Upgrading from D3100 - D750 (24-120) vs D7100 (Body only)

[tarun_gupta2]

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>I am new here and need to seek some help from experts over her. Currently, i have the following equipment for over 3 years:<br>

Nikon D3100 + 18-55 Kit lens<br>

Nikon 35 mm F1.8 DX<br>

Nikon 55-300 F4.5-5.6 DX</p>

<p>I am interested in Landscapes, Nature, some amount of portrait and general purpose photography. I use 55-300 a couple of times in a year when I visit a wild life park. Apart from that, my needs on Tele side is limited.<br>

Now coming to the question, I have been using 35 mm lens and like the results but somehow, I feel that I need a better body and am considering an upgrade. I am currently struggling between D7100 and D750. Following are my considerations:<br>

1. D750 + 24-120 will cost me around 1,40,000 INR in India and D7100 body only around 57,000. There is a significant price difference and even if I buy D7100, I will have to get a good landscape and general purpose lens such as Tokina 11-16 mm or Sigma 8-16mm and also a good geenral purpose lens like Sigma 18-35 F1.8 or Sigma 17-55 F2.8. Mean another 1,00,000. Which option does look good ?<br>

2. Is a FX body significantly better in image quality than DX? D750 vs D7100 in this case<br>

3. If I go for D750, would you recommend getting 24-120 or any other general purpose lens. Eventually I will buy 16-35 dedicated for landscape but I am hoping to get buy with 24 mm for landscape for now. It is still better than kit lens that I have.</p>

<p>I know a lot of questions and decisions, but any suggestions would help. Thanks for your time.</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>Buy a used D7100 and put most of your money on the best lenses, and a good tripod/ballhead. The tripod is probably the most important thing, lenses second, camera third. It's a mistake to put a lot of money into a camera and then not be able to afford the things that are really important.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Agree with Kent ..</p>

<p>Or maybe go D7200 if you want to buy new..<br /> <br /> BTW if you say "good landscape lens", i would <strong>not</strong> go for "Ultrawide" ( sigma 8-16 mm , ) this is a specialist lens not a general purpose lens for Landscape , something like a 12 - 24mm lens will be more satisfactory for landscape photography i think ...</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, i do own the Sigma 8 - 16 mm lens and love it, but for landscapes you want to be able to use gradual ND filters ( half gray) and polarizers to manage the hughe contrast you meet in this type of work, and the sigma 8 -16mm will not accept filters at all .... ( and the 11-16mm also wont)<br /> Also ultra wide makes it often hard to keep the sun , and reflections, out, which is also very hard to do often..</p>

[tarun_gupta2]

<p>Thanks for your inputs Kent and C.P.M. van het Kaar.<br>

I am gravitating towards D7100 and not D7200 because even though it is an upgrade, D7200 is very costly and will defeat the purpose of significant price difference. D7100 is almost as good as D7200 and no slouch by any means. If I go for DX format, I need to get a good tripod (say 300$) and Landscape lens (say ~ 600-700$). Any recommendations?<br>

For FX, Is 24 wide enough?<br>

I know a lot of questions but I am preparing for a 10 day trip to hill and want to really get some good shots that are not limited due to lack of equipment.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Tarun</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>sigma 8 -16mm will not accept filters at all .... ( and the 11-16mm also wont)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong on the part of the 11-16 - every version of it has a 77mm filter thread.<br /> A better option than the 11-16 is the newer Tokina 11-20/2.8 - it takes 82mm filters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For FX, Is 24 wide enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is for some and not for others. For me, it certainly is not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which option does look good ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are comparing quite different things: D750 with 24-120/4 and potentially 16-35/4; quite universal (though not for portrait work in particular). Your 55-300 is DX and hence not the best option to use on an FX camera. </p>

<p>Vs D7100 with (for example) 11-20/2.8 and some rather fast lenses 18-35/1.8 (nice lens, but limited range) or 17-50/2.8; a better (and more comparable to the FX selections) option might actually be to consider the 16-80/2.8-4 (expensive) or the older 16-85/3.5-5.6 (not cheap either but cheaper than the 16-80). No lens that's particularly suited for portrait work either.</p>

<p>Roughly speaking, FX would cost you about twice as much as a DX upgrade - only you can decide if that's within your budget or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>really get some good shots that are not limited due to lack of equipment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither option would likely be limiting in that regard. There are always some objective advantages of the larger format - but they may not matter all that much to you personally. </p>

