new equipment?

jcm100

I have a d90 with the 18-55mm lens and the 55-300mm lens. I am trying to decide whether to get the D7100 or new lenses (10-24mm and 35 f/1.8). What do you recommends?

henrik1963

It is always nice to use other peoples money :-)

With your camera/lens combo I would start with lenses. My D90 performed very well with the 35 1.8. Getting good lenses changes a lot. I have never used the 10-24. But going that wide will open new perspectives. But at least for me - it takes some time to master the ultra wide lenses. For me it is 14-24 on FX. I still have to work with that lens :-) I have to learn to use/see the perspective in a scene. For me it is hard work but fun.

BTW Welcome to the forum - if you stay you will get tempted to buy a lot of stuff - be careful :-)

All the best

Vipmediastar_JZ

I had the 35 1.8 dx with the d7k. It was a great lens. Order that and for some good low light photos. I had the sigma 10-20 and I enjoyed the ultrawide. I got rid of all my kits lens good glass makes a diffrence.

jcm100

Thanks for your suggestions and I appreciate the warning henrik1963. How do you decide when it is time to upgrade your camera body?

dissent

Some additional info to nibble on -

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014164/article/The-Revolutionary-Nikon-D90-How-Does-It-Compare-Today

henrik1963

@jcm100: That is a hard question to answer as I don´t know all that much about you and what kind of pictures you take.

A lot of people think a new camera body will give them better pictures. It might. But then again it might not. To be honest most of what I get with my D800 + a handful of good lenses I could do with a D90 + good lenses.

All cameras has limits to what they can do - that goes for a D90 as well as for the D800. Knowing how far you can push it with your camera is far more important than buying the camera that can do the most. I have been looking at a lot of pictures that people take and most of them could be taken with a D90.

There is one thing I know for sure: It is no use to have the latest camera body if you don´t have any good lenses for it.

The first pro lens I got was a 70-200 2.8 VRII. When I put that thing on my D90 it was like getting a new camera - a world of difference.

But the best investment I ever made was the 35 1.8. With the D90 it made a small and light combo. It made me move around to get the right picture - no lazy zooming :-)

My advice: Buy the lenses you need for the kind of photos you want to take. When the D90 is the limiting factor in what you can do - low light - AF speed - DR or whatever then upgrade the camera body.

All the best

manhattanboy

I would agree with @henrik1963 but with one caveat. Are you planning on shooting with two bodies or will you just retire the D90? A second body may be useful if you need a fast prime on one camera and a zoom on the other. Otherwise investing in lenses-albeit painfully expense for Nikon these days compared to the generous Canon rebates-is the way to go.
Ultimately, what you shoot will dictate the best strategy for you. Are you indoors a lot and shoot with primes? Are you outdoors shooting sports?

kyoshinikon

new lenses... My first true DSLR I owned was the D90 when it was fresh. My first lens was a tamron. My 3rd was my 80-200mm f/2.8

Msmoto

New lenses, the very best you can afford. And, I would get full frame coverage so if you want to go full frame you are ready. First, decide what you want to photograph. And, really give this some thought. If portraits are primary, then look at something from 50mm to 135mm, architectural, think wide…from 12mm to 35mm maybe. But, think carefully about what you are after, then pick the lens you will use.

Incidentally, I have a D90 and in some cases I cannot identify the images from this from the ones from my D4. For most of the shots you will attempt, the D90 will hang in there with the exceptions of very low light, or extremely fast action sports.

NSXTypeR

Some additional info to nibble on -

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0014164/article/The-Revolutionary-Nikon-D90-How-Does-It-Compare-Today

The D90 was a camera I lusted for quite a bit when it came out... but then the D7000 happened haha.

I'm happy I didn't get the D80 though, that was an ok camera but if I had gotten the D80 it would have been at the tail end of its existence and I would have hated myself for getting the D80.

Photobug

Same recommendation from me. Spend the money on "good" glass and make sure the lens are FF not DX. I did that except for one lens and it's been great.

proudgeek

I was in a similar situation about 3 years ago, with a D90 and an 18-200. I knew I wanted better lenses, but I also knew that I wanted to leave my options open in term of the FX/DX decision, so I invested only full frame lenses. You're cheating yourself on the wide end a little by shooting an FX lens like a 17-35 on a D90, but you'll be happy if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame body, like the D610.

henrik1963

If you haven´t already then google Thom Hogan. He has a lot to say about cameras and lenses. One point he makes is that fewer and fewer need FX cameras for what they want to do. If you decide that you don´t need a full frame camera then you don´t need to buy FX lenses.

Then go to Flickr and see what others have done with a D90.

sevencrossing

Thom Hogan. He has a lot to say about cameras and lenses. ....

1. Any one who wants top class results needs FX, ether a D800 or a D4
2 the choice of top class DX glass is fairly limited ( there is no dx Holy Trinity )

heartyfisher

Thom Hogan. He has a lot to say about cameras and lenses. ....

