Sell D7000 for better glass?

[holydiver]

Hey guys it's been a loooong time since I visited this site. I had completely forgot about it!

So I've been torn between these two ideas that have been circling in my head...

1. Sell/trade my D7000 for a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8
2. Keep it and sell my 16-85mm VR and save up the rest to buy a used Nikon 17-55mm 2.8

With option 1, I found an offer on craigslist where he will trade me his 17-55 for my D7000 plus $250 cash. Meaning, I only get $1100 for my 2-3 month old body with 12xx shutter actuations and pay $850 for his 5-6 year old 17-55 but in great condition...

I've been shooting with my D80 for about 4 years and have been waiting for the next model release after the D90 to upgrade. I couldn't stand the poor low light performance on the D80 or the poor metering but other than that have greatly enjoyed the camera. Should I just keep the D7000 because I already have it? Or should I trade it for better glass with a constant 2.8?

Note - I mainly want good performance for shooting action shots of snowboarding/biking/etc.., shooting at night/low light, landscape, nature, and macro.

What do you suggest given the circumstances?

EDIT:
Current Gear:
- D80
- Nikon 16-85mm VR
- Nikon 50mm 1.8D
- Nikon 70-300 VR
- Vivitar 283-hv

[n8]

I too would love to have a 17-55 2.8, but not if it meant getting rid of my d7000. Selling your 16-85 would leave you w/o a wide angle option for a while, but it seems like the d7000 is a perfect fit (body wise) for what you want. I'd personally save up for the 17-55, then sell the 16-85 when I was in range of being able to buy the lens with what that fetches.

[volks]

Both the D7000 and the 16-85 lens are super items and almost made for each other.
You may regret getting rid of either one of those later...so if I were in your shoes, I would keep both and save up the money for the new lens.
I have already bought the 16-85 two times, and don't intend to buy it a third time.

[Franglais]

This is the first time in about 2 years that I've heard of someone wanting to buy a 18-55 f2.8. I've met lots of people who want to sell it (the price you mention is about right). When pushed they all say - nice lens but too big and heavy. Plus 18-55 really quite a restricted zoom range.

The 18-55 f2.8 was the high-end photoreporters standard lens when Nikon only made APS-C DSLR's. Today any professional with a need to work in low light is going to take a full-frame DSLR with the 24-70 f2.8. Those who don't need the utmost in low light capability would take the D300s and the 16-85 which you already have.

In your place I would take the 35mm f1.8 DX for low light. It's small, cheap and excellent.

OK I have been tempted by the 18-55 f2.8 at the price you mention. But I already have the 28-70 f2.8 and I know from experience that I won't often use such a big, heavy, expensive lens. And no way would I part with the D7000.

[holydiver]

This is the first time in about 2 years that I've heard of someone wanting to buy a 18-55 f2.8. I've met lots of people who want to sell it (the price you mention is about right). When pushed they all say - nice lens but too big and heavy. Plus 18-55 really quite a restricted zoom range.

The 18-55 f2.8 was the high-end photoreporters standard lens when Nikon only made APS-C DSLR's. Today any professional with a need to work in low light is going to take a full-frame DSLR with the 24-70 f2.8. Those who don't need the utmost in low light capability would take the D300s and the 16-85 which you already have.

In your place I would take the 35mm f1.8 DX for low light. It's small, cheap and excellent.

OK I have been tempted by the 18-55 f2.8 at the price you mention. But I already have the 28-70 f2.8 and I know from experience that I won't often use such a big, heavy, expensive lens. And no way would I part with the D7000.

Do you recommend the 35mm f1.8 even if I have the 50mm 1.8? Thanks for the responses everyone!

[n8]

I have both the 35 and 50 and use both. I use my 35 mostly when I don't want or need to lug my 18-200 and may need the extra light for general purpose stuff and use my 50 mostly when I'm shooting a still subject or something. The 35 gives and extra 25mm on the wide end (roughly, and taking the crop factor into consideration) and it's ridiculously quite whereas the 50 is kinda loud when auto focusing.

[zerodog]

You are crazy to give up that body for a lens. I would just save up the dough. Then sell the lenses you don't need. Or do what I do and just keep them.......

[Franglais]

Do you recommend the 35mm f1.8 even if I have the 50mm 1.8? Thanks for the responses everyone!