[tarun_gupta2]

<p>Thanks for a detailed response Dieter. I will check the new Tokina lens for sure. FX is a bit aspirational for me now just because of the budget. Otherwise, I would not have hesitated and just bought it right away. Probably, I will upgrade to FX some day when I have sufficient liquidity.<br>

Having said that, I also want to learn and improve my skills further and that is where I found my D3100 and lack of fast lens limiting specially the 18-55 lens, which though a decent lens to start with, does not come close to say Sigma 18-35/1.8.<br>

Anyways, thanks again. Any suggestions on good tripods. I own a very basic one but it too heavy and not too sturdy. I should not be complaining as i got it around 40-50$ range.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I also want to learn and improve my skills further and that is where I found my D3100 and lack of fast lens limiting specially the 18-55 lens, which though a decent lens to start with, does not come close to say Sigma 18-35/1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>im not sure what is so limiting about the 3100 for what you want to shoot. not saying the camera isnt limiting you, just that you havent articulated how it is limiting you. there is no reason you can't improve your skills with your current camera. stopped down at typical landscape apertures, the 18-55 is actually pretty good. it's main limitation is the cheap build quality and perhaps the slowish variable aperture. however, if you're shooting at those apertures, the 1.8 aperture of the 18-35 Sigma doesnt help you at all, though that lens may be optically better than the 18-55 overall. it's also a little short for many types of portrait work.</p>

<p>if i were you, i'd perhaps invest into new lenses first, then consider a new body. 11-20 + 16-80 would give you better wide angle capability, faster aperture, and longer range, but 16-85 could also work for outdoorsy stuff. i'd also consider getting a dedicated portrait lens too which could be a fast 50/1.8 or an 85/1.8. adding three lenses which improve your photographic capabilities would make a bigger difference IMO than shooting the moon on an expensive body and just one general-purpose lens.</p>

<p>$300USD should get you either a really good aluminum tripod or an entry-level carbon fiber tripod. but you can easily spend that amount on just a leg set alone, which means you might still need a head. you may be able to find a bundled head+legs for that price, but realistically that may or may not be sufficient, and you may find yourself upgrading in a few years. if all you need is something better and lighter than your current 'pod, i'd check out the manfrotto and vanguard options in that price range, some do come bundled with basic heads. a good rule of thumb for support, is you want the tripod to be rated to twice the weight of your camera + heaviest lens, at least. but keep in mind that if you upgrade down the line to a bigger body and bigger lenses, your tripod's load capacity may be inadequate. therefore it's a good idea to leave yourself some wiggle room. </p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Tarun, I upgraded to a D7100, and I love it. The controls and functionality are very nearly identical to those of my friend's D750, but at a fraction of the price (and without the flippy screen). Moving to an FX body of necessity means new lenses, for an enormous investment. The 24mp sensor of the D7100 provides excellent performance, and the external controls make fast adjustments very accessible, far more so than the D3100's nested menus. Save some money and invest in a good tripod and ball head, maybe some extension rings for macro, and a remote shutter release. You will get far more value and flexibility out of these items than from an FX body, even if you give up a tiny bit of image quality.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I just want to point out FX does not necessarily require a huge investment in lenses. If someone has a complete set of DX lenses, yes it will be expensive to replace them. However, someone wanting to get into FX on a reasonable budget has plenty of moderate options to choose from. The 50mm 1.8g is really about the same price as the DX 35. The Nikkor 18-35g is actually cheaper than the DX ultrawides. Further, you can use a huge catalog of MF Nikkors if MF is acceptable (I know you can use them on DX, but FOV is not per original design). </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I've only recently got into DX from FX with a D7200 and chose the new Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 AT-X zoom for my wideangle coverage. I couldn't be happier with it. It's sharp corner to corner at pretty much all apertures and focal lengths. From what I've seen it beats the older Tokina 11-16mm by a margin.</p>

<p>I've also had the chance to put the non-VC version of Tamron's SP 17-55mm f/2.8 up against a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. I'm sorry to say the Tamron is every bit as good, except lighter in weight and shorter in length. The Sigma? I wouldn't touch it. Nor Tamron's VC version.</p>