1. Any one who wants top class results needs FX, ether a D800 or a D4
2 the choice of top class DX glass is fairly limited ( there is no dx Holy Trinity )

The only thing missing in the DX lineup from nikon is the wide aperture wide end. But the tokina 11-16 F2.8 fills that gap. there is also the 8-16 sigma if you really want that wide FOV. so there are alternatives at about half the cost or less.

The 24-70 and 70-200 are very popular with DX users too :-) and we now have the 18-35 F1.8 :-)

henrik1963

@sevencrossing: just to tease you - If you want top class results you need medium format :-) There is always a better camera out there.

We are trying to give advice to someone who is trying to decide if he wants new lenses or a new body. He is asking about DX lenses and DX bodes.

If money was no object sure you could buy both a new body and a handful of lenses. But the question was: Go for a new body or go for some new lenses.

Most of what I do with my D800 + the holy trinity could be done with DX gear. But then I´m known to have more money than brains when it comes to NAS :-) And that´s not saying a lot when it comes to how much money I have :-) If anything it points to just how little brainpower is involved when I buy new gear :-)

sevencrossing

There is always a better camera out there.

We will have to disagree medium format is fine as long as you don't need a super tele , macro or ultra wide angel lenses and have several assistants

to answer the OP get the D7100; the D90 is a fine camera but the D7100 is in a different league

WestEndBoy

The original question:
I have a d90 with the 18-55mm lens and the 55-300mm lens. I am trying to decide whether to get the D7100 or new lenses (10-24mm and 35 f/1.8). What do you recommends?

There is nothing the new camera can do that the old camera cannot. However, the new lens will do things your current lens can't.

Get the lens.

For me, you can see what I have below. Before I buy a replacement for my D800 - hopefully two generations later, not the next, I will buy a 200 mm macro with ring flashes and great tripod (next year), a 24mm pc, a 24 1.4 and maybe a 35 1.4, a 300 or 400 2.8 and a professional 50mm 1.4 or faster if Nikon ever produces one. Only then, will I feel like I need a new camera before a new lens.

rbrylawski

@sevencrossing

1. Any one who wants top class results needs FX, ether a D800 or a D4
2 the choice of top class DX glass is fairly limited ( there is no dx Holy Trinity )

That's kind of bunk. Very few truly "need" FX to take excellent pictures. It's what the camera manufacturers want you to believe however. There are so many good older DX bodies out there that people just aren't upgrading that often. Making you "believe" you need to go FX to make a decent picture is a way to sell you more expensive equipment. But for the vast majority of people who take pictures a decent DX body with a decent lens will take a very decent picture.

WestEndBoy

I agree with you rbrylawski. The only thing I would consider in a long term equipment strategy is that DX's days are probably numbered. I think the only really good reason for DX's existence is price (I think that Nikon could build an FX in a small body, so I don't agree that size is "that" important). When FX's price comes down, DX may be discontinued. Luckily, when that day comes, you will be able to use older DX glass in FX bodies (currently can).

JCM100, I am not saying upgrade to FX on this basis. I am just saying think about your long term strategy. I still think that lens is the better route, but you might want to consider FX glass.

kyoshinikon

Actually top class results come from a Hassy...

@sevencrossing

1.Very few truly "need" FX to take excellent pictures. It's what the camera manufacturers want you to believe however.

Fully agreed

NSXTypeR

Thom Hogan. He has a lot to say about cameras and lenses. ....

1. Any one who wants top class results needs FX, ether a D800 or a D4
2 the choice of top class DX glass is fairly limited ( there is no dx Holy Trinity )

I don't agree with that either. A camera is a tool, and you use a the right tool for the right jobs. You could use a plate as a hammer- it'd work, it's not great though.

DX is useful when you need reach, CX even more so but with limitations.

DX was all you had before FX- there were great images then too. FX is great, but it's not the end all be all.

I think that statement is fairly extreme.

I will agree that top end DX glass is a problem, but you can always use FX glass to fill it in. Size wise it's not ideal, but I don't make decisions at Nikon.

WestEndBoy

NSXTypeR said:

DX is useful when you need reach, CX even more so but with limitations

I don't really agree with that. You can crop an FX to imitate DX. You will even likely end up with the same amount of pixels. Crop your FX even further if you want more reach.

kyoshinikon

You can crop an FX to imitate DX. You will even likely end up with the same amount of pixels. Crop your FX even further if you want more reach.

This is what I had hoped for out of the D600 before its relaese. A D400 that is both Dx and Fx. That being said, this only works if the pixel density is similar like on the D800 or D600. a 16mpx fx body cropped wont be the same resolution as the 24mpx Dx photo.

WestEndBoy

Kyoshinikon, I wonder if there is a DX lens with the resolution to be exploited by a 24mpx sensor?

PB_PM

Aside from the basic 18-xxx and 16-85mm VR, I suspect most of the fast DX lenses are more than capable.