Photog Oppos: Investing in ONE lens to do it all? Or a new camera?

"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78) 05/06/2016 at 12:09 • Filed to: None

0

34

Very short version: We’ve had a Nikon D40 for almost 10 years (entry-level DSRL, 6MP, 2-3 shots/sec). We don’t video and we don’t plan to do any prints larger than 8x10, so the hardware has been fine for us so far. Right now, we’re torn between investing in a newer body/lens, like a Sony mirrorless, or just buying a nicer lens for the Nikon — which would probably mean sticking with Nikon for a long time so the lens is still compatible. I’m not brand loyal, but I am price conscious. So far, our lens collection consists of the crappy basic 18-55mm lens that came with it (only 10% of our shots) and the 35mm prime f/1.8 (90% of shots) which does amazingly easy bokeh, but has no zoom. Neither of us is very technical, so we're thinking the current body, plus taking some classes and investing in a new lens is probably the way to go. Thoughts?? TIA! (Edit: I forgot to talk about what we shoot — mostly our kids. We're trying to wean ourselves off of professional shots, which are only a little better than our DIY!)

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:13

2

Will share to Photography!

Ash78, voting early and often > Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif 05/06/2016 at 12:14

0

Thanks, Lumpy! I totally forgot we had that sub-blog...

Lumpy44, Proprietor Of Fine Gif > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:18

1

Can get you authorship if you like, lots of helpful people now,even more with Reframe pretty much going under

Honeybunchesofgoats > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:22

1

Personally? I’d say buy a used D90/7000/7100 new D7200. Hell, even a 3000 or 5000 series will seem like an upgrade over a D40 at this point.

The 18-55mm is actually a great lens, and the 35mm is probably the best value in Nikon lenses. I wouldn’t throw those out just to switch systems.

Baskingshark > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:25

0

I don’t have an opinion either way but for sure get a zoom lens of some sort. That was you can get candid photos of the kids running around outside or if you want to get photos of them playing sports as well.

Ash78, voting early and often > Honeybunchesofgoats 05/06/2016 at 12:28

0

What is it about cameras that make BMW's naming system seem downright sane? Seriously, they jump around with no rhyme or reason, and nobody has ever been able to explain that...thanks for the tips. I absolutely love the prime 35mm and 50mm lenses. I just wasn't sure if a new body was going to make THAT much difference if we're not planning to go crazy with all the custom settings.

vicali > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:32

2

I would say new camera, I know your D40 is great, I still shoot with my 2004 D70 12 years later! Thing is the D3000 we bought as a family camera in 2015 blows the old one out of the water. Easy to use, out of the camera photos are great with little processing, and VR is so nice. All my old glass fits the new body too.

Think of it as an Oppo, you have a sweet mk4 from 2004 - it runs, gets good mileage, mostly works (looking at you window regulators)..

You could drive it around for another 12 years with some tires and a few new parts..

Oryou get a new one.. a few things have been improved in the last 12 years after all..

Honeybunchesofgoats > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:37

1

I know, right? I remember when they randomly decided “eh, let’s skip 6910 numbers for our flagship prosumer.”

Of course, the real expensive models are still in the triple digits, because obviously.

It will definitely make a difference depending on what you use it for. Especially with noise and ISO. Plus, the D40 is only 6MP, so even a D90 is twice that. People are right when they say that megapixels aren't the be all end all, but I think 12MP is a good minimum.

I’d personally go with a D7000 with 18-105 lens (~$650 on Amazon). Then you get a new camera and a really versatile lens.

I’m personally not a fan of zoom lenses, but from experience I can say to never ever buy one without vibration reduction, no matter how tempting the price is.

Honeybunchesofgoats > vicali 05/06/2016 at 12:39

1

I have a D3200 that I use because of the small size (even though I learned the hard way that it isn't sealed for use in the desert) and I agree. The 3000s are really great for the money.

Xyl0c41n3 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:40

3

Hola. Professional shooter here.