<p>You can use Imaging Resource's "Camera Comparometer" to see for yourself the difference between the D750 and D7100 side-by-side. To my eye there's not too much in it unless you push the ISO to silly values.<br>

The comparometer page is here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>FX does not necessarily require a huge investment in lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it does if you are wanting to use pro-spec zooms. ;) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikkor 18-35g is actually cheaper than the DX ultrawides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, the 18-35 is $750 at Adorama currently, that is a few hundred dollars more expensive than the Tokina 11-20 which is more versatile due to constant 2.8 aperture throughout its entire zoom range. so there are tradeoffs both ways between FX and DX.<br>

<br>

given that even a d7100 will be an IQ/UI upgrade from a d3100 and will still allow mounting and AF with AF-D lenses, the question is whether full frame would really be necessary for the OP? at this point, it would certainly require getting some FX lenses, since the OP currently only has DX lenses, none of which have a high resale value. then there are the minor details, such as replacing a 55-300 DX lens with a 70-300 VR for full frame would mean you actually lose 150mm on the long end, once you subtract the 1.5x crop factor. So essentially, you're paying more to get less range in that situation (although the 70-300 does have better optics and build overall). i really dont think there's anything wrong with DX as a format at this point, and the FX "advantage" is purely situational and dependent on things like how large you're printing, and whether or not a stop of DoF and better high-ISO performance come into play (which can also be mitigated to some degree by using fast-aperture lenses). the whole "FX is better" argument has been completely overstated, and is less true in 2016 than it was in 2007 when the D3 came out. They really are parallel formats, not necessarily tiered formats. The biggest argument against DX IMO is the still-incomplete Nikkor lens lineup, which to some extent has been filled by 3rd-party offerings like the 11-20/2.8 and 18-35/1.8.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Further, you can use a huge catalog of MF Nikkors if MF is acceptable (I know you can use them on DX, but FOV is not per original design)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. Many of those old MF lenses work <em>better</em> on the DX format than they did on full-frame. This is because Nikon's optical designers and their computer algorithms chose to favour central definition over performance at the perimeter of the image circle. That remains true today when it comes to lateral CA. There are a few exceptions, but most of the Ai-S series MF lenses work just fine on DX. As do many of the pre-digital higher grade AF-D lenses.</p>

[hapien]

<p>To me it seems that You have a nice kit for landscape work. They are lightweight and compact sized. Something that one apreciates on ten day journeys on the hills. Fairly modern specswise and fairly easily replaceable. When thinking of upgrade, the natural reason would be that You want to prepare to print big or demand better shooting performance in some other application than landscape. However the difference between D3100 and D7100 files may not show at all in print sizes used in photo albums or photo books or when digitally projected to screen.</p>

<p>You mention that the current tripod is heavy. Why not to get lightweight travel friendly tripod with ball head and padded tripod bag.</p>

<p>You mention D750 and 24-120mm option. 24mm is superwide there. Perhaps wider than I like in landscapes, but it has certain cinematic view to it. There has been discussions about how 24-120mm has vignetting and such in corners. But these are pretty well correctable either with incamera jpeg engine settings or in post processing. Tradeoffs of very wide zoom range and desing. But I have never used either of these myself. Your current dx lenses can be used with D750 too, this option gives "sportsfinder" effect on viewfinder, if one likes such.<br>

If money is burning in Your pockets, You could first study image data from past three years and buy a fixed focal lenght lens that most fits Your profile. It is worksome to input image lens data to calc sheet, but luckily lightroom has readymade apps for this. </p>

 

[nick_baker]

<p>If you can really get D750+24-120VR for less than D7100 + new lens then this may be a good choice. FX does have advantages, they are not huge but if there is no financial penalty, why not? It will be a little heavier, primarily because of the lens. The disadvantage is that you can forget getting any small, inexpensive 450mm telephoto in future (equivalent to your 300 mm DX). You could get a used manual focus 200mm f4 AIS lens for not much money, it is a decent lens although only modestly longer than the zoom.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Tarun, all that's lacking in your current kit is a good portrait lens. Something that'll throw the background out of focus. I'd suggest spending your money on a 50 or 85mm f/1.4 lens rather than a new camera body.</p>

