I have had my D40 for 3 years, it has produced many good shots, but I have been hard-pressed to get excellent results unless the light is absolutely perfect. This usually is the case for photography - light makes or breaks.
But as of late, I have begun to start saving up for something. I will probably blow $250 on a cheap Rokinon fisheye, as shooting with a good flash at 5.6 on that lens is rumored to produce the same results as with the Nikkor 10.5/2.8. But within the next year or so, I may make a serious purchase. I've always put glass before bodies; I shoot a 70-300 VR on the long end and 35/1.8 on the short end.
My eventual 'dream' kit (once I start working it will be attainable) is something like this:
D7K
80-200/2.8
Tokina 11-16/2.8
300/4, then maybe go big with the 300/2.8.
The problem with making a purchase decision rests in the autofocus of non-AF-S lenses and the best body for my style. I have seriously been considering a D90 when it drops to 4-$500 used, as it offers AF, more AF points, some speed, and noise control so I can actually shoot above ISO200...quality plunges at even 400 on my D40 copy.
The question is, would it be wiser to save a bit more and wait a bit more for a used D7000 - as in when it's like $800 used - to have a super-capable midrange body, or get the D90 and be that much closer to buying 2.8 glass? Or even not upgrade bodies at all but go for a 300/4 AF-S? I would like the 80-200 2.8 because it's almost as sharp as the $2400 70-200/2.8 yet is only $800, but it won't auto focus on my D40.
I welcome any advice. (Obviously given my budget, I can't just switch to Canon )
But as of late, I have begun to start saving up for something. I will probably blow $250 on a cheap Rokinon fisheye, as shooting with a good flash at 5.6 on that lens is rumored to produce the same results as with the Nikkor 10.5/2.8. But within the next year or so, I may make a serious purchase. I've always put glass before bodies; I shoot a 70-300 VR on the long end and 35/1.8 on the short end.
My eventual 'dream' kit (once I start working it will be attainable) is something like this:
D7K
80-200/2.8
Tokina 11-16/2.8
300/4, then maybe go big with the 300/2.8.
The problem with making a purchase decision rests in the autofocus of non-AF-S lenses and the best body for my style. I have seriously been considering a D90 when it drops to 4-$500 used, as it offers AF, more AF points, some speed, and noise control so I can actually shoot above ISO200...quality plunges at even 400 on my D40 copy.
The question is, would it be wiser to save a bit more and wait a bit more for a used D7000 - as in when it's like $800 used - to have a super-capable midrange body, or get the D90 and be that much closer to buying 2.8 glass? Or even not upgrade bodies at all but go for a 300/4 AF-S? I would like the 80-200 2.8 because it's almost as sharp as the $2400 70-200/2.8 yet is only $800, but it won't auto focus on my D40.
I welcome any advice. (Obviously given my budget, I can't just switch to Canon )
Comment