Going DX D500 vs. D7200

[joseph_smith3]

To rent cameras or lenses, check out lensrental.com and borrowlens.com

[yardkat]

To rent cameras or lenses, check out lensrental.com and borrowlens.com

 

I was just going to suggest this. My husband has used lensrental a number of times, and it's a really cool service. It's actually how he talks himself OUT of buying something. :) He rents it, and decides it isn't quite what he wants or thinks it will be. Our local camera shop didn't have any D7500s to rent over Christmas, so he had lensrental.com send a kit straight to his mom's house in South Dakota, where we were going for the holiday. Super handy and convenient, and a great way to try before you buy.

[ShunCheung]

My husband has used lensrental a number of times, and it's a really cool service. It's actually how he talks himself OUT of buying something. :) He rents it, and decides it isn't quite what he wants or thinks it will be..

Therefore renting leads to no actual purchase. That seems to be the real reason you like that approach.

 

I sure hope that my wife doesn't see this thread. ;)

[yardkat]

Therefore renting leads to no actual purchase. That seems to be the real reason you like that approach.

 

I sure hope that my wife doesn't see this thread. ;)

 

He's much better than I am about buying on a whim! ;) (I literally woke up one morning last June and decided to upgrade my kit.) He rents and gets over whatever whim he may have been on...Case in point was a Sigma Art lens that he rented. He was just going to buy it, then rented it a couple times and wasn't that wowed by it in real life. (Paired with the rented D7500 there were focusing issues, so rendered the rental sort of useless...I would be hesitant to buy anything that gave results like that, too.)

[Andrew Garrard]

(Paired with the rented D7500 there were focusing issues, so rendered the rental sort of useless...I would be hesitant to buy anything that gave results like that, too.)

 

I had that problem with the Art lenses too. But Sigma do have a dock to fix that.

[joseph_smith3]

Regarding rentals, I am fortunate that in Houston, TX where I live, I have a local company that rents cameras and lenses. I have rented Sigma Art lenses when I have needed them for vacations and other situations. The name of the company is Photo Rental Source. its website is Welcome to Photo Rental Source - Your Source for Photo Equipment Rentals Online

They take reservations too which is a nice feature. And they will customize the rental period if needed.

 

I have some friends who are professional photographers. Some have sold some of their expensive /infrequently used lenses. If needed they just rent them and get their clients to pay for the costs as part of their charge for professional services.

[david_simon]

When I went to Vietnam 2 years ago I used my friend's D7200 with my Nikon 200-400mm as it had better resolution and low light capabilities than my D300. But I never liked the way the D7200 felt. By my next trip last year to India , my D300 was replaced by my new D500. It felt so much better than the D7200 in my hands and was easier to use. Yes it was about twice the price but unless there is quantum leap in technology, or I win a lottery and can afford a D5, the D500 will probably be my last body.

[Gary Naka]

In following this thread, I seem to be going in two directions

1. A lighter camera than my D7200, for casual family events and travel; so D3400 or D5600 with the small/light 18-55 lens.
    
   
2. A FX body, D750. Some of the better lenses seem to be made only for the FX format. Specifically, I would love a good DX lens that is comparable to the 70-200 f/4, like a 50-150 f/4 or 50-200 f/4. But going FX then requires a new kit of lenses $$$$.
   

As with Sandy, I would keep my DX body, so I would end up with both DX and FX gear, with significant overlap.

 

Right now I am hedging my bets between DX and FX.

The next lens will be a 70-200 f/4, which is a FX lens, so I can do both DX and FX. It is upgrading an old 70-210 f/4 AF lens, which had intermittent focus hunting. Usually at the worst times during a soccer game, like the scoring kick/ball going into the net :-( The f/2.8 lens is too heavy and $$$$ for me.

[Sandy Vongries]

Pulled the trigger this evening- $760 delivered - D 7200 (7200 snaps) , 18-55, battery grip, spare batteries, after market manual, etc. All PayPal, so guaranteed. Hopefully all will be well. Though I prefer FX, when I look at shots taken with my old D 60 years ago, or for that matter with my GXR with 10 MP modules amazed by the quality!

[Andrew Garrard]

1. A lighter camera than my D7200, for casual family events and travel; so D3400 or D5600 with the small/light 18-55 lens.
    
   
2. A FX body, D750. Some of the better lenses seem to be made only for the FX format. Specifically, I would love a good DX lens that is comparable to the 70-200 f/4, like a 50-150 f/4 or 50-200 f/4. But going FX then requires a new kit of lenses $$$$.
   