<p>A D750 + 24-70 is going to cost you somewhere in the region of $2000 US new, right? The D7100 is about one third of that. You could get the D7100 and 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor new for around the same price as the D750 kit, or with a 50mm f/1.4 for less than the body-only price of the D750. And MF lenses, like Samyang's excellent 85mm f/1.4 or an Ai-S 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor could bring the cost down even further. What I'm saying is that putting the money into lenses will serve you better than spending on an FX camera body that's going to leave you without much suitable glassware for it.</p>

<p>Pros of the D750:<br>

1)Excellent in low light<br>

2)Gives shallower depth-of-field for portraits - but only with the right lens<br>

3)Marginally better overall IQ<br>

Cons of the D750:<br>

1)Will need a complete new kit of lenses<br>

2)Will give more limited depth-of-field for nature and landscape<br>

3)Cost will be 3x more (at least)<br>

4)Bigger and heavier than DX</p>

<p>My money would go into lenses, but it's your decision to make Tarun.</p>

[tarun_gupta2]

<p>@Eric: Thanks for a detailed post. I will definitely look at those options. Some responses from my side:<br>

“im not sure what is so limiting about the 3100” – A couple of things. Slow AF, layered Menu, less sharp pics and struggle with low (not a big issue). Probably some of it is my fault or the lack of a sharp lens. I have some photos at the following link that will give you some idea about my capability. Please feel free to give your comments:<br>

https://500px.com/tarungupta7<br>

@David: Thanks for your 2 cents David. TO be honest this does seem to be the most practical option. I don’t mind one time investment but what bothers me are the recurring costs of lens upgrades<br>

@Chip: Thanks for the comment. The 24-120 is not a bad lens to be honest. A friend of mine recommended to start with that but higher FX lens cost a bomb. E.g. 16-25 and the holy trinity are just out of my reach if I do not earn money from photography<br>

@Rodeo: Thanks for the info. That does look like a good tool. I will check it at leisure. I don’t think I have anything against D7100. Probably, FX vs DX is more psychological than a real thing.<br>

@Tuomas: That’s a good advice. Thanks.<br>

@Nick: Completely agree with you. Thanks. FX is difficult for Tele work unless u spend on teleconverters and long range lens.<br>

@Rodeo: Yes. The D750 kit is roughly 1.4L in India i.e. nearly 2100 USD and D7100 body only is around 850 USD. It’s not that D7100 is dirt cheap but those 1200 odd $ can go into lens. I am not sure if I am that much into portraits but I do like landscapes and nature photography. I do occasional unpaid gigs for my friends and that when 35/1.8 comes in handy.<br>

One request please: Following is a sample of some of my images over last 3 years. I feel that I have used my kit lens a lot and though the image was sharp I could not get that tack sharpness. Can you please comment that is it the technique or the equip or both. Thanks a bunch again for your valuable feedback.<br>

https://500px.com/tarungupta7</p>

 

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Tarun, in the web versions of your images it is difficult to see any issues regarding sharpness. The truth is that sharpness is more about execution than technology (except in the case of really, really poor lenses). The lenses you have will give you all the sharpness you can really use, unless you are getting paid $$$ for very exacting technical or commercial work. I recommend the upgrade to the D7100 for the following specific reasons: 1) It moves you from a nested-menu-based control system to a pro-style external controls system. This is reason enough for the upgrade all by itself, IMO. And, the control options are essentially identical to the D750. 2) D7100 has an an internal auto-focus motor for use with older, potentially less expensive lenses. 3) D7100 has a pentaprism viewfinder with 100% frame coverage, in lieu of the pentamirror in your D3100. 4) D7100 has an aperture feeler for metering with older, MF AI and AI-S lenses. I find this feature very valuable, out of proportion to what I expected. 5) 24 megapixels, more than you will ever really need. 6) Pro-type presets and programs for white balance, exposure control, etc. 6) You can keep your existing lenses, and additional DX lenses are generally less expensive than their full-frame equivalents. If you are looking forward to a future FX body, any FX lenses you buy in the interim will be fully functional on the D7100. 7) Advanced autofocus system with 51 focus points. You are the ultimate decider, but, for me, the decision was easily that I would get the best return on investment by staying in DX with a high-quality body, and investing in other equipment, such as lenses, tripod, etc.</p>

[tarun_gupta2]

<p>Thanks David. The more and more i think about this, i am leaning towards D7100.<br>

