jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Just my opinion, I would not go from a D7100 to a d7200. if I was going to change the camera. I would go with the d500 or maybe a d850. D7100 is a good camera. Nikon came out with new version of their 70-200. Perhaps pick up at a great discount a used older version 70-200mm lens.

D810 is another good choice. Price drop for new and use on D810.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

A better lens will always help, perhaps a nice prime or two. A 35mm and a 85mm. I find shots with a prime are fantastic. But for a camera upgrade, you may find a D7500 or the D750 a nice step up. Since you shoot mostly off tripod, weight and action photos won;'t matter. But the improved processor of the D7500 may fit the bill. If you can afford, a used D800e can be found at a nice price!

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

If you believe this then I challenge you to take a photo without a camera.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I cannot speak on behalf of others but with a cropped sensor I would not use a 24-70 lens. It is not good enough for wide angle shots and it comes kind of short for teles. If you have the D500 in mind you will be better served buying lenses that fit the DX format.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Are you going to shoot a lot at F/2.8? If so it might be worth getting that lens. What aperture do you shoot most of your images at currently. If you shoot a lot of shots at relatively short distances you can end up with a shallow depth of field at F/2.8 If you don't shoot action or sports I am not sure the D500 is the camera for you although I would say it is currently Nikon's best overall crop camera. You may want to look at going to a full frame camera but I am not sure if your lenses will work with a Nikon FF camera.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For you to look at:

D7200 body ( forget D500)

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 lens.

Sigma 50-100 f1.8 lens.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Why upgrade from the D7100 to the D7200? I love the D7200 and owned one but it's not that big of a change between the 7100/7200. I would keep the 7100 and put the money in lenses like the two you picked out. Now if they had a D5100 or D5xxx then I'd recommend the D7200 which is what I did. I gave my d5100 to my son and bought a refurbished D7200 last year. But then I had a chance to pick up a used D500 that only had 10 images taken at my local camera shop so traded in my D7200 for the D500 and love it.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Go for good glass. The Tamron you mention is excellent. Keep your longer zoom for travel. The 24-70 has the same field of view on your camera as a 36-105 on Full frame. That's a *very* useful range.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

A lot depends on your favored subjects. Are you doing street or portraits? Landscape or events? You use a tripod. Does that mean it is landscapes? Photography is a very wide topic. Just eliminating sport/action does not really narrow it down much.

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

The best upgrade I've made was going to the D500 . . . It is just an outstanding camera and all your lenses will work just fine with it.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Terry,

If you shot sports, wildlife or other action the higher performance AF, faster frame rate, bigger buffer, etc. of the D500 might make sense as an upgrade. But you say you don't shoot anything like that, so would probably not be served well buying that camera. In fact, the D500 is 21MP, while your D7100 is 24MP. The D500 has a newer sensor and is likely better for high ISO, low light work. But in all likelihood you'd see little gain from a camera upgrade.

But from your description, I also don't see much or any need for a bigger, heavier, more expensive f/2.8 zoom. You also don't need a full frame capablelens, like that 24-70mm (Tamron calls their full frame lenses "Di", instead of "FX"). You can probably find equal or bettery image quality in a smaller, lighter, less expensive DX lens.

You probably would benefit from getting something better than the Tamron 16-300mm. Most of those "do it all" zooms simply don't do much particularly well. They can be "okay", but compromise in a lot of ways and are primarily "convenience" lenses. Generally speaking, a more modest range "standard" zoom give better performance and image quality. I do not know the Nikon system well enough to recommend, but would bet you'd get the most bang for your buck with something like:

AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

If you felt you needed a longer focal length, there are:

AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

Notice that all the above are telephoto-to-telephoto zooms with 3X to 4X focal length ranges (as compared to 16.66X with your 18-300!)

I've never heard of a 10-14mm lens, such as you mention... So I am not sure what you have for wide angle or if it's something you use much or need to upgrade. Nikon just introduced a very affordable AF-P DX Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR. Their other ultrawide DX lenses are pretty pricey: AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED. I don't know that those are any better than some third party alternatives that cost a whole lot less, such as Tokina AT-X 12-28mm f/4 DX and AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 DX. There also are Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 8-16mm and 10-20mm.

Notice that all these ultrawides are wide-to-wide with approx. 2X range of focal lengths. Few have f/2.8 apertures, too... most people don't really need large aperture ultrawides and it can cause some compromise in image quality, as well as make for a bigger, heavier, more expensive lens.

You mention macro and other lenses.... but give no specifics. So it's hard to say more than the above generalities. But, almost certainly you'd see more benefit from "better" glass than you would from a camera body upgrade.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Don't forget there's trade in value to gear you're not going to use. Personally, I'd go with a faster lens.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

The D7100 is a very good camera, and although there have been upgrades, I do not think it would be wise to "upgrade" to another D7xxx camera. I have a D7000 [DX]and used it for 5 years before buying another camera, and that was the D810 [FX]. The D500 is a great camera, but whether that would be the right choice for you depends on your needs. Have you compared the specs of these two cameras? If not, I recommend you do that before deciding. DSLRs have a lot of features in common, and the differences are what will determine if it is worth it to switch. More "bells and whistles" will only make a good choice if those extras truly mean something important to you.

As for the Tamrom 24-70mm f/2.8, it comes well-recommended, and from my experience using the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 on the D7000, I definitely think the lens may be the better way to go. It did improve my images to some extent, but be aware that a lens can only do that up to the limits of the camera it is used on. Also, you need to be aware of how the "crop factor" will affect your shooting. It never bothered me, and I got some excellent photos using the DX camera - FX lens combination. When I began using it on the D810, that is when I discovered just how good the lens really was!

A camera is a tool, and there is no need to replace it as long as it meets your needs. When it no longer has some characteristic that does what you want, then you ought to choose a new tool that has those improved capabilities. My reason for buying a full frame camera was a desire for improved image resolution, and I am happy with that choice.

A lens is also a tool, and choosing a lens should be based on what it can do for you. The 24-70mm f/2.8 has been the "work horse" of my small stable of lenses ever since I bought it. It is good for just about everything except subjects far away that require more magnification. I use it for portraits, buildings, horses, cityscapes, and landscapes. An extremely versatile lens! I have the older version without VR, but both versions of the Tamron lens have VR. The only differences between the two I see are rounded diaphragm blades and a bit more weight on the one that has "G2" in its description, which also costs $100 more. I don't know what G2 means in Tamron-speak, but it may be worth the extra money!

Ultimately the decision is up to you. Hope this helps.

Susan

jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque

Yes a camera is only as good as the lens attached. I’m excited by any new to me camera gear I buy, but I find Jerryc41 is correct- it’s simply more fun and exciting to buy a new camera. You have to learn new menus and figure out new button locations.
But better lenses and more practice helps me improve much more than a new camera.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Good post with lots of good information.