 

The nearest DX equivalent to the 70-200 f/4 used on FX is probably the discontinued (?) Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. A lot of DX lenses (or lenses used on DX) are smaller less because they have a smaller image circle than because they're "equivalent" (in terms of light gathering and depth of field) to a slower full-frame lens that doesn't exist.

 

If Nikon made some quality f/5.6 zooms or f/2.8 primes for portability reasons, I'd be quite tempted. The D810 is insignificantly bigger than the D500; the D750 isn't that much bigger than a D7x00 - the issue is the lenses. There's old glass and budget zooms, but I'd like to see more of a modern take.

 

The good news is that we've had the 200-500 and the 70-300 refresh. The 24-120 is disappointingly big for f/4 - but sadly the variable aperture version was famously awful. There's the 24-85, but I'd pay more for a better refresh for modern sensors. Even those of us with big cameras sometimes go for a walk.

 

Since Sigma have fast options in the 85mm and 135mm range and Nikon have done their fast 105, I'd like to see minimal sized AF versions of the 135 f/2.8 and 180 f/2.8 (and possibly an 85mm). Throw in a couple of pancakes (mmm) and I'd carry my RX100 less.

 

But I'm assuming Nikon are worrying about mirrorless lenses first (and they'd better be if they're to launch a competitive system).

[Dieter Schaefer]

The D810 is insignificantly bigger than the D500

Comparing my Nikon D810 with Sigma 24-105 with my D500 with Nikon 16-80, there's a substantial difference in weight (slightly less so if I'd replace the Sigma with the Nikon 24-120/4); for a significant weight reduction with FX, I'd have to get one of the Sony A7 bodies and the new Sony 24-105/4.

 

I once purchased a D60 to have a smaller and lighter camera for certain occasions - and quite frankly, I don't see the point as I still needed a bag to carry it.

[Andrew Garrard]

Yes - I was arguing that the bodies themselves are of similar size (although not identical, mostly because of the prism) and that a lot (no, not all) of the system size difference comes from lenses that aren't truly equivalent.

 

The closest FX equivalent (for depth of field and light gathering) to the 16-80 f/2.8-4 is probably the older 24-120 f/3.5-5.6. It's still bigger than the 16-80, but not by as much as the difference between the two 24-120s. If the variable aperture 24-120 weren't so awful, I'd have found it more appealing than the f/4.

[Dieter Schaefer]

The closest FX equivalent (for depth of field and light gathering) to the 16-80 f/2.8-4 is probably the older 24-120 f/3.5-5.6.

In many applications for these zooms, the argument is not as clear-cut as you make it sound and in actuality often gives DX the advantage (or at least parity). Need f/8 for DOF on FX - shoot at f/5.6 on DX to get the same/similar DOF while allowing for either a faster shutter speed or a lower ISO.

 

Not sure if you are referring to the 1st version of the variable aperture 24-120 or the 2nd (with VR). I owned both but used the 1st version only on film (and maybe a few times on a DX body); if one could stop down to at least f/8 the results were fairly decent back then. I replaced it with the VR version for a brief period of time - that lens was truly awful indeed (even though on DX photozone.de (now opticallimits.com) doesn't show significant differences between the two (with altogether actually a slight advantage for the VR version)). Of course, performance on DX doesn't reveal anything about corner performance on FX - which is where the true issues of these lenses lie. Needless to say that neither of the two has a place in front of a D8x0 body.

 

Even 5x zooms (and even more so zooms with an even larger zoom factor) put convenience over quality despite their pricing seems to suggest otherwise.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

[Andrew Garrard]

I wasn't trying to argue that (especially in general) the FX "equivalent" version of a lens is better, just that the size difference is less marked once you balance out equivalent apertures. It's more true of weight and (obviously, because it's often determined by the entrance aperture) girth than length - compare a 200/2 and 300/2.8 for example. DX usually still has the edge, but if I've already got an FX body it would sometimes be nice to make it more portable without having to supplement it with a DX one. I can, of course, just stick a TC14 (or a third-party one without the protruding lens elements that affect compatibility) on the FX body, but that's not ideal.

 

There are other factors when comparing equivalence. The AF points on DX capture more light relative to the size of the frame due to their larger frame coverage, meaning they do better at f/5.6 on DX than f/8 on FX, for example. It's often easier to control lens aberrations at smaller relative apertures than have to improve lens coverage - an f/2.8 lens covering the FX frame will often be better than an f/2 one that only has to cover the DX circle. But it varies by lens too, of course.

