D90 + Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 70-200 VR

<p>Another iteration on this standard question. But now, I'm the one wanting to buy some combination of the below.<br>

I'm finally hitting the wall on my Nikon D40, where I'm starting to want to do things that it won't do - CLS commander mode, Lower Light (better sensor). I'm also starting to realize what I want to shoot and what I like to shoot. So... This is what I currently have:</p>

<ul>

<li>D40</li>

<li>35 1.8 Nikon AF-S </li>

<li>50 1.8 Nikon (manual focus on D40)</li>

<li>18-200 Nikon AF-S</li>

<li>SB-600</li>

</ul>

<p>My budget is about $2k US and I would prefer to build up quality then to have the newest thing. I like to shoot low light (ie city scapes, evening plays, family events, occasional portraits, and an ocassional sporting event (not often on the sports)). I really like 50-200 range in low light with no flash. So the 18-200 is great for vacations, but not as good for lower light and my 35 and 50 don't have enough reach. Should I buy?</p>

<ol>

<li>D90 with better sensor, AF and CLS Flash ability and a Sigma 70-200 2.8 or Nikon 80-200 2.8 (no VR).</li>

<li>Current Generation Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR that will work on my D40 and then wait to upgrade the body until I have more money.</li>

</ol>

<p>I'm really worried after testing my 18-200 with and without VR that I will end up replacing the Sigma or Nikon at some point, but I have body envy. Which combo will yield the best results. D90 with no VR but 2.8 in that range, or a D40 with 2.8 VR? I will ultimately upgrade the D40 to a D90 or equivalent, but that will be a ways off if I spend all my money on the 70-200 VR. Thanks all in advance for your help.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not familiar with neither D40 nor D90, as I have a D300 myself, but camera bodies come and go, good glass stays.</p>

<p>Well, the D90 is better at higher ISOs so you could use faster shutter speeds, which actually stops subject movement, while VR does not.</p>

<p>Fast glass without VR is better than VR on slow glass. VR does not help you reduce noise. Using fast glass allows you to shoot at a lower ISO settings producing less noise. Given that you must use VR (which only replaces a monopod as it does not help you stop motion) on the D90 with a slow zoom might not give better results at all compared to your D40 with top glass on it. Have you compared image noise levels this way between images shot with the 50 mm lens and your zoom using different ISO settings to achieve the same exposure?</p>

<p>Recommendations are not easy, only you know what focal lengths you prefer and what you do with your pictures. How large images do you print? Albeit having roughly half the resolution of the D90, the D40 is still capable of producing excellent results. Perhaps you could benefit from on-line tutorials on noise removal? Noise Ninja is an excellent Photoshop plug-in, which does wonders to remove noise.</p>

<p>The 80-200 2.8 AF-S will do AF with your body. Unfortunately the wonderful 85 1.8 will not AF, like your 50 mm. To complicate things, why not consider a third option; a used D80 and a used 80-200 2.8, which then does not need to be AF-S or a used D80 with a new/used 85 1.8. Why the D80, you may wonder? Well it is about the same as the D90 (minus the video capability and Live View) but at a much lower cost. It does AF with all Nikon AF lenses and it has CLS commander mode.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm finally hitting the wall on my Nikon D40, where I'm starting to want to do things that it won't do - CLS commander mode, Lower Light (better sensor). I'm also starting to realize what I want to shoot and what I like to shoot.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>that's enough reasons to get a d90, which leaves about $1k in your budget.</p>

<p>your next step should be some better glass. $1000 would get you an 80-200, but for DX, i'd actually think about a 2.8 walkaround lens like the nikon 17-55 or tamron 17-50 first. you're somewhat low-light challenged on the wide end. if you're sure you "really like 50-200 range in low light with no flash" and would use that more than something wider then an 80-200 makes sense. but be advised that's a heavy, clunky lens.<br>

the problem here is that replacing the entire 18-200 range with fast glass requires at least two lenses, and you only have budget enough for one (plus the camera). if you get the 17-50, you'd still have $500 left over, enough for an 85/1.8., which would at least give you three low-light primes, plus a wide zoom, plus your 18-200 for travel/daytime walkaround.</p>

<p>I'd suggest doing this incrementally. A new lens will not fully address the CLS or low light/sensor concerns, so I'd suggest go to the D90 first. Then see how you find it does with your favorite subject matter. Then you can approach the Sigma 70-200 or an 85mm lens, or decide if the 18-200 walk-around might still leave you wanting a 17-50/2.8 or similar lens.</p>

