Just got paid today

[russharris]

<p>I just got paid for a freelance job I took on earlier this year and am now finally in a position to rationalise my kit.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>I have three bodies: D80; D40 & a Fuji S3 Pro, and</li>

<li>I have three lenses: 18-70 (damaged front element); 18-55 VR and 35 DX.</li>

</ul>

<p>In the long run, the only thing I intend keeping is the 35.1.8 DX. Everything else can go. Or maybe not</p>

<p>I am considering ONE of the following options:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Option 1: Nikon D90 (which, if I buy, I will match up with my 18-55 VR* and 35 DX)</li>

<li>Option 2: Nikon 16-85 VR (which, if I buy, I will match up with my Nikon D40* and 35 DX)</li>

<li>Option 3: Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM (which, if I buy, I will match up with my Nikon D40* 18-55 VR* and 35 DX)</li>

</ol>

<p>I guess it's the old lens/ body question, and what I want to know is - considering my current setup, which option would benefit my photography (mostly travel) the most.</p>

<p>*All the kit I don't keep will be traded in towards another equipment purchase but for now I'm looking at paying cash for one of the three options I described above.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Russ</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>D90 is replaced by the D7000 - so you might find a good deal used on it. </p>

<p>D300 - should be able to find one under $1,000 (US) used. </p>

<p>Personally - I'd keep the D40 - get what I could for the D80 and S3 and then get a used D300. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[rossb]

<p> Congratulations on your success. However I do not know which set up would be best for you. Paying cash is certainly the way to go however.</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>Without knowing what you shoot, it's hard to suggest gear.</p>

<p>For instance: Do you need something longer (like the 50 - 150) for what you shoot?<br>

What light conditions do you shoot in?<br>

What kind of subjects (stationary or moving)?<br>

At what focal length do you shoot most today? Where do you find yourself saying "I wish I could _____ "?</p>

<p>For instance: I question why the 50 - 150 is on your list. Is it that you need to have something longer (quite reasonable IMO). But in that case why is it not a priority?</p>

 

[russharris]

<p>Thanks for all your answers guys. You have made me think about this a little more.<br /> <br /><br /> David, sadly D300 pricing outside of the US is beyond my budget. While I am attracted by the low-weight and inherent portability of the D40, the main thing that bothers me about it is the lens limitations issue.</p>

<p>BJ, my EXIF data shows that the bulk of my photography over the last 6 years has been done between 16-50mm range; with 80% of that between 16-35mm. Less than 2% of my shots were at 1600 ISO, most were around 200 ISO and seldom higher than 800 ISO.</p>

<p>I think that in terms of ISO I was certainly working under the limitations of my equipment. I would have gone higher to get a certain shot if I could. I think i would have gone for better glass to if I could afford it.</p>

<p>I shoot travel photography a lot, which means a lot of street, mostly in daylight. I do on occasion attend concerts / presentations indoors or in the evenings hence the need for fast glass, or a camera capable of handling high ISO comfortably.</p>

<p>Here's a link to some of my work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/russel_harris/page2/</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>this is not an easy call. the d40 is limited by its mp count. 6mp doesnt leave much room for cropping or large prints. the d80 has been supplanted by the d90, which has been supplanted in turn by the d7000. you need a new body but also need new glass.</p>

<p>unless you need weather-sealing, a d300 can be bulky for travel. also, a d40+50-150 combo will be very unbalanced, a d80+50-150 combo only slightly less so.</p>

<p>best bet might be to upgrade the glass until you can swing a d7000.</p>

<p>if you can live with the d80 for now, i'd suggest going in another direction: tamron 17-50/2.8 +55-200 VR--or maybe even tamron 70-300 VC USD. if you'd rather have 2.8 on the long end than the short end, then option #3 becomes viable. while a d90 is better than a d80, option #1 leaves you with no telephoto capabilities. option #2 amounts to replacing one variable aperture with another, and only gets you out to 85mm. while a wider angle could be useful for travel, 16mm isnt exactly ultrawide on DX. suggestion #2 would be go for an UWA like the sigma 10-20, which might make the most difference for what you shoot.</p>

<p>note: i have the 50-150 and while it's a versatile performer and compact enough for travel, i actually didnt use it that much when i was in Cuba earlier this year. the 17-50 and 12-24 saw much more use. the ultrawide was nice to have when i needed it--10mm would have been even nicer--but if i could only have taken one lens, it would have been the 17-50.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>the bulk of my photography over the last 6 years has been done between 16-50mm range; with 80% of that between 16-35mm.</em></p>

<p>another reason to get a 2.8 zoom in that range. while you are certainly ISO-limited by a d40/80, only by about a stop or so over a d90/d300. in comparison, the 18-55's max aperture at 55mm is 5.6, which is TWO full stops slower than the 17-50 wide open at 50mm. similarly, the 16-85 isnt fast glass by any means, and VR is useless for shooting things which move.</p>

<p>fyi, the 50-150 is a good concert/portrait lens, but i rarely shoot street with it due to the size. it's less intimidating than a 70-200, but not by much, especially with the hood deployed. if you're shooting street stealthily from long distances, a 28-300 or 70-300 would be better iMO. the 17-50 OTOH is about the same size as the 18-70 and is fairly inobtrusive, especially if you shoot from the hip, so it's especially well suited for street and travel.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[photo5]

<p>Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom is superb, sharp at all focal lengths and lightweight, with VR as a real useful feature in low light. I'd buy that before an f2.8 zoom that would have a shorter focal length range and no VR. I've enjoyed the 16-85 since its release in 2008.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I'd go with a faster zoom. The Tamron 17-50 VC or at least the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS. The 16-85 is a kit lens with a few parts more sturdily built, the marginal improvement over your current lenses is much less than the marginal improvement of a faster lens. Then you could work on selling a couple of bodies and buying a refurb D90 if you're not satisfied with your current bodies.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>dave, there is a VC version of the 17-50 available, which is also constant 2.8 throughout the entire range. but stabilization only helps with static subjects. i wouldn't even want to try to shoot an indoor or night concert with a zoom as slow as the 16-85; likewise, street shooting demands fast lenses.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>It seems that a typical photojournalistic setup would be the best because it would be very versatile still somewhat compact. So two camera bodies, one equipped with a constant f/2.8 wide angle zoom and and one with a constant f/2.8 telephoto zoom. And a fast lens (f/1.8 or f/1.8) and/or possibly a macro. And a flash.</p>

<p>I would start with the lenses. Wide angle zoom would be one of the stabilized ones, for instance Sigma 17-50 OS f/2.8. And a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for the long shots. And I would keep the 35 f/1.8 as my fast lens for now. Possibly add a cheap (<$100) used manual focus micro nikkor like 55mm f/2.8 (depending on the close focus ability of the zoom lenses).</p>

<p>I would get rid of the rest of the lenses. And have as a long time goal to replace the camera bodies with two D90 or better bodies. I'd also buy used lenses, not new, since your budget is limited.</p>

<p> </p>

[russharris]

<p>Thanks everyone. I have some time to make my mind up on this. I am leaning more towards a lens purchase and if I can find a 2.8 zoom that meets my budget I will probably go for it. However, as I am on the road and with my D40 I will have to make sure it has a built-in motor which means it will be costlier.</p>