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>

<p>amazon had it for pre-orders for a minute. priced at $2750. at that price, buy a D800.</p>

<p>here's my 2 pennies.</p>

<p>I had the 70-300mm VR lens for a year or so. I bought the 70-200mm f/4 from the excellent reviews on the sharpness over the 70-200 f/2.8. and I got to save $1000. I like BIF photography and where I take photos, I can get what I need with just 200mm. the 70-300mm VR is soft after 200mm. so, I never really went beyond 200mm. I bought the 70-200mm f/4 and thought I would just keep the 70-300mm just for the heck of it. well, I sold it after a few weeks. I never went back to it. the 70-200mm f/4 is just too awesome of a lens, that, to go back and use the 70-300mm vr was not a thought in my head. </p>

<p>now, as for the 2.8 vs 4.....it was an easy decision for me. 1st, I don't shoot indoor photography that would require me to have such a long lens. I love to use my 35mm and 50mm 1.8 lenses for indoors. I usually shoot family pics and that requires a wider lens. 2nd, the 70-200mm f/4 purpose for me was a walk-around outdoor lens. sports, wildlife, etc. 3rd, the money. saving $1000 for me is huge. if I had the money to throw away, I would of gotten the 2.8. but, from the results I have gotten from the f/4, I will never complain. </p>

<p>I would keep the 85mm even if you don't use it that often. do you need the extra $500 cash? if not, keep the lens. something may come up. also, if you get the 2.8, maybe keep the 70-300. if you get the f/4, sell the 70-300. you will never use it. you might want to use the 70-300 if you get the 2.8 cause of the weight. </p>

<p>the 70-200 f/4 is my go to lens for a fun alternative walk around lens from the typical 16-85mm lens.</p>

<p>VRIII is really nice also. it does work very well, but shutter speed is always a priority. at least a priority for most things. </p>

<p>I would say do it! I can't get enough of the lens</p>

<p>Congratulations to all who Graduated :)</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, T. Zen. regardless of fastest memory card vs slowest, the fps most you can get is what the d7100 allows. which sucks, but it's good enough. hopefully the D400, whenever it comes out, will be the ultimate in sports/wildlife photography.</p>

<p>I use the Nikon AN-6W strap. I didn't like the strap that came with the D7000, so, I bought this one. from what people say it is pretty comfortable and I will agree.</p>

<p>On KEH.com, the price difference for a used D90/D7000 are only $170 for a like new body. I don't know how you feel about buying used. I personally wouldn't for a body. Glass, I would. but, for only $170 more, you can get the D7000. My friend has the D90 and when I had my D7000, we did do some comparisons and found the D7000 to be better in many ways. not to say the D90 is a bad camera, I don't mean that at all. just that the D7000 is better. and for $170 difference, the D7000 will have you smiling ear to ear.</p>

<p>thanks so much, Michael.</p>

<p>Nice photos so far!</p>

<p>the G lens for sure! the D is a fine lens but it can be on the softer side wide open. the G is much sharper wide open. I have owned both at the same time and returned the D lens.</p>

<p>sorry. I forgot to make the image smaller.</p>

<p>admin, sorry. I made the pic much smaller than required, I don't know why it isn't showing</p>

<p>soft ball game today</p>

<p>Rafal, I too have the 16-85mm and am very pleased with it. I used to have the 18-200mm VRII but sold it to buy the 16-85mm because of the sharpness the 16-85mm produces. I did see quite an improvement over the 18-200mm. I would say get it and you won't be disappointed at all.</p>

<p>plus, having the 16mm on the wide end is really nice. I used to change over to the sigma 10-20mm for wide shoots but the extra 2mm I have on the wide end really helped. I use the sigma 10-20mm for specialty shoots. </p>

<p>Venice Beach sunset</p><div></div>

<p>a screen protector can degrade the image when you are looking at it on the lcd monitor. that's what nikon says. I like to have a lcd protector on just for an extra protective layer, but, I don't plan on getting one for the d7100. </p>

<p>If you do any sports/wildlife (BIF) photography, then yes, the D7000 would be a very nice upgrade. I barrowed the D5100 for a month from a neighbor cause I wanted to test it out. I found it to be a very nice camera. but, when I got my hands on the D7000, there was no comparison. the D7000 won hands down. kids move a lot, so using the continuous AF from the D7000 with the 39 AF points would help a lot. the approx viewfinder frame coverage and magnification would help with landscape photography.</p>

<p>seems to me that you really enjoyed using the D7000. buying a used D7000 would be around $700 now. and new would be $900. so, not bad for one of the best DX cameras out there. </p>

<p>If/when you upgrade to a FX body, the nikkor 17-55mm would have to go also. the 24-70mm would replace that. a fast and sharp lens from what I have read.</p>

<p>I love my 70-300mm VR lens also. I have used it for quite some time and have gotten great BIF shots. I'm in the same boat as you; I have been saving and plan on getting the new 70-200mm f/4. It has the new VRIII and seems to do as good or better when compared to the 70-200mm 2.8 VRII. this lens has it's own separate bank account. lol. I've been saving since the lens was announced last year. I've done a lot of research between the f/2.8 VRII and the f/4 and have found the f/4 to hold its own. It is as good at nearly half the price. at only $1400 (ok, $1400 is a lot) it is hard to beat in the fast zoom lenses. </p>

<p>ok, so other competition. the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS is only $1250. so, $150 from the Nikon. I've owned Sigma lenses in the past because they are so much cheaper than the Nikon glass. I've had bad experiences and some good. If you get a bad copy, send it back and try another. I feel that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the 70-200mm f4 (or 2.8 if you have the money) are some of the better choices. the new sigma 120-300 2.8 looks pretty cool. but, that's $2700. </p>

<p>I've already made up my mind with the nikkor 70-200 f/4. so that would be my choice. the bokeh between the nikon 2.8 and 4 is not much. I have seen numerous shots and done my own test shots and there is just a little difference in bokeh. $1000 less also. </p>