I just need two more lenses...

Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,006
Location
Los Angeles, USA
If I need low light compabilities it's in the tele end and I don't really lust for a 17-55 (Neither wide enough and long enough).

I figure for the price used for a 35-70, I get a nice portrait and pseudo macro lens for a cheap price.

I really don't want to spend for a 12-24, but I don't want to buy third party.

Also I want to get a Nikon Coolpix 4200, it sells dirt cheap for 200 bucks with $30 rebate!

Okay, done lusting...haha...
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
3,423
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
I have the 12-24mm DX, used twice, and I just dont use that wide of angle. seriously thinking of getting rid of the 24-85mm as well and possibly replacing both with the 17-55mm....decisions, decisions. LOL Im going on the theory sometimes less is more! ;-)

Dont think lens lust ever goes away.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52
Location
Alaska
After getting just two more lenses, there will be two more, then two more, it goes on and on. Welcome to the club! :lol:
Greetings from Alaska!
Tom
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
3,925
Location
Owings Mills, MD
It never ends...

Keith R. said:
I have the 12-24mm DX, used twice, and I just dont use that wide of angle. seriously thinking of getting rid of the 24-85mm as well and possibly replacing both with the 17-55mm....decisions, decisions. LOL Im going on the theory sometimes less is more! ;-)

Dont think lens lust ever goes away.
Funny, I have the 17-55mm and I am thinking of getting rid of it and getting the 12-24mm DX...hmm?

Crystall

D70
10.5
17-55
18-70
24-120 VR
60 (would rather have a 105 - bumble bees need their space)
70-300 ED
70-200 VR
SB 800

It never really ends, it only took a few posts from Uncle Frank and an analysis of my photos to realize that I would prefer a 24-70! Ouch! My 70-200 VR is not seeing much use. Ouch x 2!
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
34,910
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Keith R. said:
I have the 12-24mm DX, used twice, and I just dont use that wide of angle. seriously thinking of getting rid of the 24-85mm as well and possibly replacing both with the 17-55mm....decisions, decisions. LOL Im going on the theory sometimes less is more! ;-)

Dont think lens lust ever goes away.
I'd dump my 12-24DX in a Phoenix minute (about 106 seconds) for a sharp, rectilinear, DX prime in the low teens or tweens. Oh yeah, it'd have to be fast, like f/2 or better. I'd pay a 'lot' for it too.

I'm not really sure why I don't use it - I've shot a lot of ultra-wide in film formats, but now ... unless I NEED it, I don't use it. I'm thinking it's the speed, cause my last wide angle lens was a 21mm f/2.

Keith: nice avatar.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
34,910
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Hi Crystall, From looking at your lens list, you do seem to have a lot of focal length overlap. The 12-24 would extend your range well into the ultrawide angles, but wouldn't you rather keep the 17-55 and lose the 18-70, cause it's considerably slower. (Your 24-120 is even slower, but it's a special - get what others can't - lens.)

One thing about watching what Uncle Frank uses to make his photos is that he has championed many lenses in the past. With each one of them, Frank has made stunning photographs. He's living proof that it's the photographer, not the equipment that make s the pictures.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
4,657
Location
Athens Greece
Keith R. said:
...seriously thinking of getting rid of the 24-85mm as well and possibly replacing both with the 17-55mm....decisions, decisions...
Keith R., I'll be more than happy to relief you from that 12-24 lens... throw me a price and we make business... :wink:


D100, F100, Nikonos RS AF SLR # Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED IF AF-S # Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6D IF AF # Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF AF # Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF # Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF # Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF # Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF # Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR # Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 UW AF
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,700
Location
Tennessee
If I can bring myself to sell my 17-35mm, I want to
pick up the 12-24mm. That would fit nice for my
kit. It would cover 12-200 with little to no overlap
or missing.
12-24
28-70
70-200

But I don't know if I could really sell the 17-35mm.
I might just move to second string and sit with
other and lots of golf clubs.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
12,515
Location
near Montreal, Canada
I figure for the price used for a 35-70, I get a nice portrait and pseudo macro lens for a cheap price.
This was exactly my reasoning when I got one on eBay. Fabulous lens, every bit as good a performer as any. I like the relative low profile compared with the 28-70. In the end it is the picture that counts and this zoom is second to none.
Good luck with your hunt!
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
3,925
Location
Owings Mills, MD
Reply to Chris101

Chris101 said:
Hi Crystall, From looking at your lens list, you do seem to have a lot of focal length overlap. The 12-24 would extend your range well into the ultrawide angles, but wouldn't you rather keep the 17-55 and lose the 18-70, cause it's considerably slower. (Your 24-120 is even slower, but it's a special - get what others can't - lens.)
Hi Chris,

I agree with you. I successfully used the kit lens for the first year and produced awesome photos. I also used my 70-300 ED for macros (not knowing about a true macro lens at the time). I plan to get rid of the 18-70, 60mm micro, and the Tamron 180.

My 24-120 is a nice walk around lens. It covers the telephoto nicely as compared to the 17-55. My photos are somewhat soft (though I attribute that to the photographer, not the lens).

Let's see, the 17-55 and 70-200VR are a great combination. They might see more usage this summer at Luray Caverns or Longwood Gardens. My 10.5 fisheye hasn't seen the light of day since last fall but it is really a fun lens.

My Dream Kit:

10.5mm DX
12-24mm DX
24-70mm
70-200mm VR
200mm Micro ( I would settle for a 105mm micro)
300mm f/4.0

Crystall
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
Re: Reply to Chris101

CrystallP said:
My Dream Kit:

10.5mm DX
12-24mm DX
24-70mm
70-200mm VR
200mm Micro ( I would settle for a 105mm micro)
300mm f/4.0
Then you're going to have to switch to Canon.

Nikon doesn't make a 24-70. :twisted:
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
3,423
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
well...

I'd dump my 12-24DX in a Phoenix minute (about 106 seconds) for a sharp, rectilinear, DX prime in the low teens or tweens. Oh yeah, it'd have to be fast, like f/2 or better. I'd pay a 'lot' for it too.

I'm not really sure why I don't use it - I've shot a lot of ultra-wide in film formats, but now ... unless I NEED it, I don't use it. I'm thinking it's the speed, cause my last wide angle lens was a 21mm f/2.

Keith: nice avatar.
Never really gave that much thought, hmmmmmm............oppsss got to stop that!!

thanks Chris, any good lightening storms??
 
J

jkamphof

Guest
I've noticed that the mid-range has got to be the most difficult lens to shop for. Everyone has got a mixed bag for this range and it is soooooo confusing to shop for.

I have the 24-120 and I'll never sell it (well maybe not :)) but for a top-end mid-range I am soo lost. At this stage I'm not seriously looking yet (gotta get the 70-200 first afterall). So far fo most shootings I have my 12-24 for wide to early mid, my 50mm for mid-range (might add a Sigma 28 f1/8 to this), and my 70-210 for med-tele. It's a nice small cheap package and I get some good shots with it. (I have other lenses but for in around town this set-up usually never fails....well ok sometimes it does but thats' why I always am shopping for more :)


Well, I have no idea what point I was making but there you go ;)

Joel
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom