OK, folks, I need some help. No, Frank and Harris, not THAT kind of help, but in deciding, once and for all, what to keep, what to sell and what to buy. So, first, my current inventory: 18-35 f3.5-4.5 Nikkor 18-70 f3.5-4.5 G, AF-S Nikkor 28-70 f2.6-2.8 Tokina ATX-Pro 60mm f2.8 Nikkor 85mm f1.8 Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 AFS Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8 HSM Sigma 500mm f4.5 HSM EX Sigma I have pretty well decided to sell the 18-35 and the 28-70 and give up the stop as that is the range I use the least. The last two weekends I have rented the Nikon 24-120, first the Non-AFS and then yesterday the AFS-VR and tested them on the D70. I was not unhappy with either, but the focus was MUCH better with the AFS version, not a surprise. So I may add this lens to complement the 120-300. This worked really well at the NIFL Indoor Football games where I can shoot the 120-300 on my D2H and the 24-120 on the D70. Flash is not an issue, so I just leave it on the D70 and this combo is good for the end-zone shots as well pre and post game activiities. Which now brings me to the dilemma, the crux of the problem, the bane of my existence.....I now have a huge overlap with the 80-200 f2.8 AFS, a wonderful lens which really did me right yesterday when the 120-300 suddenly quit focusing. My guess is that the "quit focusing" may have had something to do with landing on the floor from a height of 4 feet or so , right in front of a table full of Hooter's girls who all had great sympathy for the old jerk who did such a stupid thing :wink: :wink: . Luckily the D2H did not go with it, and even better I already have an estimate of about $200 for the repair, including a complete "lube and tune", whew. So, folks, let's chime in and help Dewey figure this out, eh? I am also considering one of the many, perhaps the Tamron, lense in the 28-300mm range for an "everyday" lens for my wife to use on the D70. What do you all think?
Gosh, I don't know Bill. I just can't sell lenses. But you definately have overlap in the 18-35 range, so I guess I'd ditch that one. But as you saw, having a bit of redundancy was a good thing. Well, that, and us single old fa.. guys would kill for a sure fire way to meet Hooters girls.
Bill, I love my new 24-120 VR VR VR :>) walk around. I think it perfoms great. Think I would keep good Nikkor glass. I want to sell my 70-300 4.5 .Less expensive one if your interested. But I recommend a tripod with non VR...Except for you that is :>))))) You would carry a hubble.
Hi Bill......... I would sell the 500mm and purchase the 200-400mm to cover off your range over the 80-200mm..........that 500mm f4.5 HSM EX Sigma would look great in my bag :lol: dont mind me asking, how do you like it? Damn near pulled the trigger on the 500mm AF-I but I was told would not be happy with the speed, go af-s, well $5k can fix allot of problems, but then again this is a hobby! LOL
People, people, people!! It's clear you're all focussing on the wrong issues here! Where's the pics of the aforementioned Hooter's Girls???????? Geez, sometimes you folks have your priorities all mixed up. Neil PS: If you decide Keith's not a person of suitable moral fiber to be entrusted with the Sigma 500mm, I'm sure there's no doubting that I am (bought some new morals just the other day).
It is obvious you are getting the kind of help you were looking for here. Meet me at hooters and lets see if we can figure this out.
Seriously tho, If I were in your shoes I would likely sell the 18-35, 28-70,80-200 and 120-300 and buy the 70-200 2.8 vr. it is an exceptional lens and with the digital factor you will be carrying less glass and accomplishing more. I expect some more experienced folks here may have better suggestions.
Yeah, the redundancy really helped on Sunday, one of the reasons that I am thinking so hard about this. At the short end, if I get the 24-120 I will have that covered between it and the 18-70. I really hate to sell any of it, but I really hate to cart it around even more :lol: As to the Hooter's girls, us old married guys can only look anyway, and boy am I glad that neither my eyes nor my imagination have gone bad :wink: .
I found the same with the lens this weekend. It certainly worked well for me. I think with that and something decent to the 300 range it would be a good kit for both backup and something that my wife could use as well. Now, as to carrying a hubble, perhaps a bit of rubble :wink: . I can tell you that the heavy stuff gets real tiring after 3 or 4 hours. This Sunday with the 80-200 not on a monopod and both bodies around my neck certainly indicates why I need to be 20 years younger :wink:
Re: Hi Bill......... In your dreams, bucko :lol: As to "how do I like it", first off in the interest of full disclosure it broke on me. The barrel got loose so I shipped it back to Sigma for repair. FedEx tried to deliver it yesterday when I wasn't home, Sigma only got the lens last Tuesday, darned good turn-around. Now, the simple answer here is "I like it, a whole bunch". I had rented the Nikon 500mm f4 AFS several times before purchasing the Sigma and fell in love with the length. I also rented the 600 and just didn't like it as much. So I started looking and not having >$5k to spend I found the Nikon to be out of my reach. Then I read about the Sigma and found a place I could buy it brand new for $2700, US warranty. I also paid an extra $40 for a 3 yr Mack, so I have 7 years on the lens now. After using both my very subjective, absolutely non-scientific estimation is that the Sigma is 90-95% of the Nikon. I would give the nod to the Nikon in AF speed, but not by a whole bunch. It AF's quite fine with my modified Nikon TC's which is better than it will do with a Sigma 1.4TC, go figure. Given the cost differential I really like it, a whole lot. Here is one recent sample: {} This one is a bit different, as it is uncropped and shot with the 500mm + TC-14E + TC-20E. Notice that the focal length does not get adjusted by the TC's, a issue I can live with. Given the stacked TC's I'd say this lens performs pretty darn well. If you go to my site, www.deweydrive.com/gallery look in the Nature albums and you can see a lot of samples of this lens. Last fall with the birds in Skagit Valley some in November were with this lens on a D70, most others with my D2H. Look in the Sports gallery for the Seahawk game I shot. Most of those were with the D2H and this lens on a monopod. May not have been Nikon, but none of the other photographers laughed at me . In fact one fellow, shooting Nikon, came by to say he was glad to see another Nikon shooter on the field. We had the Canon folks outnumbered that day for sure, 2 of us to 50 of them :lol: . I heard the same regarding the AF-I, and the AFS really does make a difference with glass this big. A friend of mine just picked up one of the Sigma's from Ritz, I think, for $2400 new. If you are interested I can ask him for info, just drop me a note.
Well, you can find some of the Hooter's girls if you go to www.everetthawks.com and follow the Multimedia link to Game Photos. There will be more up tonight. Glad to see you, of all people, have your priorities straight. As to morrally upstanding folks and my 500mm, the phrase "My Cold Dead Hands" comes to mind....... :wink:
I see, just one more Smart-You-Know-Who to deal with :wink: , but the burgers are sure good at Hooter's aren't they? I mean, isn't that why we go there? Now, on to the serious. I agree on the 18-35 and the 28-70, but why would you sell the 80-200 and the 120-300 to replace with the 70-200VR? I really missed that extra 100mm at the game on Sunday and while I can gain that back with the 1.4 TC it is at the expense of 1-stop, which is a killer in that lighing. Same issue I will have with night High School football in the fall. As to the 70-200 itself, I agree, but just have not been able to convince myself that the upgrade cost from the 80-200 AFS that I have is worth it. Thanks for the comments, both of them..... :wink:
Bill, I had the 24-120VR and Gale has given it a wonderful new home. This is a lens I really liked owning. I used it combined with the 12-24 to get a really nice range. Recently I purchased a 17-55 2.8DX which has taken over that whole range, which the 24-120 and the 12-24 were not getting used any-more. I also had the 17-35 and 28-70 which the 17-55 threw them out the window also. I now use the 17-55 combined with an 85 1.4 or the 70-200VR and I am adding the 300 2.8VR...so that becomes my basic kit combined with the tele-converters. As for a walk-around for the wife I recently got my hands on the Tamron 18-200 whichis absolutely one hell of a lens. Sharp as a tck! and as for 300mm on the Tamron the lens is so thin there is just no way to hold it steady enough to get a stable shot. Plus it is a macro lens focusing down to 1.7 feet. Just some thoughts. GenoP {} View attachment 7293
Geno, that is pretty impressive, thanks for the thoughts. What I am most specifically trying to cover is the gap between 70mm and 120mm. My 120-300 is perfect for shots on the field from about the 5yd line to the far end zone, but 120 is too long when the players get to the near end zone. The 80-200 can get a good portion of that, but is still too long for some of the "end zone dances" that go on, which is where the 24-120 range is so nice. Now, that 18-200 would cover this just marvelously as well. How does the focus speed compare with the 24-120? This would be the "primary" lens on the D70. I also see that Tamron has another Digital lens, the 28-300, with pretty much the same specs, f3.5-6.3, at about the same price. Any thoughts on this lens? The price is sure right on these lenses as well, and given that the bulk of what interests both my wife and I, the 18-28mm range is the one we use the least often, and would, I think, be the easiest to "sneaker zoom" for. The other nice thing about both of these options for me is that it would cover the bulk of the field for indoor football, still requiring flash on the D70 but I'm stuck with that regardless. Gee, Geno, thanks for giving me yet another good choice :roll: :wink: , I'm going to have to get off my butt and decide soon I think.
18-200 / 28-300 / 24-120 Bill, I think for sports the 24-120VR would serve you better since it does focus much faster. The 18-200 does not have AFS and it has a very wide focusing range which gives you the macro capability. It does wind slowly when it has to go through it's entire focusing range, however when it's close it will focus pretty fast....but it is no AFS lens. As far as the 28-300...I have never used it, but it has great reviews. The 18-200 is made for digital and modeled after the 28-300 for film. I have the sneaky suspicion the 18-200 will be sharper on a digital camera. Plus these small lenses are difficult to hand hold at such long lengths. The 18-200 really surprised me on how sharp it is. The only thing I recommend is to try the lens in the store before you purchase it if you can. a friend of mine bought one and his first sample did not zoom smoothly. It really should feel like butter when you zoom. It is made much better than the Nikkor 28-200G. He has shot baseball with his and it looks great! I have just been using mine as a walk-about and have a ton of fun on the D70. GenoP
Thanks, Geno, I think that pretty well "seals the deal". I know how much difference I saw in focus speed between the "old" Nikon 24-120 and the AFS version on the D70 and it was significant. Since that is where it would be primarily used, this would be a big consideration. Given that, I may be best suited with the 18-70 kit lens for the "widest end", the 24-120 for the "middle" and then look for a lightweight 70/80-300 for the "long" end for my wife. This would also make a good "second body but much lighter" when I want some overlap with the D2H and the "heavier/faster" glass as well. Man, I hate these decisions that cost me money :lol: . Thanks for the info and the opinions, they really are a huge help.