 

I was referring to the first VR 24-120 - I realise "older" was ambiguous. I was only buying into the cited 16-80 example rather than holding this up as s paragon of lens design. Still, many slower lenses are designed to be cheap rather than just portable, and I wouldn't turn down the occasional exception - it ought to be able to design an optically excellent f/5.6 zoom or f/2.8 prime. Leica will still charge you a fortune for a slower lens (and it's often "better" than the faster equivalent). I think Nikon cloud follow suit without quite needing to hit summicron process.

[Gary Naka]

As I am thinking/dreaming of a FX camera, the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is the practical alternate to the 24-120 f/4 VR. Smaller, lighter and cheaper.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is too big, heavy and EXPENSIVE to be a GP lens, for me.

But I am spoiled by the wide range standard zoom on DX. So convenient. That pushes me to the 24-120.

So no clear winner between the 2 lenses, for me. I'm vacillating between the 2, and change my mind every other day.

 

I was shooting soccer last night with my D7200 + 70-210 lens. The players were frequently so close to me that the 70mm end of the lens was way too long (105mm FX equivalent). And this is after I backed up, to try to get more distance. As with others, the 70-200 focal length just does not work well for me for field sports on a DX body. It is not wide enough on the short end. I would gladly trade off some of the long end for a wider short end. I suspect that may have been a reason that the lens went from 80-200 to 70-200, to give the pros a wider short end.

 

I had hopes for the Sigma 50-150 (a 75-225 FX equiv), but the VR version was as big as a 70-200 f/2.8 (too big and heavy for me), then it was discontinued...WHY?

The replacement 50-100 f/1.8 is FAST (nice), but is short in the zoom range and no VR. So a compromised replacement for the 50-150. Is the lens speed fast enough to compensate for the lack of VR? Not if you are already down at 1/60 sec and slower. Maybe the next version will have VR.

[Sandy Vongries]

a FX camera, the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 is the practical alternate to the 24-120 f/4 VR. Smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Have both and like them nearly equally lightness of the 24-85 vs. the extra reach of the 24-120. If I'm going one camera, one lens it is most often the 24-120. With the bag, and other lenses and camera body it could go either way depending on the task at hand..

[Andrew Garrard]

I have the 24-120/4, but often find myself taking the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC instead, since it's not much bigger. (My 24-120 shots on recent Nikon Wednesdays have been because my study is a tip and I've not found my 86mm polariser yet.) I'm tempted by the 24-85 for size; given how small my 135mm f/2.8 AI is, I'd hoped the 24-120 would be smaller.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I wasn't terribly impressed by either 24-85 lens - the older non-VR version and the newer VR one. I rather have the 16-80 on a DX body (without having to pay full price for the lens, of course).

[joseph_smith3]

I have both the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G FX lens and the heavier 24-70mm f2.8 (non VR) FX version that I have used on my D 800e and D 810. I much prefer the lighter smaller 24-85 mm because of smaller profile and less weight. I see no real difference in image quality.

[Gary Naka]

I wasn't terribly impressed by either 24-85 lens - the older non-VR version and the newer VR one. I rather have the 16-80 on a DX body (without having to pay full price for the lens, of course).

 

Dieter,

I am holding off on the 16-80, because at $1,000, that lens would keep me in the DX camp.

Right now I'm on the edge of getting a D750, to match up better with the longer FX lenses that don't match up well with a DX body, specifically the 70-200 f/4 lens.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I am holding off on the 16-80, because at $1,000,

I wanted that lens for some time but the price kept me away; even used or refurbished it was still around $800-$900. About a month ago, Nikon had a 4-day sale on refurbished products and had discounted the lens an additional $300 from its $900 refurbished price tag.

 

I had hopes for the Sigma 50-150 (a 75-225 FX equiv), but the VR version was as big as a 70-200 f/2.8 (too big and heavy for me), then it was discontinued...WHY?

I believe the size of the lens made it a failure in the market, especially given how compact the predecessor was. The 50-100/1.8 is also rather compact, but also excessively heavy.

 

Right now I'm on the edge of getting a D750, to match up better with the longer FX lenses that don't match up well with a DX body, specifically the 70-200 f/4 lens.

Sometimes the answer is not a format change but the realization that in order to get what one wants a second camera with a different lens is needed. A second D7200 body with, for example, the 16-80 or a 17-50 might solve the issues you are having (rather then relying on the 70-200/4 on an FX body where the issue might well be that now you are lacking reach at the long end).

