoom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
daveminnich said:
Low light performance on the D90 is fairly shitty. I'm leaning that way too.

I will more than likely grab this like new used 7100 from Adorama: https://www.adorama.com/us 859500.html

I love lenses though. So even though the logical decision is a body, I'm still torn haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good choice. Some of my best landscape shots were done on the D7100 and the 18-140 mm lens. Also a very reliable cam. Never had one problem with it .
 
Dawg Pics

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I noticed a big difference when I obtained some good lenses.

Currently, I am trying to decide on camera upgrade for the same reasons.
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Why not get an 85mm 1.8 either D or G. You'd get more light and a better portrait lens that will serve you longer than a newer body. You might even be able to get an 85 + a D7000 for the budget you have. This would really take you up one notch, and the lens will be great for later when you decide to go full frame.
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
Marcel said:
Why not get an 85mm 1.8 either D or G. You'd get more light and a better portrait lens that will serve you longer than a newer body. You might even be able to get an 85 + a D7000 for the budget you have. This would really take you up one notch, and the lens will be great for later when you decide to go full frame.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought.

Any good quality third party 85mm 1.8 primes or is this a shell out the money for a Nikkor scenario?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
W

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
daveminnich said:
Interesting thought.

Any good quality third party 85mm 1.8 primes or is this a shell out the money for a Nikkor scenario?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The lenses Marcel mentioned are Nikon lenses, and are rather inexpensive. I own the Nikon 85mm AF-S f/1.8 G lens, and I'm very happy with its performance. I purchased mine on sale a couple of years ago from Nikon USA and it cost a bit over $400 US. There are times when I've thought about the Nikon or Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 lenses, but either of them is significantly more expensive than the f/1.8 version.

However, with your list of uses and photographic interests, I'm not sure that you're going to be covered with one more lens. You've got a tough choice; think it through and choose knowing that as you grow as a photographer, your needs grow, but in most cases, the needs are outgrown by what you want, which leads to GAS, or more specifically, NAS, for Nikon owners. ;)

WM
 
F

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
daveminnich said:
I currently shoot with a D90 and have the following lenses: Nikon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, and a Nikon 55-200mm 4-5.6.

I have about $600 available to spend right now on a piece of kit. I'm stuck between a used body as an upgrade to the D90 (either a 7100 or 7200) or a new lens. If I go with a lens, I don't know if I want a better quality telephoto zoom, a super wide angle zoom, a nice prime or two, etc.

I shoot primarily portraits, landscapes, candid shots of gatherings, and architecture.

If you were me, what would you do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


As with most questions the answer is "it depends".

If you are happy with the D90 image quality then you'll get more photography options with a longer lens.
The 17mm on the Sigma is pretty wide but on a DX you may want to go super wide with something in the 10mm range.
But 200 isn't that long. However given your list of types of photographs maybe it is long enough for your needs.
So based on this limited bit of info I'd vote for an ultra wide. Can be had for $600 US, and if you considered the used market from a good retailer who backs up their stuff (e.g. B&H and others) then you can get a very nice ultra wide for that price.

As for the bonus of going to the D7100/7200 you are jumping ahead a lot in terms of camera tech, more pixels, better low light (higher ISO capacity) and improved autofocus and more. But bottom line both the D90 and D7100 are nice DX bodies with an internal motor and if you are getting image quality you enjoy from your D90 you may gain more photographic options with a wider lens.

And there is an oft quoted saying that goes something like 'camera bodies come and go but good glass lasts"
 
Top