Though, I do not want to rule out a possible upgrade to FX in future. The only thing that bothers me is this: If I invest in good lens for DX (including third party lens) the candidates would be probably - 17-55/2.8, 18-35/1.8, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 18-200/3.5-5.6, 11-20/2.8, 8-16/4.5-5.6, 85/1.8, 50/1.8. With exception of 85 and 50, most of these this will become useless when i switch to FX. Also, If i buy for FX lens now, their range on DX will be weird because of crop factor.<br>

Any specific suggestions or lens on your mind that i could use with D7100 and still be prepared for FX upgrade 4-5 years down the line? Thanks.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Tarun, there is no "weird" effect in using an FX lens on DX. Focal length is the same. The only difference is the image coverage. A DX lens' projected image is smaller, sized to cover the smaller DX sensor. The FX lens' projected image is the exact same magnification, but with a larger size covering the larger sensor. (The projected image of a 6 foot tall man taken with 35mm DX and FX lenses will be same height on both DX and FX sensors. It will appear larger when taken with a DX sensor because it covers more of the smaller sensor, not because the lenses behave any differently. A 35mm lens is always a 35mm.) If you use a DX lens on an FX sensor, the edges of the sensor will not be covered by the projected image, resulting in a vignetted image. I own several FX/Full-Frame lenses, including a 55mm AI Micro-Nikkor and 70-300mm Nikkor, that I use routinely on my DX bodies. No issues whatsoever. Nothing "weird" at all. The only lens you might want to add to what you already have is an ultra-wide-angle, such as an 11-15mm or a 12-24mm, etc. Otherwise, you have your bases covered for landscape and general purpose use. If you want to do portraits, then you likely will need some fast prime lenses in the 50mm, 80mm, and 105mm focal lengths, in addition to the 35/1.8 you already have. Otherwise, you are covered. There's no point in duplicating focal lengths, unless it is with special purpose lenses, such as for macro photography or portraiture. If you are contemplating an eventual switch to FX, then buy high-quality FX lenses used or on sale when you can, but you won't need to replace what you have now with FX until you actually make the switch. My understanding is that the only material advantages of current FX over DX is in low light/high-iso performance and the ability to obtain shallower DoF. DX has the advantage of packing the same number of pixels on a smaller sensor, resulting in the 1.5x perceived change in focal length. This is useful for wildlife and similar applications. Otherwise, there are not that many real, meaningful differences between a D7100 and a D750 and the images the can make.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Tarun, there is no perfect way to shoot DX and have a smooth transition to FX. I went D50>D200>D300>D700. I am not a working professional, so my requirements are somewhat flexible. I still have the D300 and several DX lenses. In my case, I already had the 70-300VR, the 180AF, and a bunch of MF Nikkors. When I bought the D700, I got the 50mm 1.4G and the 85mm 1.8G. I did not try to immediately replace all my DX lenses with FX. Some DX lenses will go, some will stay. I have the 10.5mm and I have no plans to dump it. I have the Tokina 12-24, which I want to eventually sell to get something like the 18-35G. If suddenly I had unlimited funds, yes I would probably go to a full FX kit. But for now, I can use the D700 for some things and D300 for others. It is also nice to use both cameras sometimes (perhaps the tele mounted on D300 and a wide or normal on the D700). </p>

<p>In your case, you listed a bunch of DX zooms along with some FX primes. The DX zooms will make the FX transition more difficult if you want to replace them with FX equivalents. If you are a zoom shooter, I can't think of a great way to future proof your current set-up. Primes would be a little easier I think. You can get lots of FX primes that have useful DX/FX application. The new 24 1.8G can be your wide on FX and 35mm equivalent on DX. Same for the 35mm 1.8G and so on. In short, try to find FX lenses that can be useful to you on both formats. </p>