If all you’re doing is shooting your family, then I’d invest in a fast zoom lens. It sounds like you’re already enjoying how fast your prime is, but realizing that the lack of focal length variability can be a hindrance. I’m assuming your current kit lens is the f 3.5-5.6? Yeah... that lens is crap. The components aren’t as good, and that max aperture at the far end of your focal length is useless outside of broad daylight.

So........

My recommendation is that you get a lens that has both a fairly wide focal length range and a nice, big aperture at all of those focal lengths.

Enter the 17-50mm f /2.8 lens. (In some cases, the 17-55mm f /2.8)

If you’ve got the discretionary cash available, I’d say splurge on the branded lens ... but that’ll set you back about $1,500. (The Nikon is a 17-55)

Plus side? Top notch components and glass. Minimal chromatic aberration or weird flaring out of proportions at the minimum focal length. Better weatherization, so accidentally getting caught in the rain for five minutes won’t kill it. Killer warranty and amazing Nikon repair service available if you ever do need it.

But, not everyone has that kind of money laying around, or is willing to spend it. Luckily, there are off brands available that are loads cheaper.

This Sigma lens is Nikon compatible (the same lens is also available for use with other brands, such as Canon), and comes in at just over $400.

There are other off-brands that make similarly spec’ed lenses, like Tokina, but Sigma offers some pretty stellar lenses. To me, they offer the best quality outside branded glass.

Of course, B&H prices are a little higher than you can find elsewhere, but it may just be worth it for their incredible customer service alone. But, these two lenses can be found cheaper elsewhere, like Amazon and eBay.

Good luck.

Oh, one last thing... the D40 is a decent camera, but it is rather dated. Both in terms of the CPU it has and other factors, like how irritatingly slow its burst mode is (both physically and in terms of buffering). You might want to consider upgrading to a used D300s. It’s not a new body model, but it’s still light years ahead of the D40.

Ash78, voting early and often > vicali 05/06/2016 at 12:40

0

I'm with you...VW analogies are my language. Maybe I will just buy a better body and use the existing lenses (I'm still pissed that someone walked away with our 55-200VR a few years ago). Are you saying the newer bodies have VR embedded so you don't need them in the lens? Sorry for the dumb questions, I have to stay intentionally out of the loop on photo stuff because a lot of camera enthusiasts make car enthusiasts look positively sane :D

Ash78, voting early and often > Honeybunchesofgoats 05/06/2016 at 12:42

0

Thanks for the solid tips! We had a 55-200VR (stolen) and I tried switching off the VR at 200mm just for fun. Yeah...no.

Honeybunchesofgoats > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:47

0

You’re welcome!

Yeah. I bought a 55-200 lens without VR because it was on sale at Target for around $150 (a great price at the time). It’s sort of useless in anything but direct sunlight.

Ash78, voting early and often > Xyl0c41n3 05/06/2016 at 12:47

1

Awesome, thank you for the thorough reply! Sounds like the consensus is a body upgrade is in order. Thanks for the tip on the Sigma, that's definitely more in our price range and I had heard good things about Sigma as far as third parties go. 17-50 really is the perfect "everyday range" for what we need.

vicali > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 12:49

0

Nikons put the vr on the lens.. but when I bought the D70 it was over $2000, the D3000 was under $500 with a vr lens at Costco.. I bet they are a few models up already since then.

I would suggest the D3### (whatever they are up to now).. if you guys are really keen on photography maybe invest in the D5### series. It’s got more buttons to push, etc.. lol

You will be able to run the same lenses you have now, and you can even throw the D40 in the car as a travel/backup camera.

Cameras are like cars, there are always some one with a faster, more expensive one out there- so pick what makes you happy.

Xyl0c41n3 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 13:05

1

I know lots of people here are recommending the D3xxx model cameras. Don’t. They’re entry-level prosumer (professional-consumer) level cameras. The components and weatherization aren’t going to be as good as Nikon’s prosumer level offerings that are actually closer to professional level.

If you think the D4 is super awesome, but that $3,500 price tag is a non-starter, but you still wish you could get something close to it in terms of quality and durability, the answer is not a D3000 or D7000. The answer is a D810 (in the most ideal situation) or a D300s or D700 (new or used, whichever you can find).

The computers on them are a bit better. Their frame rate and buffer speeds are better, and they can take a lot more of a beating than that D3000 everyone else is buying at BestBuy or Target.

MUSASHI66 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 13:05

0

Consider selling everything you have - you can probably get $200-300 for the set, maybe even more depending on your prime lens. With the money you get from it, buy a newer camera, with one fast zoom lens.

Find the fastest focusing camera+lens combo. Based on what I’ve seen in the comments, you are OK spending $400. If you sell your stuff, plus those $400, you can have $600-700 to spend on a new body and one fast zoom lens. You should have quite a few options going used, and a few going new as well.

Ash78, voting early and often > MUSASHI66 05/06/2016 at 13:10

0

I think it’s more worth it to keep the D40 rather than sell it. I mean, it’s probably worth at least $200 to me as a backup or second camera (money is tight, but not "starving artist" tight, thankfully). I think we could swing something in the $600s for a body and lens, right along the lines of what you’re recommending. Another comment I saved basically said just that. I was going to spend that much on a handgun anyway, but I've tabled those plans for other shooting instead...

MUSASHI66 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 13:25

0

Stay with Nikon then, buy a lens that will work on a D40 and see if that is enough. If not, buy another body later.

Or, just bite the bullet and spend the $600 on a new kit. Zoom lens is great around kids, but the bokeh and speed of a nice prime is hard to beat.

mcseanerson > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 14:57

1

What don’t you like about your current setup?

If you just want more range and flexibility while keeping your faster aperture then I’d agree with Xyl0c41n3 just to invest in a lens. I shoot manual focus vintage primes 90% of the time and the rest is a similar kit lens to yours. When I shoot my kids these all kind of suck because they aren’t flexible or fast enough. I borrowed a friends 24-105 f/4 lens and even though it’s not that fast f/4 still provides plenty of bokeh at 105mm. Made it easy to pick up a ton of photos really quick without working that hard.

On the other hand if you feel your autofocus is just too slow I’d be looking at a new body. If you get a nicer Nikon you can keep your lenses. If not you can invest in a different system and a bonus is almost every other lens mount can use way more lenses than Nikon can. I shoot Canon and I use old Nikon manual focus lenses with an adapter. If you go mirrorless you can use pretty much anything.

Ash78, voting early and often > mcseanerson 05/06/2016 at 15:32

0

Thanks...I definitely have some more reading to do. I like my current setup just fine, I just didn't know if I was really missing out on any newer technical advances beyond just a little extra speed, HD video, and some deeper menus. My plan all along was just to jump straight to mirrorless to future-proof myself a little bit, but I have never even shot one (don't know anyone who has one yet...). I would definitely say the AF is a little slow for us, so I'm leaning toward a new body. You can get so much for ~$500 now, it's ridiculous. Plus I've already got two serviceable lenses, so I might just try to find a package deal on a new body and a better lens at the same time.

Stephen the Canuck > Ash78, voting early and often 05/06/2016 at 18:51

0

With Canons, The less digits in the model name means it’s the more professional grade. The T#i/T# series is actually named ###D/####D everywhere other than North America. So it goes ####D->###D->##D->#D. With the ###D/####D and ##D, the newer one is the higher number. With the #D, the # is basically the range, and the newer ones are mark 2 or 3.

Nikon is a bit is more or less the same, but the D## ones are older and have mostly been replaced by the D####. Again the first number denotes the range in the Nikon line up, with the second number being the version, 1, 2, 3, etc.

