I currently have a D7000 and have been doing a lot of night sky photography over the past few months. I currently only have two lenses, the Nikon 16-85 and the Tamron 70-300. I have been using the Nikon 16-85 for my pictures of the night sky, but realize I need to upgrade at least my lens to get decent pictures of the stars and the Milky Way because the fastest aperture on the 16-85 is f/3.5. also I would like to go wider to get more of the sky and landscape in each image.
I have been thinking of buying the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which I have seen recommended for night sky photography for DX users. I know this faster/wider lens will make a difference to my ability to capture the Milky Way and money wise it is really my only option right now.
My dilemma is that most of the really good night sky Milky Way shots that I have seen have been taken with full frame camera's because the larger sensor combined with a fast lens seems to get the best image with the least noise.
If you have used the D7000 and a full-frame camera such as the D600 for Milky Way photography I would appreciate your input as to how they compare. I am torn between getting the Tokina 11-16 now or waiting about a year and saving for the D600 with a fast FX lens. The reason I am so torn is with money being limited, I don't want to purchase the Tokina lens and still be unsatisfied with my images and regret not waiting and upgrading to full-frame.