Yes. The 35mm (on a APS-C sensor) give you the "standard lens normal view" that you used to get with the 50mm on film. Until zooms became common all cameras were sold with this type of lens. I use it a lot when I'm walking about.

The 50mm (on APS-C) is a weak telephoto lens, the equivalent of a 75mm in film terms. It has it's uses (and a big fan-club) but it's not a classic view. I hardly ever use it personally. I find it's too telephoto for walking about and not telephoto enough for portraits

[iceman2058]

On a related note, if I may hijack this thread, I'm looking at getting a new, fast lens, mainly for action photography (mountainbiking) but also family/events/nature/walkaround photography. This is to go with a D7000 (or possibly D400), which should give excellent low light and/or fast shutter performance together with a fast lens. I'm considering the following 2 lenses, just wanted some opinion on whether or not the Nikon justifies its 3x price tag, and/or of there are other options I should be looking at. (I could buy the body only D7000, or get it with a kit 18-105 kit lens as well...so the real question then also becomes how much better than the kit lens are these f2.8 lenses I'm looking at? Speaking in terms of low-light performance and IQ...).

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
or
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G

I realize the Nikon is a bit of a beast, but this would get used when I intend to take pictures, if you get what I mean...probably the kit lens I mentioned would do fine for most spontaneous walkaround stuff?

And yes, at some point I'll start needing a bigger zoom as well...but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it (and rob another bank or something). Unless I should go for the 18-200 kit lens right off the bat...which I understand is a bit of a trade-off on IQ compared to the 18-105...but maybe acceptable to get the bigger zoom range...?

Bit of a thread hi-jack here... thanks in advance for your time.

[Franglais]

Sorry to mention another site but photozone.de has technical tests of all the lenses you mention. Compare the Nikon 18-55 f2.8, the Tamron 17-75 f2.8 and the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX, in particular the resolution at wide apertures.

Maybe you have to have a zoom to follow action. Maybe you don't care about edge resolution. But if I were you I would take the (very good) 18-105 kit lens that comes with the D7000 for walk-around use and use prime (fixed focal length) lenses for low light.

[iceman2058]

Sorry to mention another site but photozone.de has technical tests of all the lenses you mention. Compare the Nikon 18-55 f2.8, the Tamron 17-75 f2.8 and the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX, in particular the resolution at wide apertures.

Maybe you have to have a zoom to follow action. Maybe you don't care about edge resolution. But if I were you I would take the (very good) 18-105 kit lens that comes with the D7000 for walk-around use and use prime (fixed focal length) lenses for low light.

Thanks for the answer. I'm not really a technical photographer, and I won't be poring over my shots with a microscope (figuratively speaking, of course... ), so the technical reviews are of less interest to me (I understand all the concepts though). I do want a zoom lens, as you rightly point out, I find it is often too hard to work my position around a prime lens, especially shooting bikers out in the woods (I realize I can crop shots in post a lot more, with a good camera and more available pixels...but still...I'd prefer to do more optical cropping... ;) ).

What really bugs me about my current set-up is the low light performance (or lack thereof!). D50 with a kit 18-55 and a Nikkor 28-200 3.5-5.6....even at ISO 800 it starts looking pretty bad I think. Which is what put me onto a. the D7000, and b. the 2.8 lenses. I want to be able to use fast shutters even in the woods, without having to resort to a bunch of extra flashes and what not (although those open up a bunch of creative options as well, I realize that...if there was an endless supply of banks for me to rob, we'd be having another discussion... ).

To help you sort through my drivel, in summary form, my real questions are:

a. at my level (somewhat informed/experienced amateur?), will I really benefit from dropping another $1000 on the Nikkor 17-55 2.8, or will the Tamron I listed do the job "almost" as well?

b. with the D7000's superior sensor, will I already get such good low-light performance that I don't really need the very fast lens? I.e. will I be able to get good results shooting bikers in the woods with the kit 18-105? Although I'd somehow probably never get over the feeling that I'm missing out by not going for a really fast quality lens, if I have the opportunity...

thanks! :thumbsup:

[Grandpaw]

I would like to suggest checking out the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens. When I was doing research to purchase a 2.8 lens in this zoom range I ended up getting this one. Try checking out the reviews and see what you think. Make sure that you are looking at this one and not a different model. And yes it has stabilization that works well. I have four other Nikon lenses with my D7000 and I am happy to have this Sigma in the bag with them, Jeff

Additional note: I have taken sharp pictures with this Sigma lens handheld at 1/5 sec and didn't even realize I was shooting that slow until later when I was looking at the EXIF data while viewing them on my computer. The stabilization DOES work well.

