Upgrade Lenses vs. Changing Systems

Over the past 4 years I've discovered that I love photography and its slowly become a big part of my life. I started with a nikon D3400, which I love to death (best sensor for the price ever), but I'm starting to see that I need to upgrade to either better lenses or a different system to take the type of photos I'm looking for (FX, or change brand to FF mirrorless). There are a lot of great DX lenses, but I'm worried that I would eventually upgrade to full frame or a different system and they would all be kind of a waste at that point.

I know that I can use FX lenses with the d3400, but what I'm wondering is would it be more worth it to simply buy better glass and continue using my d3400? or to consider switching over to sony with something like an a6300 or a7ii ?

I mainly shoot landscapes and low light indoor shots, with some occasional astrophotography and street photography. I feel that the d3400 just struggles a bit with autofocusing, low light shots, and QoL features like tiltable screen, better live view, weather sealing, etc.

As of now, I only own the 18-55 kit lens, sigma 10-20 f3.5, and an old 50mm 1.8d I found in my family's garage. I haven't bought into Nikon's system fully yet so switching wouldn't be a big deal. Brain says buy better glass, heart says try out sony. What do you guys think?

Note: money isn't the biggest deal ever, my budget is around 1000-1600

Though for landscape photography, low-light indoor shots, and astrophotography, full frame sensors may help over APS-C ones, at your budget, it's really tight.

You can get a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 used for under $300, which could be an affordable way to get a great lens without needing to spend much. If you want full frame, I'd recommend saving up a lot more. The advantage to buying used is that if you do plan to switch systems, you'll probably want to sell your gear. Buying used and selling used generally leads to less wasted money than buying new and selling used. That being said, the lenses you have are pretty decent too and could be worked with.

Kupkake said:

Note: money isn't the biggest deal ever, my budget is around 1000-1600

Click to expand...

keep what you have. if you do buy glass, buy used nikon FF glass that you can use later when you move up to nikon FF ML gen2 or later. canon and nikon gen 1 ff ml is very meh.

1600 is not enough money for the FF move yet. see my sig for the best bang /buck setups you can do; but it's quite a bit more than 1600. also, you really should get the a7r3 if you gonna go to sony since you are landscape shooter.

I'd forget the Sony. No IBIS and very expensive glass. I have the Sony a6000, two lens kit, and it mostly sits. I also have a Nikon D3300 and 5-6 lenses for it. Honestly, It also mostly sits also, but I think it is a better camera.

I mostly shoot M4/3 now. Small in size and very nice lenses. Might look at that. Note: I also just bought a Nikon D90 for $160 and a Nikon D300 for $200. They are older, but still good (always wanted the D90, and the D300 was just a smokin' deal.)

I suggest staying with your Nikon D3400 and upgrading your lenses OR upgrading to a Nikon D5XXX, OR going to M4/3 if you want to change systems.

The Sony a6000 is small, like M4/3, but I just never have warmed up to it.

Peace.

John

kcdogger said:

I'd forget the Sony. No IBIS and very expensive glass. I have the Sony a6000, two lens kit, and it mostly sits. I also have a Nikon D3300 and 5-6 lenses for it. Honestly, It also mostly sits also, but I think it is a better camera.

Click to expand...

For IBIS, it depends on which Sony. The OP was looking at the A6300 and the A7II. Why does it mostly sit? Because it sits for you, doesn't mean it'll sit for someone else (though it doesn't mean it won't either).

Hope1943 said:

I mostly shoot M4/3 now. Small in size and very nice lenses. Might look at that. Note: I also just bought a Nikon D90 for $160 and a Nikon D300 for $200. They are older, but still good (always wanted the D90, and the D300 was just a smokin' deal.)

I suggest staying with your Nikon D3400 and upgrading your lenses OR upgrading to a Nikon D5XXX, OR going to M4/3 if you want to change systems.

The Sony a6000 is small, like M4/3, but I just never have warmed up to it.

Peace.

John

Click to expand...

It sits because I only have the 2 lens kit - 16-50mm OSS and 70-210mm OSS. They are OK, but I have better lenses with other cameras, and the GOOD Sony lenses are EXPENSIVE. I also have the Sony LA EA 2 adapter to adapt Sony/Minolta A mount lenses to the EF (or was it EF-S) mount. It does as it should, but I found that using it to adapt anything over 100mm (prime) is pretty problematic without IBIS. So....I use it some, it's not a bad camera at all, but other cameras usually get the call. Life without stabilization is H***! - (for me, OLD as I am).

I don't have any Sony a7XXX cameras so for all I know, they may be great. Don't plan on getting one either, at least until Sony shows some love for A mount (have 25-30 A mount lenses), but i don't see that happening as Sony is going to "the one mount system" - i.e. E mount. I also have Canon (1), Nikon (3), Sony A (4), Sony E (1), and m4/3 (7). Since I only can shoot one at a time, I shoot the one most agreeable to me - that produces great pictures and is affordable - m4/3 - so several others "sit" as well. But, I tend to like them all for various reasons - probably should sell them - wanna buy?

