Looking to upgrade after almost a decade...

BVS

mmedford said:

So I post a hypothetical question for those who care to answer. If you had a DX 35/1.8, DX 18-55afp(kit lens) & a 70-200/2.8e, in your lens stable... and another $1k burning a hole in your pocket. What would you buy?

Nikon 50/1.4g? Nikon 85/1.8g?

Again, it really depends on what you want to shoot, but I'd probably go with something wider or something longer.

18mm DX is kinda wide but I've found it not wide enough at times. Look for something that goes to about 10~12mm. Tokina makes a lot of DX wide zooms as well.

200mm is kinda long, but if you're shooting birds or wildlife you'll want a lot more. I'd check out something like the Nikon 200-500, or the Tamron 150-600.

If you want to shoot tiny things up close (e.g. bugs) get a macro lens.

If you're shooting kids moving around outdoors and don't want to have to be constantly changing lenses and risk missing a shot get a 'super zoom' like the 18-140.

If you're shooting kids moving around indoors get something faster, like the 16-80 or the 17-55 2.8. A good flash that can be bounced will help tremendously as well. In fact I'd get the flash before any additional lenses in this situation.

Only get the 85 1.8 if you want a smaller/lighter portrait lens since the 70-200 should cover this focal length pretty well.

I probably wouldn't get the 50 1.4 since it's soft wide open, and this focal length is pretty well covered by your other lenses.

spraynpray

Your use of the 20 on a crop body when we last corresponded on this escaped me @Ironheart so that explains your lower aberrations. On my D750 the aberrations weren't good enough for starscapes. Hopefully the new Siggy 14/1.8 will do better.

mmedford

BVS; Thank you for the explanations...

You have asked a question several times and I have had to really think about it...

"Depends on what you are shooting"

In the past 3 years, just a quick summary of everything I've used my camera for...

Taking passport pictures (family, friends & coworkers), images of items for ebay listings (probably over 100 items), I covered my cousin's baby shower, I work at an airport so anytime special aircraft come in, profile pictures for friends, I have taken pictures for work events, etc...

Pretty much; I'm a shooter that works for lunch...

I have another cousin wanting me to take some images of her kid for her first birthday. There's my upcoming wedding stuff, and more of the stuff above..

So you could say I do a lot of amateur portrait stuff?

I currently have the SB-400 flash... I wouldn't mind stepping up and getting a nice mid-range one?

I was looking the 16-80mm; but I feel it's overpriced. I wouldn't mind getting two primes in place of it. As the mentioned 50mm & 85mm and the kit 18-55mm could cover the wide end.. I would like to avoid any pricey DX lenses.

I appreciate the responses..

-Mark

HockeyMan

To add to the bunch of responses. The reason I got the 70-200 f/2.8g is because my daughter does competitive gymnastics. The meets always occur indoors, in often very poor lighting and gymnasts move very quickly during their bar, floor and vault routines. I only need this lens for gymnastics, nothing else. If you see indoor basketball, indoor volleyball or gymnastics shooting in your future, a 70-200 f/2.8 lens is a great addition to your stable. But if you're not doing that kind of shooting, you really don't need it and your "art" really won't suffer for not having it.

From your last post "Taking passport pictures (family, friends & coworkers), images of items for ebay listings (probably over 100 items), I covered my cousin's baby shower, I work at an airport so anytime special aircraft come in, profile pictures for friends, I have taken pictures for work events, etc..."

You do not need the 70-200 f/2.8e for the types of photography you listed.

I totally understand the mantra of getting "good glass", but very few people buy the 200mm f/2 if they don't need it. Sure it's one of Nikon's best lenses, but how much super smooth bokeh do you really need for ebay, a baby shower or a work event? If you need the distance for commercial aviation, you would be better served to get a Sigma 150-600 or the Nikon 200-500. If you really like the range of the 70-200, get an f/4, it'll save you $1000. This is certainly not a bad lens. You could also consider getting the f/2.8g lens and save $700. I have the g lens and I feel absolutely no need to go to the e lens.