<p>My best advice is to think about whether you can make the transition gradually. So if you have a bunch of nice DX zooms, maybe you do FX upgrade but only get low light primes to start. You use your DX camera with zooms and FX with primes. Gradually, you can save up to transition to the FX zooms. </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>A couple of things. Slow AF, layered Menu, less sharp pics and struggle with low (not a big issue). Probably some of it is my fault or the lack of a sharp lens. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>hmm. Tarun, i looked up the d3100 on <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3100/9">DPReview</a>, and they actually praised the camera's AF, though they noted, </p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the standard AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 VR kit zoom, the focus speed is perfectly acceptable, but not spectacular (you really need to use a better lens for the true benefits of the D3100's sophisticated AF system to become apparent).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is due to the lack of a focus motor in the body, so upgrading to a more performance-oriented lens might make a difference there. In terms of sharpness, i find it hard to believe that the camera + lens combo is not physically capable of producing "tack sharp" results, even with the kit lens, with proper technique and settings. If you are doing landscape work, the single biggest thing which could get you sharper pics is... wait for it... using a tripod. That said, upgrading to a d7100 would probably offer a little better low-light/high-ISO performance, although not as good as an FX body. It will also give you more external controls, such as two control dials, and get you out of menus. I see David already covered the rest of the benefits, so it may be worthwhile to upgrade, along with lens upgrades (which should be a bigger priority, as noted earlier by me as well as RJ).</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I do not want to rule out a possible upgrade to FX in future. The only thing that bothers me is this: If I invest in good lens for DX (including third party lens) the candidates would be probably - 17-55/2.8, 18-35/1.8, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 18-200/3.5-5.6, 11-20/2.8, 8-16/4.5-5.6, 85/1.8, 50/1.8. With exception of 85 and 50, most of these this will become useless when i switch to FX. Also, If i buy for FX lens now, their range on DX will be weird because of crop factor.<br />Any specific suggestions or lens on your mind that i could use with D7100 and still be prepared for FX upgrade 4-5 years down the line? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, it is difficult to fully prepare for FX while using DX lenses on a DX body. The only thing you can really do is use FX lenses on a DX body, but as you say the range is "weird." of your possible lens candidates, only the 50 and 85 are FX lenses, so maybe these should go to the top of your list since they give you portrait capability. While FX lenses like 24-70, 24-120, 70-300 and 70-300 as well as 20/1.8 can work well on both DX and FX, where you get stuck is in ultrawides. There is no ultrawide FX lens which is also wide on DX; therefore, you need to get a DX-specific UWA. the 11-20/2.8 and 18-35/1.8 are probably the best DX lenses on your short list. the 17-55 is an ancient design which doesnt maintain its price/performance ratio against newer, less expensive 3rd-party alternatives, and even worse, doesnt hold its value all that well on the resale market. It is also quite heavy for landscape use. if you are considering this lens, it's probably not worth it to buy it new. I would avoid the 18-200, especially on a 24mp sensor. That lens was developed for 6mp bodies and wasnt all that sharp to begin with. It also wont hold value all that well on resale market. if you must have a DX superzoom, the newer 18-140 is a much better choice. 16-85 is a bit slower than the new 16-80 overall, but has pretty good optics even wide open. However i'm not sure how much faster the AF speed is than your current 18-55, if at all. the 8-16 is the widest zoom lens you can get for DX; i probably wouldnt recommend one as your only UWA, especially if you dont have a lot of experience using wide lenses. 8mm is an extreme perspective which requires careful framing and composition, and it also doesnt accept filters, which may be disappointing for landscape. Getting back to your last question, 24-70 or 24-120 can work on DX as i said before but neither is particularly cost-efficient so it may not really be worth it. Your best bet IMO is actually to cop a selection of primes, say 20/50/85, and use less-costly zooms for DX. hope that helps a little. good luck. </p>

[tarun_gupta2]

<p>Thanks all for the valuable advice. Really appreciate it.<br>

David: I think i might have not worded it correctly. What i meant was that the focal length ranges of gud FX lens like Holy trinity or landscapes ones are not very desirable of DX body because the view is equivalent to a high focal length range. Of course, DX lens on FX body isnt a great way either because the sensor is bigger and most of lens would show a dark halo/black edges or high vignetting.</p>

<p>Chip and Eric: I have to agree with you. I had a similar opinion. It is not just about the quality of the lens. The changed perspective makes it entirely two different systems to be honest and thus it is difficult to find overlaps in both. It is about pledging your allegiance to one system. Having said that, we might still find some overlap in Tele side. I like 80-200/2.8ED - It is not a very expensive lens but i really don't need it for my kind of work for now. would love to try though. On the ultra wide side, DX is definitely more demanding. I do not like nikkor options for wide. I still feel Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 would be the best bet. There is some overlap for primes, specially portraits and macro ones. I am inclined towards 50mm/1.8 that would effectively be 75mm on DX. It might be a better bet than 85mm which will become a sort of mini tele on DX. and 105mm macro is also an excellent option but for now, i have not dabbled much into macro work. I am still learning/experimenting to be honest. Probably the lack of sharpness in some pictures is more to with my technique.</p>

