what would you do?

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I have ordered a nikon D800 upgrading from a D200. I have two DX lenses (17-55 f/2.8 and 12-24 f/4). I like the 17-55mm, it gives good results.<br>

I would like to get the 24-70 f/2.8 but should I sell the 17-55 f/2.8? Its seems wasteful to hove both of these zoom lenses. I'd like to keep the D200 for backup and for certain situations. I could sell the nikon 17-55mm and the Tokina 12-24 but then that will limit the use of the D200. What would you do?</p>

<p>It depends what your budget is, but if I were in your position, then I would sell the 17-55mm. It commands about $900 on the used market, which means it can heavily finance your 24-70mm. It is about the same size and weight of the 24-70mm lens, but with less range on the D200 and on a less capable body. Why are you keeping the D200 around? Don't get me wrong, I have and love the D200; it's my main camera, but it won't really give you anything that the D800 doesn't already have. You should be able to crop the D800 photos to DX-size and give yourself superior results to the D200 when you need a little more reach from your lenses. The only thing I'd keep the D200 around for if I were you is if you need an immediate second body with a contrary lens on it (such as with a 300mm f/4 while you're shooting concurrently with your D800 and 24-70mm), as a studio camera where you're only ever shooting at ISO 100 or 200, or as a backup body in case the D800 ever has to go in for service. In that case, I'd consider picking up an 18-70mm or 18-105mm lens for casual shooting. Otherwise, consider getting rid of it (even though it's only worth pennies, somewhere in the $300-$450 range) and put that money towards accessories: another battery, grip, memory cards, an SB700 or SB910, etc.</p>

<p>The D200 is still a good camera and I have about 2oK shots on it so it still has some good life on it. If I sell it I won't get much for it so I may as well use it. If I sell the 17-55 than I lose that midrange zoom and the 24-70 is not a great range on the D200 but I can't really afford to keep both.</p>

<p>Think of it this way: When you take both cameras with you, which midrange lens would you pack into the bag? If the decision is 24-70, then the 17-55 is dispensable. If it's the other, then the 24-70 is not needed in the final analysis Does this make sense?</p>

<p>Sell the current lenses, put the money on 24-70mm. Keep 12-24 for use on D200 to fill in the gap you'd have up to 24mm. Goal: have fewer pieces with better quality.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Mary, I think i would grab the 24-70 for the fx body and 17-55 for the dx body. I find 24mm is not wide enoughon dx. I use a 24-85mm

f2.8-4 and oftenwish for something wider on the d200.

<p>Leonard, but the reason that I recommend selling the 17-55 is because you won't need a midrange zoom for the D200. What conceivable reason would you have to reach for your D200 and 17-55mm over your D800 with 24-70mm? 24mm is wider on a D800 than 17mm is on a D200, and both setups are about the same size and weight. The D800 is a better camera than the D200, and the 24-70mm is a better lens than the 17-55mm. If the D200 setup were half the size, I'd understand, but you would gain nothing by not just using your D800 in all of those potential midrange instances.</p>

<p>You likely won't want to use your D200 once you have the D800. Sell both lenses, get the 24-70mm and get an UWA angle lens for your D800. For backup, I am sure you you could deal with with 24mm on the DX should a situation arise that you cannot use your D800.</p>

Elliot you probably right. I may find myself using the d800 most of the time. I think the dx body is good for telephot but then can' i use the

d800 in dx mode fir telephoto? What is a good UWA for nikon?

<p>DX mode does not bring anything closer, it simply crops out the outer area of the frame, But the D800 DX 'equivalent crop will give you an approximate 15 megapixel DX sized imge which is more than you have now. Plus you will enjoy significantly less noise and higher dynamic range.</p>

<p>With regard to an ultra side angle lens... On the low end cost wise is the Sigma 12-24mm. On the high end is the Nikon 14-24mm. I owned the Sigma for a couple of years. It is a very good lens for the money (between $500 and $600 used) if the Nikon lens is out of your budget. But no one really knows how it will perform on the D800. it worked well for me on the D3. 12mm is very, very wide on a full frame body.</p>

<p>It's always good to have a spare camera body. I'd say sell the 17-55 but it's such a good lens. You can also use it on the D800 in crop mode if I'm not mistaken. Keep what you have and add the 24-70, let it all digest for a while and see if anything stands out as just no longer needed. The D200 is a good body and you're right, you won't get much for it.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

I also have a 24-85 f2-4 and it seems quite good on the d200 but i think the 24-70 gives better IQ. Another option is as

rick suggested, add the 24-70 and keep what i have although its a stretch financially.