[Sandy Vongries]

Received my D 7200 this evening. Wow -- as new, both camera & lens, 3 batteries, battery grip with slides for El En 15 and AA, remote, after market instruction book, etc. etc as good a deal as I've got in a long time. Dark now, but everything seems to work perfectly. :D

[Gary Naka]

Sometimes the answer is not a format change but the realization that in order to get what one wants a second camera with a different lens is needed. A second D7200 body with, for example, the 16-80 or a 17-50 might solve the issues you are having (rather then relying on the 70-200/4 on an FX body where the issue might well be that now you are lacking reach at the long end).

 

My problem is with a decent mid-tele lens, when I need/want more speed than my 18-140, which is at f/5.6, when above 100mm. That f/5.6 hurts when shooting a night game under lights; ISO 12800, 1/500 sec, f/5.6. For day games, the 18-140 is a terrific lens, more flexible than I had expected when I bought it.

 

What I want is a DX version of the 70-200 f/2.8 (or the lighter f/4 lens), so a 45-140, or round it to 40-140. Nikon makes a 55-200, but it is a slow variable aperture lens. Which is why the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 caught my eye. Until I read the size/weight numbers of the VR version, which was no different than the 70-200 f/2.8. My guess is that to save cost, Sigma used the shell/body of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, for the 50-150 f/2.8. So there was no size/weight saving of using small diameter glass for the DX lens. Then they discontinued it.

For DX, the 70mm end (of the 70-200) is too long. It needs to be shorter, down at 40-50mm, to match the smaller DX sensor.

On the long end, 140/150mm is just fine. I don't really need to go out to 200mm. If I want to go beyond 140mm, I can use my 75-300 AF (push/pull zoom) or a 70-300 AF-S lens. Or if I win the lottery, the 200-500 :)

 

So, what the DX cameras are missing is a good FAST mid-tele lens, that is the equivalent of the FX 70-200 f/2.8.

Maybe the thought is/was that if Nikon did that, less people would upgrade to a FX camera.

 

BTW, my thought is that the 16-80 would replace my 18-140 as my GP lens, and a 40-140 (or similar) would be the long lens in the pair. Then the 18-140 would be used for travel or similar where I want to carry only ONE lens.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Gary Naka

[ben_hutcherson]

I wasn't terribly impressed by either 24-85 lens - the older non-VR version and the newer VR one. I rather have the 16-80 on a DX body (without having to pay full price for the lens, of course).

 

I guess to each their own.

 

The 24-85 VR is the lens that stays parked on my D800 most of the time. It's not the sharpest lens I own by a long shot, but is a convenient and lightweight lens.

 

I find the VR on it quite good. Last weekend, I was at a wedding reception. This was a post-wedding get together for a family member who had a destination wedding, and they hadn't hired an "official" photographer so I sort of fell into that role(suited me fine since I don't drink and it gave me something to do while many of the folks there were getting sloshed). Most of the room was a cave, and since I was going "light" I didn't bother to bring a flash. I managed to get results that I thought were quite good and spent most of my time at 3200 or 6400 and 1/15 or so. As someone who use to be a prime snob, I've found that I often do better in these sort of situations with a slower VR zoom than an f/1.4 lens. I'd have a 24-70 2.8 if it weren't a an "E" lens.

 

There again, the lens isn't as bitingly sharp as many reference primes or high dollar zooms like my 14-24 2.8, but it's never left me wanting. I like the results I get out of it better than I use to my Rebel XS with its kit lens, and any D8xx shooter knows that these lenses are unforgiving.

[mike_halliwell]

Go get the Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 (for DX) It's heavy and expensive, BUT, it's so darned stupidly sharp you can crop to fill the framing if a 150/200mm and it's still sharp. I often pair it with the 18-35mm 1.8 but that all starts getting a bit heavy. Now, if they built a 30-60mm 1.8 to span the gap... I'm in!

 

Using a mid range zoom at nifty fifty apertures is fun. Agreed the zoom range is short, but unless you're very limited to where you can go, it's not such a hardship.

 

VR is no help for moving subjects, you need a fast shutter speed which you can with get with a higher ISO or a wider aperture.... or BOTH!

 

Mine works wonderfully on my D7200 and D500. Sometimes I wonder why I keep my D7200, until I remember in the domestic world it gets borrowed sometimes.;)