<p>Anyways, another thing that excites me about the upgrade is the Internal focus motor. That opens up plethora of opportunities for using older AI lens which i cant use with AF on D3100. I think i will do some research in that area and to find some good prime bargains as i go along in my photographic journey.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Probably the lack of sharpness in some pictures is more to with my technique.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's easy to blame the lens, but a more likely culprit for less than ideal sharpness is camera shake combined with too-slow of a shutter speed. a tripod solves both these issues. the 18-55 VR I which probably came with your d3100 has excellent center sharpness wide open, and very good to excellent corners at f/8, according to <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/397-nikkor18553556vr?start=1">photozone</a>. So theoretically, you shouldnt need anything sharper for basic landscape use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am inclined towards 50mm/1.8 that would effectively be 75mm on DX. It might be a better bet than 85mm which will become a sort of mini tele on DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this sort of depends on shooting style. an 85 will have more compression than a 50 and is an effective 135 on DX. that's at the long end of the portrait range, but some people really like shooting portraits with these on DX bodies. personally, i find 50mm a squeench too short on DX for portraits but that is my subjective opinion. other options are the tamron 60/2 macro and the voigtlander 58/1.4 manual focus lens. </p>

[tombest]

<p>Taran, nice web portfolio. You have some very nice shots there. <br>

I think the issue of a sturdy tripod can't be stressed enough. I would seriously start shopping for one soon because there really is a difference when you master your tripod technique with a good set of legs (and a remote shutter release). A couple of recommendations when you shop. I would strongly recommend that you find a head to go with your tripod that allows you to use solid camera plates with it. I learned that my camera <em>plate</em> was a source of wiggle. Over the years I purchased several systems that used cork or rubber mounting between the plate material and the camera body but discovered that the 'give' in the padding allowed for movement and vibration. I recently bought a solid plate designed for my camera body and the slight vibration I could detect from other plates went away. In my case, a Kirk plate, but there are others. Some of the complaint I had with earlier tripods might well have been the plate I had mounted to the camera. Also, I resorted to not using a battery grip because the connection wasn't rock solid.</p>

<p>If it were me, given what I know of your style and interests, I would buy the D7100. There <em>will</em> be a difference in moving from 14mp to 24mp. (Don't forget to account for the larger file sizes you will be dealing with. The new images will take up more space in your computer.)</p>

<p>An additional 'sharper' solution to your situation might be to invest in DxO Optics Pro. I found it capable of extracting an amazing level of detail from the lenses I already have or had. I use Photoshop as well but if I have a keeper, it goes to DxO first. </p>

<p>I own the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. It is a truly remarkable lens but I wouldn't consider it if I was only interested in landscape photography It's strength lies in its fast aperture which won't come into play in landscapes. For street photography and casual shots, it's amazing. But it is big and heavy. Not a problem on a tripod but probably more than you need and certainly a lot to lug around on hikes, especially if you're already shopping for a lighter tripod.</p>

<p>About ultra-wide lenses for landscape... I don't find the ultra-wides really that great for landscapes. They are wonderful for some specialty photos but frankly, I used my 18-105 VR Nikon at the Grand Canyon more than my Tokina 12-24. With ultra wide lenses you are spreading your pixels pretty thin and your perceived sharpness may not improve, and in fact it may seem worse. I was between 35mm and 50mm most of the time. You already have the 35mm f1.8, maybe the 50mm f1.8 would be a nice addition? The 50mm is blisteringly sharp - almost too sharp for portraits, but is a perfect fit on Dx and the D7100 will extract all the detail you could want from it. Used, they're a steal. As others might have mentioned, the Tokina 11-16 is an awesome lens but the zoom range isn't much... there isn't a lot of 'zoom'. </p>

<p>I suppose if I was spending your money, I would buy the D7100 and a tripod/head that cost enough to make you a little uncomfortable. Then, if I had the time, I'd use the camera and the lenses you have to determine if you are able to achieve the results you're after. And I would definitely download a trial version of DxO Optics Pro and play with it for 30 days. What you have just might surprise you.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>Tom<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>+1 on Tom's comments.</p>