What to upgrade first....

I think I know the answer to this question and I think I've made my decision, but I'd be happy to have some input from some more experienced amateur photographers:

I've been a DSLR owner for about a year and a half now. I have a D3100 and two lenses; the 18-55 kit lens, which I almost never use, and a Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 VR ED, etc. etc. FX lens, which I use almost always. I've been saving up for awhile and have ~$3000 that are unnecessary to my continued existence otherwise, which I have earmarked for generic photography gear upgrade.

With the recent announcements from Nikon of the D4 and the D800, I've been drooling over those a bit but also thinking that there would probably be a lot of D3, D3s and D700's floating around used at pretty good prices, so I was considering trying to pick up one of those (or a D800 if I couldn't find just the right spectacular deal). My thinking on this has been with the D3 or D3s I would gain some flexibility in ISO that I am lacking on my D3100 and be able to take some shots that I miss now (well, actually sometimes I take them then curse them for being noisy at ISO 1600). Plus, I'd be getting a nice, weather sealed body so I don't have to freak out if I'm out and have forgotten to bring a plastic bag or something to cover my camera with and it starts to drizzle. I'm sure that I could keep a camera body like that for quite a while and it will still take fabulous photos for a long time. The flip side of the equation being that I lose the DX crop factor and therefore my 70-300 lens is a wider lens than I've been used to and that may or may not annoy me. And my 18-55 lens in that case stays glued to my D3100 since it is a DX lens and unusable on the FX camera.

My other thought was to get a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens for about $3000 and a 1.4 or 2.0 TC and keep my D3100 for awhile longer (probably a year-ish). This would give me the flexibility of having a 120-300 with greater low light usability or add on the TC and have a 420 or 600 at f/5.6, plus retain some zoom capability. I'd also retain the crop factor of my DX camera so that as far as pixels on subject, that 600mm has the angle of view of a 960mm lens. Plus, since I'll most likely be able to continue to use the lens for many more years than the camera... that'll be a good thing.

So I'm leaning heavily towards the lens. Do you agree?

Ide go for either the D800 or a used Nikon 300-2.8 +1.4-2x :cheers:

Spend money on lens. Period.
You will eventually need and will upgrade the bodies,
Lens last forever, really and make the most difference.
Don't skimp, for $3000, if that is all you have i would either try to save for a 300 f2.8, a used 500mm
or something in that range.
Your camera is good enough for now and the lens will make it a lot better.
A great lens makes a average camera a lot better.
A great camera won't really improve an average lens.
Just my opinion.
In your case, I would get the D7000 and a 70-200 vrii for the 3k, and then save more money for a bigger lens if
you want to stay with Nikon.
You are in the position with what you have invested to just sell it all and go Canon.
I would probably think about that for the long term. I believe Canon has better options in both lens
and bodies for midrange dollars.
You will be able to crop a 70-200 photo and get better IQ than the 300 f5.6.
Buy a TC to go with it and you are will still get better quality and more reach.

Matt,
Another vote for lens, but....
While I haven't seen images from the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (and nothing against sigma--I've won best in show with a sigma lens), I have yet to see a telephoto zoom lens from any manufacturer that can match the image quality of a fixed focal length lens. So consider a 300 f/2.8 not zoom or other fixed focal length lens.

Roger

Thanks everyone! I'm seeking a nice lens as we speak. Roger, I hear you, but I really enjoy the flexibility of zoom lenses. I guess I've not really shot a prime lens other than a 50mm, though. I was planning on renting the Sigma to see what it feels like and all before pulling the trigger on purchasing one. Perhaps I'll rent a 300 fixed as well. What about a 400 f/4? Do you gain much there over say, my 70-300 FX lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Fragale

Thanks everyone! I'm seeking a nice lens as we speak. Roger, I hear you, but I really enjoy the flexibility of zoom lenses. I guess I've not really shot a prime lens other than a 50mm, though. I was planning on renting the Sigma to see what it feels like and all before pulling the trigger on purchasing one. Perhaps I'll rent a 300 fixed as well. What about a 400 f/4? Do you gain much there over say, my 70-300 FX lens?