Peace.

John

Considering Sony when what you want is lens choice is not the best idea. Apart from EOS M, it's the poorest sub FF system in terms of lens selection. So unless current lens lineup for Sony has all that you will need, I would not go that route.

Realistically, there are only two sub FF systems with mature and constantly improving lens lineup. Micro 4/3 and Fuji X.

$1600 is not enough to go FF. In fact, if you want a few high quality lenses, it might not even be enough for Fuji X or Micro 4/3. So with your budget, the most cost effective choice would be to get some third party lenses for your Nikon. Switch that 18-55 for a Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 or 17-70/2.8-4.0. Or go crazy with 18-35 or 50-100 f/1.8. Add a 70-200/2.8 on top of that for some sweet telephoto action. Tokina has some nice ultra wide lenses and Tamron has some nice zooms as well. A of this will be cheaper than switching to any new system.

So, what kind of lenses do you have in mind?

Astrotripper said:

Considering Sony when what you want is lens choice is not the best idea. Apart from EOS M, it's the poorest sub FF system in terms of lens selection. So unless current lens lineup for Sony has all that you will need, I would not go that route.

Realistically, there are only two sub FF systems with mature and constantly improving lens lineup. Micro 4/3 and Fuji X.

$1600 is not enough to go FF. In fact, if you want a few high quality lenses, it might not even be enough for Fuji X or Micro 4/3. So with your budget, the most cost effective choice would be to get some third party lenses for your Nikon. Switch that 18-55 for a Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 or 17-70/2.8-4.0. Or go crazy with 18-35 or 50-100 f/1.8. Add a 70-200/2.8 on top of that for some sweet telephoto action. Tokina has some nice ultra wide lenses and Tamron has some nice zooms as well. A of this will be cheaper than switching to any new system.

So, what kind of lenses do you have in mind?

Click to expand...

Best reply yet. Solid advice and reasoning.

Peace.

John

Sorry I should have specified better. 1000-1600 (maybe even 2000) would be my budget for the camera alone. The lenses I could spend another 1000-1600 on. The a7rii came to mind because I know the prices have dropped significantly lately, and I'm a bit worried about the large file sizes on the a7r2 and a7r3. I'm not a professional by any means, but photography is one of my strongest passions, so I don't need the absolute 100% best quality landscape shots I can get. If i follow your reccomendation and stick with some used Nikon FF glass, do you have any recocmendations?

Astrotripper said:

Considering Sony when what you want is lens choice is not the best idea. Apart from EOS M, it's the poorest sub FF system in terms of lens selection. So unless current lens lineup for Sony has all that you will need, I would not go that route.

Click to expand...

Ya, I've done a bit more research and narrowed it down to upgrading to nikon D5XXX for the simpler route, or sony FF for the more expensive route.

Astrotripper said:

$1600 is not enough to go FF.

Click to expand...

My apologies, should have specified further. 1600 (maybe even up to 2000) is my budget for the camera alone, where I could spend another 1000-1600 on lenses. Essentially, I'm looking for used lenses in the sub $800 range.

Astrotripper said:

Add a 70-200/2.8 on top of that for some sweet telephoto action.

Click to expand...

I have an older 70-300 AF lens, but I rarely find myself needing that kind of distance for the stuff I shoot. However, maybe I'd use one more if it was better quality.

Astrotripper said:

So, what kind of lenses do you have in mind?

Click to expand...

If i stuck with nikon APS-c, I'd be looking for a 35mm prime for around the house and general street photography. The sigma 17-55 is definitely good for shooting indoor events where I'm constantly on the move. Maybe a longer lens for better portraits? I'm currently building my own star tracker system (I'm an electrical and cimputer engineering student) to help alleviate the need for a great astrophotography lens.

If I went the sony FF route, I'd be looking at stuff like the 28mm f2, tamron 28-75mm f2.8, sony 85mm f1.8, maybe even the sony 50mm 1.8 since its pretty cheap.

I am in a bit of the same boat. My current camera is a D5500. Most of my photography happens on backpacking trips, and the only two things I wish I had are weather sealing and smaller size. I have a Tokina 14-20f2, and it does great astro and landscape. I have an 85 1.8, and it is great for portraits. The A7ii would be a very modest IQ improvement, but lenses for it are a fortune. (I am still thinking about it with the kit lens and a loxia 21mm for about 2500, but it leaves me without a good portrait option, and less than a stop of improvement in dynamic range. I have also considered going the other direction, and getting a G9. I have rented the G9, and it is a JOY to shoot with... after one day, you can make all adjustments with the camera to your eye. However, it has lower IQ, and is bigger than my D5500. I am seriously considering multiple cameras... A used D600 to mount my 80-200 f2.8 upon, and an A6000 with 10-18f4 for an almost pocket size landscape shooter.