<p>this is the pain of a hybrid system: it doesnt really work out evenly. staying invested in DX doesnt make a whole lot of sense in a lot of cases, especially with an older body. i could see keeping the d200 body as b/u but i would dump ALL the DX lenses and use them to fund FX-compatible glass--especially FX-compatible glass which works well on DX. unless you are a working PJ or travel/street shooter you dont really need two separate systems.</p>

<p>24-70 or 17-35 as main zoom. if you go with 24-70, you'll want something for W/A, like 14-24 or maybe the 16mm fish. if you go with 17-35 you'll want a fast 50 and/or a 70-300 or 70-200 for tele. </p>

<p>Sell th 17-55 while it's still worth something.</p>

<p>The D200 is obsolete.</p>

<p>"The D200 is obsolete"<br>

<br />Oh really? mine still pays its way 5 years later.<br /><br />Cleaner files than the D300/D300s at base iso... (admittedly poor over 800), small workable files.<br /><br />:) </p>

<p>When I bought my D700 to replace my D200 I had been planning the move to ff for quite a while and therefore did not have any dx lenses. I bought an 18-70mm dx lens for my D200 as a sort of "retirement" present, and it has worked quite well for vacations and general backup. An 18-70mm lens is quite inexpensive used and might be a better lens to leave on your D200 which will likely get only modest use. Selling the 17-55mm should bring in a good amount of money towards your D800.</p>

<p>I use a D200 and my three everyday lenses are a 12-24 4.0, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. I'm also looking at the D800 but if I buy it I will definitely keep my D200. If you shoot professionally you simply can't be without a backup. If you don't shoot professionally, a backup is good to have and a second body is good to have. A body you've already paid for is the cheapest backup/second body you'll ever buy. If the D800 is like other FX Nikons it will default to the DX sensor area with a DX lens, so you can still use your DX lenses and probably get more megapixels and better quality than with the D200 even cropped like that. As for the 17-55 I would say keep it as backup if you can afford it, but otherwise sell it to help pay for the 24-70.</p>

<p>I would say it depends on your use. If you are getting paid and can't afford not having a second body then maybe you should keep the current DX setup. Otherwise I suggest selling all the DX and move forward with FX. I did that when I went from my D200 to the D700. Never looked back but my photography is purely hobby.</p>

<p>Leonard, the problem with Rick's suggestion is that you gain nothing by buying the D800 and using the 17-55mm on it. You'd be better served, if you're happy with your current lens lineup and are reticent to sell it, to wait for the D400 to be released and hope that it is the D7000 sensor in a D300s body, with a few added features, of course. Two things that I think you should really let sink in:<br>

-There would never ever ever never be a reason to use the 17-55mm in DX mode on a D800 if you already have a 24-70mm.The 17-55mm gives you an equivalent field of view of 26-83mm on a DX camera, or on the D800 in DX mode. The 17-55mm also has inferior performance compared to the 24-70mm. You could use the 24-70 (which again, is as small and light as the 17-55mm) on your D800 and lose nothing, ever, compared to using the 17-55mm. In addition, you could crop the D800 at 70mm down to DX size (with superior results to the D200 with the 24-70mm lens). So, having a D800 is like having two D200's, one with a superior-performing 17-55mm, and another with an immediately available 70mm f/2.8 lens (105mm equivalent!)<br>

-There was also never be a reason to use your D200 with 17-55mm instead of the D800 with 24-70mm. In addition, there would never be a reason to use the D200 with any sort of lens, because if you use the D800 in DX mode, it will most assuredly give superior output to the D200. Are you doing bird photography, and you need to crop in more? Instead of putting on your D200, just crop your D800. Want to shoot ultra-wide angle with your D800, but suddenly need a normal-focal length shot? Instead of using your D200, just crop your D800's photo down to DX size.<br>

So, keep the D200, as it almost isn't worth selling, but there is zero reason to keep redundant lenses for it. Sell off the 12-24mm and 17-55mm lenses to fund worthwhile FX glass. Rather, as mentioned above, if your D800 ever goes in for service, just "make do" with the current lens lineup. As a wide angle lens for the D800, consider getting the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. It is superior in every way on your D800 compared to the 12-24mm on your D200. The combination of 16-35 and 24-70 will provide you with a very usable focal range on your D200, should your D800 ever be unavailable. </p>

<p>If you don't need the extra cash just keep everything. A photographer can never have too many cameras or lenses. </p>

 

<p>I suggest getting nothing now and waiting for the D400. You may find that the D800 and 24-70 isn't worth the additional cost over the D400 and 17-55.</p>

<p>I bet once you have the D800 you don't find yourself using the D200. Lose the 17-55, get something cheap for the rare occasions you'd want a normal zoom on the D200. You're not going to use the D200 in low light anymore anyway, and if you really want a DX frame you're better off with the D800 in DX mode, so if you replace the 17-55 with an 18-55, you pocket $800, and do you really lose anything?</p>

<p>Sell the whole lot as you will almost certainly never use the D200 again. Even if it's not worth much now it will only be worth increasingly little so get at least something for it.<br>

Fewer, better quality bits of kit is the way to go as someone said above. I personally wouldn't even bother with the 24-70mm either but go for one of the great primes that are available now but that's just me.</p>

I think i will keep the D200 and keep one lens attached to it. The photos it produces are still quite good, the main drawback of the D200

is the poor ISO performance.

However it doesn't make sense to keep DX lenses. I will sell my two DX lenses and buy a 24-70 now and 16-35 (when I can afford it). I

have a nikon 85mm 1.4 AFD which I may sell and replace with the new 85mm f1.8 AFS. Thanks for all input. It really helps to see

different points of view and help come to a decision.