which lenses would you suggest as replacement for Nikon 18-200?

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Skip, for that money, I'd stretch a little further and get the D610/24-85(newest one)/70-200 f4. Add a 50mm f1.8G (which makes WAY more sense on FX than DX for most of us) either now or later.</p>

<p>Clearly, Nikon is exhibiting through their product offerings over the past few years that FX is the format of the future for serious photography, much as we all seem to pine for a "D400"...</p>

<p>I've done refurbs with Nikon and Olympus in the past. They've been terrific.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Last thoughts? sure. i don't see why there's any advantage in going FX for the OP with what he's shooting and the lenses he wants to use. you do lose quite a bit of reach with tele lenses though. i also dont see APS-C going away anytime soon, and i can take a "serious" photograph with a D3300 just as easily as i could with a D610. i would probably avoid the 17-55 unless you get a good price on a used one. it's kind of a big clunky lens which isn't especially suited for walkaround duty and offers no discernible optical advantage over less-expensive 3rd party 2.8 zoom lenses. if you want to blur backgrounds, fast primes are better suited for that task. the 17-55 is 755g, while the 16-85 is only 485g, so that's a pretty big difference. also the 16-85 has VR and a more useful range for landscape photography. if you're mainly shooting in good light, the slowish variable aperture is less of an issue. i would avoid the 50/1.8 D which has fugly bokeh and go for the newer G version.</p>

<p> if i was the OP, i'd go with d7100+16-85+70-200/4 plus one fast prime e.g. 50/1.8G. it seems about right to spend around 2/3rds of your budget on lenses and 1/3rd on a body. moving to FX just to move to FX probably isn't a good enough reason. and moving to FX because Nikon wants bigger profit margins is a very bad reason. also the d7100 has some more advanced features over the d610, such as AF module. a 70-200 becomes 105-300 on DX, so that extra 100mm of reach is a big bonus for an outdoors shooter. your options for UWAs are also lighter and generally less-expensive for DX than FX.</p>

<p>just to play devil's advocate, why stay with nikon at all? with all the options around, it's really a shooter's market. if your main mode of shooting is walking around and shooting landscapes with gear in a photo vest (which has obvious weight/size limitations, and you're not shooting action, $3k could buy a pretty serious mirrorless kit giving you same or better functionality in a lighter, smaller package which means you can go farther and shoot more photos.</p>

<p>before i buy another DSLR in 2014, i would definitely check out a mirrorless system, and there are some pretty compelling deals right now; the Sony a6000, which has the same sensor as the d7100, is $450 body only or $750 for a two-lens kit, which would leave enough budgetary room to get a kit lens upgrade standard zoom, plus telephoto, plus ultrawide, plus fast prime or CF tripod. </p>

<p>So, to me, i'd really think hard about functionality, versatility and overall performance -- and how you're going to be using that gear over name brand choice. if you're not heavily invested in nikon lenses, is mirrorless a more viable option for the type of shooting you do? Sony can't match the nikon 70-200/4 for telephoto, but the 10-18 and Zeiss 16-70/4 OSS are reportedly as good or better as Nikon's equivalents (if the 16-85 were an f/4 it would be a much easier recommendation).</p>

<p>IME, i really enjoyed shooting with a lighter kit on my recent trip to Baja California (i have a Fuji mirrorless system) and didn't find i missed a DSLR too much. for my non-paid/PJ photography, i'm more of a wide angle/prime/ shooter, though -- areas where fuji is strong. for the OP, the 70-200/4 might be enough reason to stick with Nikon.<br>

.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I wouldn't be switching to FX if weight is a concern - and if I didn't care too much about moving subjects, I'd be looking at mirrorless. I've carried DSLRs up enough elevated bits of geography that I can certainly report feeling the FX kit, even with its relatively small increment over my own weight. You can get a bit more resolution out of the largest FX cameras (and even more out of a Pentax 645Z or an 80MP Hasselblad, or a scanning back...) but doing so gets increasingly difficult, painful and expensive.<br />

<br />

The D7100 is a fine camera, and a direct successor to the D90. There are a lot of rumours - and historical timing - suggesting that it may be replaced very soon, though. I would be inclined to wait a month and find out whether those rumours are correct rather than rushing to buy now - it may still be worth getting the D7100 anyway, but it'd be cheaper after it's discontinued.</p>