---

Hi Matt,
Renting would be good. You can get a feel for the differences between zooms and fixed focal length lenses by looking at the Canon MTF charts. I wish other manufacturers would show charts like these. But if you look at the charts, here is how to interpret them:

The plots are contrast (on the vertical axis) and distance from the center of the image on the horizontal axis. There are multiple sets of lines, but the main ones to look at at the thin black (or gray) solid and dashed which shows the fine detail performance wide open. The thin blue fine lines are the fine detail at f/8. The solid and dashed lines are the contrast in the radial and perpendicular to the radial directions. So you want the lines high on the plot and the solid and dashed pair close together. Look how high and close they are on the Canon 300 f/2.8 (the Nikon is probably similar):

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...2_8l_is_ii_usm

Now look at the top canon telephoto zoom:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum..._5_5_6l_is_usm

On the 100-400 at 400, the fine black dashed and solid lines are far apart. If you imaged stars, they would look very elongated the further from center. Of course that also reduces fine detail. Note the fine blue lines aren't much higher than the black fine lines, so stopping down does not help much. But there is a huge leap in going to the fixed focal length 300, even with TCs. But that comes at a big price jump too.

In wide angle lenses, performance shown in the charts is pretty ugly, whether zoom or fixed focal length, so the same rule (fixed focal length is better) does not apply. This is due to the the larger angles involved which reduces symmetry off axis.

Bottom line, telephoto reach (real detail on subject) can be achieved by focal length and/or higher quality lenses, and that quality jump comes with fixed focal length lenses.

Roger

That's one thing that I really like about lensrentals.com! They put the MTF charts up for all their lenses (all brands) and also a link to a really helpful description of what they mean (and don't mean). I was pleased to see that my 70-300 isn't horrible, at least. It was based on those charts that I thought the Sigma 120-300 would be a good choice for me. Seems like it'd be sharper than what I have and still provide a lot of flexibility... also I just looked at the Nikon 300mm f/2,8 prices and... ouch! very nearly double the price... that's a big hike for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Fragale

That's one thing that I really like about lensrentals.com! They put the MTF charts up for all their lenses (all brands) and also a link to a really helpful description of what they mean (and don't mean). I was pleased to see that my 70-300 isn't horrible, at least. It was based on those charts that I thought the Sigma 120-300 would be a good choice for me. Seems like it'd be sharper than what I have and still provide a lot of flexibility... also I just looked at the Nikon 300mm f/2,8 prices and... ouch! very nearly double the price... that's a big hike for me.

---

Matt,
I checked lens rentals, and that is great they have the MTF charts for all lenses, and in the Canon style. The canon style seems obscure, but once you understand the chart, it tells a lot; a lot more than the standard chart of simple MTF versus frequency.

Note that the highest frequency plotted is 30 cycles/mm, which means 33 microns per cycle. Compare that to the typical DSLR sensor with around 5 micron pixels, and this "fine" detail MTF plot is showing the detail at around 6 pixels, thus far from pixel to pixel detail. So look at the course (10 lines/mm) curves to the 30 lines/mm and project further to 100 lines/mm and one gets close to the pixel to pixel DSLR sharpness. That, of course is not as pretty. So if there is a big drop from the 10 to 30 lines/mm curves, the drop to 100 lines/mm is at least as much.

And, yes, the prices for the big fixed focal length lenses hurt. It took me more than just dollars to buy my first supertelephoto; I had to get over the psychological hurdle too. It was tough to decide to spend that much on a lens. But wow was it worth it.

Roger

Thanks again, Roger. I don't think I fully understood what you just said there, but it sounds like what you're saying is that those charts should go further out along the x axis in order to approach real world conditions and that whatever trend they are showing at 30 is probably likely to continue on and be worse further out. In which case, maybe my 70-300 is horrible. lol

Anyway, I scheduled a rental of that 120 - 300 Sigma for next week and am going to spend some time shooting big cats (and horses) at a local rescue with it (and my 70-300 for direct comparison). I've never shot with anything as large as this lens.... it will be an experience. I hope my tripod is up to it. I guess I better do some research and see if it's up to holding that much weight. It wasn't terribly expensive, so it very well may not be. But I've been wanting a nice monopod so perhaps this is the perfect opportunity.