Now onto bodies. The Nikon D500 is hardly at mid life. Even if Nikon does have the time or resources to release a D510 (makes me think of my father's Datsun 510) next year, how would that put the D500 near end-of-life? I used a D300 for many years prior to upgrading to the D800. And until I sold the D300, it was working just fine. A camera is at end-of-life when it no longer can take a picture.

The difference in quality of build between a D5600 and D500 are not small. One of my closest friends has a D500, I felt very at home with this after owning my D300. I've only held the D5500 in a store, it feels like any D5x00 camera. I don't think there will be much difference in feel between the D5500 and The D5600. I'm trying to explain that you can feel the difference in heft and immediately find that the D500 usability goes much higher than the D5600. I'm a 2 dial kind of guy because I shoot in Manual and let auto ISO handle the rest. Will a D5600 work for you? Of course. Will you be happy with it for 10 years? Most likely not and you say you are waiting for the "next generation" anyway. To me, the D500/D5 is the next generation. You're not likely to get better auto-focus, a lot more speed in terms of fps or low light capability than with the transition from D90 - whatever exists now. I will concede that the D5600 has more articulation angles than the D500. But that's not part of my list of "must haves".

Let's talk about Snapbridge. It doesn't work for iOS very well, I'm not sure if the latest update has fixed any of the issues people have been facing, but Nikon has more talent on the Android side than on the iOS side. They've been doing Android longer. If your wife has an iPhone, forget about Snapbridge.

D500 + 70-200 f/4 would be my choice for you. Next price level down would be D7200 + 70-200 f/4. As other people have said, I'm spending your money on this so in the end, get what makes you happy, not any of us. If you really want that f/2.8e, go for it. That lens should work on any not yet announced D510, D820, D5s or whatever.

Happy snapping!

mmedford

Great response HockeyMan! I really do appreciate all of this, I don't have anyone I can go back and forth with.. to help me really define my needs and not just wow factor. I have a bit of ocd/add tendencies and I like to put everything to 11.

What I think is driving me to get the 2.8e, is purely for selfish reasons I admit it, I'm not ashamed.. back when I was flat broke and still had the "drive" for shooting. I idolized that lens (the 2.8g). I'm making a little money these days, and I want to get that off my list.

Unfortunately there was decision a made today; I met the future-mrs today for lunch. There was a best buy there, so I decided to go in and take another look at the Nikon bodies side by side, 3400, 5600, 7200, 500 & 600. The damn salesman did me in!

Now she is interested in playing with the future new camera; The D5600...

I did enjoy holding and playing with the D500, I am highly considering that one now... It felt good, way more buttons than my D90. So there would be a learning curve.

In the short term I will be getting a D5600 w/18-55mm. We do have a Florida trip coming at the end of March, A religious function mid April & a Toronto trip for Memorial Weekend.

I'm going to hold off until the End of the year on the 70-200/2.8e, just to see what Nikon offers in terms of bundles.

I'm still thinking I should get a decent prime like an fx 85/1.8 or 50/1.8.

Your thoughts?

heartyfisher

LOL !

The D5600 is not a bad camera... :-) and you still have your D90 ;-)

dissent

Have shot some school plays and other indoor kids events with the 70-200G with nice results. Just make sure you have a (much) wider option handy for the close up photos (in cramped spaces, and the same or worse crappy light) after the show!

mmedford

I was hoping to get by with the 18-55 DX and my sb-400. I also have the dx 35/1.8 which comes in handy for indoor stuff.

I really wanted to get a midrange prime, as I mentioned above for mild protrait work..

Some have said the 50/1.4 is too soft, is the 50/1.8 sharper? How about the 85/1.8.. yes it would conflict with the future 70-200, but much lighter and manuverable.

-Mark

heartyfisher

For dx portrait the tamron 60mm F2.0 Macro is a good option. and its a macro lense..

