Better Body or Better Glass?

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I know the general rule is better glass, but looking for as many opinions as I can get. I bought a D3200 a year ago to get my feet wet and determine if this was a hobby I wanted to pursue without breaking the bank too much. I've definitely outgrown this body and its capabilities. I've rented some quality glass and been satisfied with the image quality, but there are still features missing from the 3200. My big ones are lack of AEB, weaker focusing, and not great higher ISO. About 1600 is all I'm willing to go on this one, and even that is pretty grainy in my opinion.

The kit lenses I've got I'm just not satisfied with at all. They lack the sharpness of the good glass I've rented. They aren't fast and the variable aperture as you zoom really messes me up sometimes.

I have an idea of the lenses I want based on the types of pictures I like to take, and the ones I've tried out previously. But I was also considering selling the 3200 and getting a 7100/7200. Both seem to have the features I would want.

So should I get good glass and worry about the body later, or go ahead and get the body I want and then get lenses?
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
The body is really important, because no amount of great glass is going to help with ISO and focus performance - which is the holy grail for a lot of users. I think trying to strike a balance is the way to go. Get the best you can afford in both categories.

Which to get first is a matter of priorities. Which is your biggest current issue? Is it body performance or lens shortcomings? You know from the rentals what difference the lens makes.
 

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Thanks. I think I've decided to go with better glass first. I've been pretty satisfied with pics taken with good lenses. So I think I'll enjoy the better glass more than the better body features. I can still get what I want out of the camera, just a few extra hoops to jump through to get there. Which isn't necessarily all bad.
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
I know the general rule is better glass, but looking for as many opinions as I can get. I bought a D3200 a year ago to get my feet wet and determine if this was a hobby I wanted to pursue without breaking the bank too much. I've definitely outgrown this body and its capabilities. I've rented some quality glass and been satisfied with the image quality, but there are still features missing from the 3200. My big ones are lack of AEB, weaker focusing, and not great higher ISO. About 1600 is all I'm willing to go on this one, and even that is pretty grainy in my opinion.

The kit lenses I've got I'm just not satisfied with at all. They lack the sharpness of the good glass I've rented. They aren't fast and the variable aperture as you zoom really messes me up sometimes.

I have an idea of the lenses I want based on the types of pictures I like to take, and the ones I've tried out previously. But I was also considering selling the 3200 and getting a 7100/7200. Both seem to have the features I would want.

So should I get good glass and worry about the body later, or go ahead and get the body I want and then get lenses?

You might invest in some better post processing software, you may find that it can give you a boost in your images that you didn't think was possible. While your camera will not be capable of grainfree high ISO shots, it should be more than capable of very clear shots at lower ISO settings, I have shot taken with Nikons from much earlier generation sensors than you are using and I can blow them up to poster size and they are very clear.

In my own experience the software Nikon gives you with their cameras is weak compared to other software out there. Go download a trial version of Capture One from Phase One and use it to post process some of your shots I think you'll find that you camera is giving you better images than you think but you are being hindered by Nikon's software.... I am assuming you are shooting raw? Because I've know some people that just shot jpegs and never really knew what their camera was capable of because of that.
 

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
You might invest in some better post processing software, you may find that it can give you a boost in your images that you didn't think was possible. While your camera will not be capable of grainfree high ISO shots, it should be more than capable of very clear shots at lower ISO settings, I have shot taken with Nikons from much earlier generation sensors than you are using and I can blow them up to poster size and they are very clear.

In my own experience the software Nikon gives you with their cameras is weak compared to other software out there. Go download a trial version of Capture One from Phase One and use it to post process some of your shots I think you'll find that you camera is giving you better images than you think but you are being hindered by Nikon's software.... I am assuming you are shooting raw? Because I've know some people that just shot jpegs and never really knew what their camera was capable of because of that.

I shoot raw and process in lightroom, and occasionally using various programs from Nik software. The camera does make good images. There's just additional items that I'd like to be able to do, and the 18-55 Non-VR kit that came with it is just a very limiting lens to me. And in my opinion is far from sharp.

