tony_demonte

<p>Thanks for all the input. great stuff.</p> <p>I looked at the 300mm also. but, I would worry about the fixed focal length. I also looked at the 80-400 but the overlap and the 100mm less than the 200-500 was a factor. I also looked at the sigma 150-600 sport. it all came back to liking the nikon 200-500 the most.</p> <p>The buffer of the D7100 is def a factor. I do believe the D500 is everything I would like in a camera for what I do. eventually I will pick one up. that's certain. I do believe the smart money is picking up the lens first. </p>

<p>Mary Doo, I would but i have the 70-200mm f/4. it would be repetitive. I think right now the smart thing to get is the 200-500mm and wait on the D500 for a little bit. </p>

<p>I guess the right path to take would be the lens first and than the camera a year from now. </p>

<p>thanks so much everyone. I think the "score" is 10-0 in favor for the lens. good point, Keith.....I do want to get the lens and I would be able to get it today if I wanted. lens today, D500 down the line. the price of the camera probably won't come down for a while. the bigger reason to wait would be to see if there are any issues with the camera. seems like there's always an issue that Nikon needs to fix.</p>

<p>Looking at either or. I really only want to go for one for now. </p> <p>I currently have the D7100. lenses are...sigma 10-20, nikon 16-85, 35, 50, 85 and the 70-200 f/4. I originally had the D300 and waited for the D400. I ended up going with the D7100 since I thought the successor to the D300 would never come out. </p> <p>I like to shoot outdoors stuff. wildlife/sports. landscapes. BIF sometimes. the normal stuff. </p> <p>any opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated. and I almost forgot, if I go with the D500, I plan on waiting to see if there are any issues and/or a price drop......i'm sure it's inevitable.....the price drop I should say. </p> <p>thanks everyone</p>

<p>thanks guys!</p> <p>Ty, I can't get some shots because of physical obstacles. </p> <p>I'm close to doing away with the 35mm 1.8 and getting the 18-35mm. I believe I will keep the 16-85mm for an all in one walk around lens. </p>

<p>I love landscape photography. I like using my sigma 10-20. I do stop it down of course. the 18-35 would be for more indoor use. </p> <p>the 16-85 is a great walk around lens when on the go and you don't have time to switch lenses. it allows me to just snap away and not really have to worry about changing lenses.</p> <p>I almost want the best of both worlds. I love my 16-85 and would love to keep it. maybe I can keep it and just have both the 18-35 and 16-85. but having both creates overlapping which I don't prefer to have with zoom lenses. even if the 18-35 is more of a specialty lens. </p> <p>other than low light use, how often would you use the 18-35 would be used at 1.8? </p>

<p>wow! thank you for all the responses. </p> <p>I can see that most people say not to go with the sigma 18-35mm because of the small zoom range. I can totally understand this. when I do use the 16-85, I would say I use the wide part (<35) 80% of the time. I use the 35mm for indoor use a lot. I also use it for a walk around lens when I go places. I believe it to be a fantastic lens. but 35mm is limiting indoors. since in smaller rooms, it is hard to get photos of things. 18-35mm would help that out. </p> <p>my thing is, if I had all 3 lenses (16-85, 35, 18-35) all of these overlap again and again. I don't see a point of having all 3. so, either I get rid of the 16-85 and 35 and get 18-35 or I just keep going with what I got. </p> <p> </p>

<p>lenses I have, sigma 10-20mm, nikon 70-200mm f/4, nikon 50mm 1.8g, nikon 35mm 1.8g and nikon 16-85mm vr.</p> <p>package "A" keep all of the above lenses. <br> <br />package "B" sell the 35mm and 16-85mm and buy a sigma 18-35mm 1.8 (of course, keep the other 3 lenses)</p> <p>this is a thought of mine. I'm in the early stages of what I want to do. but, the new sigma 18-35mm 1.8 has captured my attention. from every video on youtube to every review on here, dp, etc, it seems that the sigma is an outstanding lens. the only thing I've read is that focus can be somewhat finicky sometimes. but, so are many other lenses. like most, what I love is the fixed 1.8. since I take many shots of family and friends inside. I'd say the 35mm is used 50% of the time. my one gripe is that it is only 35mm. sometimes I can't get the shot I want. I'm sure others have similar restrictions.</p> <p>I'm purely just getting an idea on how others feel about the sigma 18-35. is the sigma 18-35 a better choice than having both the nikkor 35mm 1.8 and 16-85 vr?</p> <p>any kind of input would be greatly appreciated. </p> <p>thanks and happy mothers day weekend to all. </p>