<p>Eric has a very good point. If the OP is indeed "hitting the wall" with the D40 and you can clearly specify what the limitations are, it is time to upgrade the body. You can buy a $10000 lens to put it in front of the D40, but those limitations will still not just go away.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. It's good to talk it through and hear other opinions. This truly gives me a lot to think about. I really want the 70-200 Nikon VR, but I think I will most likely wait that one out a little longer and will most likely get the D90 first, then pause, evaluate and then look for glass. It's been drilled into my head so much that I should buy glass first and body second, but the lens alone only fixes one problem. The body fixes more then one problem that even with great glass I will still have.</p>

<p>Plus with a body I can go incrementally into the decision and then evaluate what I'm missing. I can also make the decision based on the fact that it has the focus motor so I can at least look at the current generation of the Nikon 80-200, which I don't think is AF-S. I agree I'm challenged on the wide end, so ideally a wide zoom and a long zoom, both 2.8 are what I need/want.</p>

 

<p>Stephen, another thing to consider is: are you used to handholding a 3-3.5 lb lens? I own both the Sigma 50-150 and 70-200 and unless I just absolutely need the extra 50mm I always prefer the lighter 1.7 lb 50-150 over the 3 lb 70-200 (or 3.5 lb VR lens). And the 50-150 IMO is actually a little better optically than the 70-200 as well.</p>

<p>I second the option of the D90 and the 80-200. It's a very nice lens; the 70-200VR is nicer for sure, but is it ~$600 nicer? Well, it wasn't for me :-) I did consider the Sigma 70-200 too, mainly because of HSM, but the AF was not that much faster (than the AF-D 80-200) and wide open I found the lens disappointing. Maybe that copy was a bit off, but the Nikon was immediately OK wide open, so the money went to that.</p>

<p>Indeed the current 80-200 is not AF-S, the AF-S 80-200 is only available second hand, and usually around the same price as a new AF-D 80-200.</p>

<p>The point about having to handhold it; in fact I find the 80-200 very handholdable, as it balances really nice (on both D80 and D300, so should be good on a D90 too). The much lighter (200grams maybe?) 70-300G is much harder to handhold, since the balance is way off. But true: the weight is a point of consideration! Try before you buy.</p>

<p>For the wide-angle, I would not per se say the wide angle also has to be f/2.8. Depth of field with wide angles is quite huge anyway, so for a shallow DoF, well, f/2.8 won't do much at 12mm. For keeping shuttertimes low, a wide-angle can quite easily be shot hand-held with relatively long shuttertimes. You may want to save a few dollars there by considering the Tokina 12-24 f/4 rather than the f/2.8 11-16 (the 2 usual suspects for affordable wide angles).</p>

<p>IMO a 70-200 and a d40 is just a bad choice; it will be extremely unbalanced, like a chihuahua mating with a great dane. unless you are using a tripod and tripod collar all the time, even handholding could put a lot of strain on the F-mount.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And the 50-150 IMO is actually a little better optically than the 70-200 as well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>glad to hear from someone who has both. i didnt mention the 50-150 in my earlier comment, but i really like it on my d300. it's lighter than both the sigma 70-200 and nikon 80-200, and is really kind of a sleeper DX lens for the price. it's optically very good, with stellar bokeh, excellent build, modern coatings, and is very handholdable and compact. in fact, for event shooting, 17-50 and 50-150 are all i need to carry, giving me a constant 2.8 from wide to tele.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For the wide-angle, I would not per se say the wide angle also has to be f/2.8.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>depends. i would say this is true in the case of an ultrawide, not necessarily so with a wide-mid zoom, where constant 2.8 is really really nice to have. i have both the tokina 12-24 and tamron 17-50 and the 17-50 is a better overall range on DX for walkaround, general use, events, etc. you can leave it on the camera 75% of the time, whereas a long tele will frequently be too long, except for sports, portraits and candid street shots from across the street.the 17-50 range on DX is like Goldilocks' porridge, it's "just right."</p>

<p>i really like the tokina 12-24 too, and don't find the f/4 too limiting. in fact, i would think the 11-16 would be more limiting due to the shorter range, especially for people photography (where the 18-24 range on the 12-24 comes in handy), and considering that for landscape use, you'll be stopping down to f/8-11 much of the time, so you may not even need 2.8. i would actually recommend getting a 17-50 or 17-55 before an 11-16 for that reason, unless you plan on shooting a LOT of interiors at 2.8.</p>

<p>Eric, I forgot to say that I have the 50-150 II and the 70-200 I. This may be why my 50-150 is better.</p>