Just because I feel my skills and photographic interests have outgrown the camera doesn't mean it doesn't render good images. I do feel the lens is limiting its potential based on the results I've gotten by renting better lenses. I've gotten a few usable images at 1600, but only when using better lenses. Anyway, I will be ordering new lenses and continuing to make do with the body. Like I said, I'm happy with the results using better lenses at least.
 
Last edited:

thomas998

Well-Known Member
I shoot raw and process in lightroom, and occasionally using various programs from Nik software. The camera does make good images. There's just additional items that I'd like to be able to do, and the 18-55 Non-VR kit that came with it is just a very limiting lens to me. And in my opinion is far from sharp.

Just because I feel my skills and photographic interests have outgrown the camera doesn't mean it doesn't render good images. I do feel the lens is limiting its potential based on the results I've gotten by renting better lenses. I've gotten a few usable images at 1600, but only when using better lenses. Anyway, I will be ordering new lenses and continuing to make do with the body. Like I said, I'm happy with the results using better lenses at least.

Out of curiosity what lenses have you used so far that you are considering buying? And yes the kit lens isn't the sharpest in the world, if you don't mind doing manual focus you might consider some of the older nikon lenses that are either pure manual or require a motor drive in the camera to autofocus... They can sometimes be a good bargain in the used market and would have the benefit of being compatible with a full frame body if you ever upgrade to that level. If you expect to someday go to the full frame size be aware that some of the Nikon lenses that are for the APS size sensor will be pointless on a full frame because of severe vignetting.
 

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I've rented the Tokina 11-16 which I really liked, but would only serve a small portion of what I like to shoot. I've used a buddy's Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and really liked it. Considering that as my replacement to the 18-55. I've also used the Nikkor 70-300 VRii 4.5-5.6G AF-S. This would replace my 55-200 non-vr kit lens. I liked it fine and liked the reach for kids' outdoor sports. And both those lenses would give me a long range of coverage. I can't justify a 70-200 2.8.
 

RonAnnArbor

Well-Known Member
When I travel to WDW, I take only two lenses with me, my Nikkor 17-55 and my fisheye for special effects shots (maybe 10 out of 500 shots). I've found no use for zoom lenses at WDW. I've found no use for wide angle lenses at WDW that I can't already get with the 17 end of my 17-55. And with the size of my (now D7200, once D300) pixels you just crop to what you want. Alternative walk arounds if you don't want to spend the money on the Nikkor, the tamron 17-50, or Sigma 17-55, or 17-70.
 

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Yeah it's not just Disney. My last trip I used the 18-55 non-vr and a Nikon 35 1.8. I think I've decided to get the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 to replace my 18-55. Anyone else used that lens?
 

afb28

Well-Known Member
Yeah it's not just Disney. My last trip I used the 18-55 non-vr and a Nikon 35 1.8. I think I've decided to get the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 to replace my 18-55. Anyone else used that lens?
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma...RO-OS-HSM-C-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D3200__801

Generally, variable aperture lens are not gonna perform all that great. One thing I would mention if you think you'll be doing this long term is to buy full frame lenses so you don't have to re-buy new lenses if you ever decide to go full frame. I know constant aperture full frame lenses will cost more but in the long haul it'll be a much easier process. Of course your budget will determine pretty much all of these questions/answers.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
I know the general rule is better glass, but looking for as many opinions as I can get. I bought a D3200 a year ago to get my feet wet and determine if this was a hobby I wanted to pursue without breaking the bank too much. I've definitely outgrown this body and its capabilities. I've rented some quality glass and been satisfied with the image quality, but there are still features missing from the 3200. My big ones are lack of AEB, weaker focusing, and not great higher ISO. About 1600 is all I'm willing to go on this one, and even that is pretty grainy in my opinion.

The kit lenses I've got I'm just not satisfied with at all. They lack the sharpness of the good glass I've rented. They aren't fast and the variable aperture as you zoom really messes me up sometimes.

I have an idea of the lenses I want based on the types of pictures I like to take, and the ones I've tried out previously. But I was also considering selling the 3200 and getting a 7100/7200. Both seem to have the features I would want.