I think a lot of the struggle we're having is being overwhelmed with so many options and choices and not being absolutely certain as to which one is the best. In reality, I think both of us would be happy with almost any of the choices we're contemplating, and its simply the fear of not choosing something that could be better holding us back from making that final decision. I've recenty settled on an A7ii or (A7iii if my friend is willing to sell to me for a slight discount), with a tamron 28-75 f2.8. This combo covers almost all of my needs in a 1 camera 1 lens package, aside from astrophotography, which is fine because I have still yet to finish aquiring parts and asembling my star tracker. My advice to you would be to look at your needs, look at your budget, and ask yourself what would make you happiest without breaking your wallet. Also, making a pros and cons list and showing it to someone with an unbiased opinion on photography can be helpful. Good luck!

Great choice. That lens is a great travel lens with a fast aperture, good autofocus, small size, light weight, and great image quality in a very versatile zoom range.

a72 is a significantly worse camera than a7r3 or a73. if it were me switching to sony, iw ouldn't switch unless getting the 3rd gen. i would keep your exsiting dslr since it probably focuses better than a72.

i know a72 are cheap right now, but false economy. worse sensor, MUCH worse af, battery life. a73 adapted canon af is fairly good while a72 is unusable. means you have to spend more to get native glass so overall system cost is more.

How do you like the samyang 35mm f2.8? I've heard mixed things about it, and was wondering what you prefer between that and the cheaper 50mm 1.8?

Kupkake said:

Kupkake said:

$1600 is not enough to go FF.

Click to expand...

My apologies, should have specified further. 1600 (maybe even up to 2000) is my budget for the camera alone, where I could spend another 1000-1600 on lenses. Essentially, I'm looking for used lenses in the sub $800 range.

Click to expand...

OK, that makes a lot more sense. You can work with that kind of budget. Buying second hand is probably a good idea as well (although I personally would be vary of buying second hand lens, unless I had an option to return it).

Kupkake said:

If I went the sony FF route, I'd be looking at stuff like the 28mm f2, tamron 28-75mm f2.8, sony 85mm f1.8, maybe even the sony 50mm 1.8 since its pretty cheap.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you don't have a big need for long lenses (ergonomics on Sony is not that good for that), that sounds like a reasonable direction. A7II can be bought quite cheaply, even brand new. But you might be able to get A7 III within your budget and start with the Tamron 28-75. And the list of improvements on III might be worth it. A kit built around A7 III would be quite future proof. You would probably have little need to upgrade for the next few years. Just slowly add lenses over time.

I'd personally wait for reviews on the new Samyang 45/1.8 before considering Sony 50/1.8.

So A7 II and more lenses or A7 III and less lenses. Both viable options, I think.

Kupkake said:

How do you like the samyang 35mm f2.8? I've heard mixed things about it, and was wondering what you prefer between that and the cheaper 50mm 1.8?

Click to expand...

both are good, light and focus well on a73. the mixed 50 1.8 with poor af is from older bodies like the a72. I have some super had to focus shots on both at like 40k iso of moving dog.

many, including me, thing the samyang is better then the zeis version becauase better edge sharpness wide open, but slightly less center sharp)

i use the 35mm more because i like that focal length for all around. i like 35mm portraits and general shooting since i'm a documentary type shooter vs a staged one.

all of the adapted glass i can recommend except the 70-300. it's focus is a lot worse adapted than the other lenses in the lineup.

Astrotripper said:

Kupkake said:

Astrotripper said:

$1600 is not enough to go FF.

Click to expand...

My apologies, should have specified further. 1600 (maybe even up to 2000) is my budget for the camera alone, where I could spend another 1000-1600 on lenses. Essentially, I'm looking for used lenses in the sub $800 range.

Click to expand...

OK, that makes a lot more sense. You can work with that kind of budget. Buying second hand is probably a good idea as well (although I personally would be vary of buying second hand lens, unless I had an option to return it).

Astrotripper said:

If I went the sony FF route, I'd be looking at stuff like the 28mm f2, tamron 28-75mm f2.8, sony 85mm f1.8, maybe even the sony 50mm 1.8 since its pretty cheap.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if you don't have a big need for long lenses (ergonomics on Sony is not that good for that), that sounds like a reasonable direction. A7II can be bought quite cheaply, even brand new. But you might be able to get A7 III within your budget and start with the Tamron 28-75. And the list of improvements on III might be worth it. A kit built around A7 III would be quite future proof. You would probably have little need to upgrade for the next few years. Just slowly add lenses over time.

I'd personally wait for reviews on the new Samyang 45/1.8 before considering Sony 50/1.8.

So A7 II and more lenses or A7 III and less lenses. Both viable options, I think.

Click to expand...

Yea, that budget really changes things. I too agree that the A7III used could probably be found at that price and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a fantastic standard range fast lens to pair it with at a pretty good price. Christopher Frost did a review on the Samyang 45mm f/1.8 and listed its autofocus speed and image quality as average. If that's true, then if it was $200 or under, it may be worth it, but at $400, I think the Sony 50mm f/1.8 or Samyang 35mm f/2.8 may be the better purchase.