These are the lenses I have and use
Nikon 70-200VR 2.8
Nikon 18-200VR
Nikon 70-300VR
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 10-20 Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Sigma 17-50 Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS

[volks]

Well, hopefully you will keep your D7000 and your 16-85 mm lens. They really are made for each other. Suggest you find a camera store that will rent you the 17-55mm, 2.8 and the decide for yourself if it's worth the extra money. Don't buy until you try.

[Franglais]

...
What really bugs me about my current set-up is the low light performance (or lack thereof!). D50 with a kit 18-55 and a Nikkor 28-200 3.5-5.6....even at ISO 800 it starts looking pretty bad I think. Which is what put me onto a. the D7000, and b. the 2.8 lenses. I want to be able to use fast shutters even in the woods, without having to resort to a bunch of extra flashes and what not....

b. with the D7000's superior sensor, will I already get such good low-light performance that I don't really need the very fast lens? I.e. will I be able to get good results shooting bikers in the woods with the kit 18-105? ...

I had the D70 (same sensor as your D50, older image processor) and I now have the D300 (generation before the D7000).

I think that you're going to notice a huge difference in image quality at high ISO's.
- The D70 at 1600 ISO was "noisy". You could see an obvious effect like film grain (that I rather liked).
- The D300 at 3200 ISO is slightly soft. Nikon (and others) have chosen to lose the finest detail to eliminate noise. The result looks pretty much like 200 ISO, unless you look really closely

With the D7000 you should be able to use at least 6400 ISO and get a result that pleases you more than your D50 at 1600 ISO. That means that instead of shooting an action picture at a blurry 1/60s you would be shooting at 1/250s - much more chance of freezing action.

I would take the D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens. It's almost given away. If it doesn't work out then look at the other alternatives.

[Grandpaw]

I left off the part in my earlier post that I would also definitely keep the D7000, Jeff

[iceman2058]

I would like to suggest checking out the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens. When I was doing research to purchase a 2.8 lens in this zoom range I ended up getting this one...

Was there a particular reason for ending up with that one? Why did you pick it over the equivalent Tamron?

[iceman2058]

I had the D70 (same sensor as your D50, older image processor) and I now have the D300 (generation before the D7000).

I think that you're going to notice a huge difference in image quality at high ISO's.
- The D70 at 1600 ISO was "noisy". You could see an obvious effect like film grain (that I rather liked).
- The D300 at 3200 ISO is slightly soft. Nikon (and others) have chosen to lose the finest detail to eliminate noise. The result looks pretty much like 200 ISO, unless you look really closely

With the D7000 you should be able to use at least 6400 ISO and get a result that pleases you more than your D50 at 1600 ISO. That means that instead of shooting an action picture at a blurry 1/60s you would be shooting at 1/250s - much more chance of freezing action.

I would take the D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens. It's almost given away. If it doesn't work out then look at the other alternatives.

Thanks, yes, I'm guessing the body alone is so much better that I won't be craving a faster lens for some time. So maybe I'll pick up a D7000 kitted with an 18-200 to start off with (with the money saved from NOT buying the $1600 Nikkor 17-55/f2.8), and aim for a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for low light stuff as and when needed. That should probably cover most my bases...

[Grandpaw]

Was there a particular reason for ending up with that one? Why did you pick it over the equivalent Tamron?

I read quit a few reviews and looked at several you tube videos about these lenses and it just seemed to be the most bang for the buck. When you research the Sigma lens make sure it is the exact one I purchased and not another model. This is one of their better lens with the newer glass and also has Optical Stabilization on it. I read many reviews that said it was very close to the Nikon and some thought it was better. There were also reasons over the Tamron but I would have to do my research over to remember what the reasons were. Below is one of the many videos that I looked at when researching my purchase, Jeff

Amazon is always a good place to get reviews on anything you buy and it is one of the many places I looked.

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS: First Impressions After a Few Hours Shooting on my Nikon D7000 - YouTube