PS : Its a bit older now so you can get good deals off ebay and second hand....
http://www.bythom.com/Tamron-60mm-review.htm

HockeyMan

If everything you're shooting up close is not moving quickly, then the 18-55 with a flash should be fine. If you want something artistic to go along with it for portraits, the f/1.8 85 is a great lens. It becomes 105ish for a dx, but that length works out well most of the time.

And it really sounds like the 70-200 f/2.8E will make you happy. If so, just save up and get it. It's not like you'll think, "rats I wish I didn't have this in my bag".

By the way, not to egg you on, but if you want a really nice lens for landscape or indoor stuff, try the 14-24 f/2.8g. I got that for landscapes and used it non-stop on my D300. 21-36 is a great focal distance for indoor people shots and mine is tack sharp.

MegapixelSchnitzel

mmedford said:

...So I post a hypothetical question for those who care to answer. If you had a DX 35/1.8, DX 18-55afp(kit lens) & a 70-200/2.8e, in your lens stable... and another $1k burning a hole in your pocket. What would you buy?

Nikon 50/1.4g? Nikon 85/1.8g?

Thank you to everyone, that has taken the time to reply & teach.
-Mark

I would think about a 105 f/2.8 macro, personally.

KnockKnock

I've read that the 50/1.4 is just slightly better than the 50/1.8. Look for a review on bythom.com. It's a value loser though. I have both the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 (G's).

The 85 is clearly sharper at everything but on DX I end up reaching for my "soft" 50/1.4 more often. It has the right focal length for what I shoot, people, cats, rocks, trees and I find my work is more artistic with it. Maybe I just haven't adjusted to the 85 yet.

Maybe this is a life stage thing, and you have to go chase your dream. More often than not though, attaining/acquiring said dream is less fulfilling than the craving itself. Lucky that your dream is just $3K

Okay... here... I was being lazy!
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-prime-lens-reviews/nikon-50mm-f18g-af-s-lens.html

spraynpray

Yeah, when I was in New York last week, the 14-24 was the lens to have.

BVS

mmedford said:

I was hoping to get by with the 18-55 DX and my sb-400. I also have the dx 35/1.8 which comes in handy for indoor stuff.



I really wanted to get a midrange prime, as I mentioned above for mild protrait work..



Some have said the 50/1.4 is too soft, is the 50/1.8 sharper? How about the 85/1.8.. yes it would conflict with the future 70-200, but much lighter and manuverable.



-Mark

I guess it depends how you shoot, but for your upcoming travel, won't you want something longer than 55mm as well?

I'm not sure if you've got the same 55-200 that I have, but my 55-200 VRI is soft as butter at 200mm. If you want something lightweight for travel the newer 55-200 VRII is said to be better, although I haven't tested this one personally, and the recent 70-300 VR DX is handedly better at equivalent focal lengths. Many people also like the 70-300 FX lens, although it's double the weight of the DX one so YMMV.

85/1.8 is definitely sharper than the 50s, but for portraits it more like head or head and shoulders. You'll have to be quite far back to get a full body shot with it on DX. Still, the shots with the 85 give you something different (i.e. subject isolation) than what you'll typically get with the slower zooms and the 35.

My typical carry around combo is the 18-140 and the 85 (outdoors) or 35 (indoors). Of course, my typical subject is my son though.

KnockKnock

Hey, I was in NY last week too! I took just the Sony RX100 though. Still could not get wide enough.

spraynpray

autofocus

@spraynpray I had a D4 and 14-24 I would have loaned you while you were here. I live 50 minutes from the city.

spraynpray

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Now you tell me.....

Thanks anyway mate.

mmedford

I wanted to post one more time in this thread before allowing it to die off..

I would like to thank everyone for commenting and posting, the information has been clearly helpful and has pointed me in a direction..

One purchase I did make; was the Tony Northrup digital books...One of the bundles.

Thanks again Everyone & Happy Shooting!
-Mark