Ash78, voting early and often > Xyl0c41n3 05/09/2016 at 10:04

0

I just saw the Sigma 17-50 is on sale today at BuyDig (via ebay) for $299, free shipping and no tax — with warranty. So close to pulling the trigger, but I keep telling myself a new body is more important. If I buy the new lens, I might need to put a new body off for another year or two (remember, I’m just a hobbyist). Can I get your thoughts?

Xyl0c41n3 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/09/2016 at 11:53

1

I’d pull the trigger. A camera is just a box with a hole in it. It’s the lens that shapes how that image gets projected through that hole and onto the film plane/image sensor.

Sure, there are better boxes out there, but without a good lens, what’s the point?

If you give a super car to an average driver, sure, they’ll be able to take it out on the track, maybe even go triple digits, but they won’t really know what they’re doing. Give that car to a professional driver and you’ll see them perform some magic, y’know? Give them something plain, like a Corolla, and they’ll still make it do some spectacular things you never would have imagined from a beigemobile.

Same thing here. Put a ho-hum lens on a great body and you’re still limited by the lens. But if you put a stellar lens on a so-so body, yeah, the megapixels may not be high, and the buffer speed may be slower, but for your intended output (Facebook, maybe the occasional 5X7 or 8X10 print), it’s more than enough.

Ash78, voting early and often > MUSASHI66 05/09/2016 at 17:45

0

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens just went on sale today for $299...that's what I'm doing. We can put off a new body for a while longer. Thanks.

Ash78, voting early and often > Xyl0c41n3 05/09/2016 at 17:47

1

Thanks again, man, I just pulled the trigger on the Sigma. Having that f/2.8 through the entire focal range is going to make this our everyday lens, at least for outdoors. I’m not parting with my 35mm prime anytime soon, but I'm going to get better with shooting the D40 so I can really appreciate the better hardware once I invest in a new body (another 1-2 years, probably). It's also time for a professional cleaning — I've got tiny fibers that just won't come out. You only really notice them on clear backgrounds, but with a beach trip around the corner, it'll drive you crazy when every shot looks like it has some weird-looking seagulls off in the distance. :D

Xyl0c41n3 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/09/2016 at 18:12

1

Woman*

And yeah, I use a 17-55mm f/2.8 on the daily. It’s my workhorse lens. You’re really going to love it. :)

MUSASHI66 > Ash78, voting early and often 05/09/2016 at 18:18

0

Nice lens, good choice!

Ash78, voting early and often > Xyl0c41n3 05/10/2016 at 07:47

0

Sorry about that!! Gender is a 99% accurate guess on Jalopnik, but I forgot this was shared to a photography blog :D (FWIW, I call my wife "man" and "dude" all the time.)

Jonathan Harper > Ash78, voting early and often 05/13/2016 at 12:28

1

I use a Sony A7, love it. That said, the body matters a lot less than the lenses, in my opinion.

Ash78, voting early and often > Jonathan Harper 05/13/2016 at 12:44

1

FWIW, I just got our new lens delivered last night — a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. Looking forward to breaking it in this weekend for my daughter's b-day. After everyone's comments and feedback, plus some other research, I couldn't pass up a reasonable mid-zoom lens that combines almost as much speed and low-light performance as our 35mm prime (f/1.8) with a similar focal range as our kit lens (18-55mm f/crap). Only $300, too. The ancient D40 soldiers on...with a few dust specs on the sensor, but hey.

Jonathan Harper > Ash78, voting early and often 05/13/2016 at 12:48

1

Nice, sounds like a good choice. Dust specs can be easily removed with a sensor cleaning kit. I’m at the point where I usually clean my sensor once every week. It makes me so insane so have specs on images when panning or low light, much easier for me to mitigate as much as possible before resorting to Lightrooms clone tool.

Ash78, voting early and often > Jonathan Harper 05/13/2016 at 12:55

0

Thanks, I’ll look into that — a lot of advice is still “don’t touch the sensor!” but my blower isn't doing much but moving the specks around the sensor, not removing them.

Jonathan Harper > Ash78, voting early and often 05/13/2016 at 12:58

1

THIS will help massively