So should I get good glass and worry about the body later, or go ahead and get the body I want and then get lenses?

I find Glass to be a better priority than the Body.
 

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma...RO-OS-HSM-C-Nikon-mounted-on-Nikon-D3200__801

Generally, variable aperture lens are not gonna perform all that great. One thing I would mention if you think you'll be doing this long term is to buy full frame lenses so you don't have to re-buy new lenses if you ever decide to go full frame. I know constant aperture full frame lenses will cost more but in the long haul it'll be a much easier process. Of course your budget will determine pretty much all of these questions/answers.

Yeah I realize that it won't perform as well as a prime or constant aperture. But budget is a concern, and I like the flexibility of the zoom. I've actually used this one previously and liked how it performed on my camera and for the shots I typically take. I read tons of reviews, mostly positive, including one on Tom Bricker's site. but like anything i'll test the heck out of it and return it if i dont like it,
 

afb28

Well-Known Member
Yeah I realize that it won't perform as well as a prime or constant aperture. But budget is a concern, and I like the flexibility of the zoom. I've actually used this one previously and liked how it performed on my camera and for the shots I typically take. I read tons of reviews, mostly positive, including one on Tom Bricker's site. but like anything i'll test the heck out of it and return it if i dont like it,
I keep telling myself one day I'll own the 70-200 2.8. That one day may be in 2025 though. Although the focus breathing problem of it makes me feel cheated given its price tag, but one day.
 

NowInc

Well-Known Member
If youre looking at the 70-200 f2.8..ive heard a few talk about how the tamron performs way better than the first party lenses. I have yet to test this myself, however.
 

afb28

Well-Known Member
If youre looking at the 70-200 f2.8..ive heard a few talk about how the tamron performs way better than the first party lenses. I have yet to test this myself, however.
I'm definitely no stranger to 3rd party as sometimes they are much better (sigma 35 1.4 art and that rokinon 12mm fisheye) and I plan on going with the tamron 24-70 but from most of the stuff I've watched most feel the 70-200 nikon is superior to its counterparts (bigger youtube channels, dxo, and lensrentals.com (i actually think roger at lens rentals is one of the better reviewers out there)). Generally when I see that many mixed opinions I tend to lean toward name brand.

My main problem is none of the ones for Nikon are a true 200mm like Canon's version is which for $2300 seems outrageous that Nikon's wouldn't be equal. But I figure used it's about $1600 and the 3rd party ones at that point only save about $600 so I'd rather save a little bit more and get Nikons. Regardless, it's still a ways away as that is a ton of $$.
 

BostonJP

Active Member
If youre looking at the 70-200 f2.8..ive heard a few talk about how the tamron performs way better than the first party lenses. I have yet to test this myself, however.
I work for a photography company; the other photographers all use Tamrons and their images look great. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 is their primary lens for shooting wedding ceremonies. (I am loyal to Canon lenses personally, but this has more to do with build quality than image)
 
Last edited:

WDI 1998

Active Member
I went through this whole debate a couple years ago when I was going upgrade from my Nikon D80. I could have gone with just lenses and gotten better quality shots but with the camera body being so old I wanted to upgrade both. Then came the crop vs full frame debate. The D600 had come out and was getting great reviews but its price would not allow for me to get three lenses (wide angle, med and long range zooms) and the camera body. Then the D7100 came out and the only thing I would lose is the full frame aspect ratio. I ended up buying the D7100 (an absolutely fantastic body by the way), Tokina 11-16 f2.8 wide angle, Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f2,8. All these lenses had great reviews which having since used them a lot I totally agree with how great they are. Nikon has since come out with the D7200 which has some upgrades over the D7100. My lens selection was also based on the fact that I would be able to upgrade to full frame with the two Tamron lenses and just have to buy a new wide angle lens if I chose to do so. Currently I still have the D7100 and have no need to buy any more gear. If I were you I may consider buying a used camera body and new lenses. You can get one from reputable sellers for very reasonable money.
 

Gig 'Em Mickey

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I've decided on lenses. But yes when I upgrade the body it will likely be the 7200. I was debating between the 7100 and lenses, and decided on lenses.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom