Quandary on which way to go next

[David Beale]

I'm new here. I love the title for this section because I do lust after lenses.

I have a few in my collection which I've listed here:

My Nikon FX Lenses
Nikkor AF-S Micro 60MM F/2.8G ED
Nikkor 28~80 F3.5 ~ f/5.6 f-AF-D (oldie)
Nikkor AF-D 70-210 F/4-5.6 (push pull one)
Nikkor AF-D 50mm F/1.8
Nikkor AF Micro 105mm 1:2.8 D

3rd Party FX Lenses
Sigma 100-300mm F4.5-6.7 AF-DL (least used in my bag)
Tamron SP 20-40 F/2.7-3.5
Tamron AF 200-400mm F/5.6. LD [IF]

Those are for my D610.

For my D5100 I have these DX ones
AF-S 55-300 DX VR Zoom Lense
AF-S 18-55 DX VR Kit lens
AF-3 35mm DX f/1.8G Prime Lens

-------------------------

Last week I bought a used 24-70 F2.8 Nikkor AF-D. We were visiting my daughter and her family and I took many (as in about 1000) photos with that lens, many of my grand daughter. I took it to a model railway show and after shooting a few hundred images there suddenly the lens stopped zooming. Thankfully I had not left Calgary and was able to get a store credit for the amount I had paid for the lens. Now I need to spend that money again. If it had failed a day later I would have been hooped.

I really loved that lens but the new Nikkor version just costs too much.

So now I have a $630 credit waiting to be spent.

What to buy?

I could add another prime to my collection - probably a 85mm 1.8 or maybe a 35mm 1.8. A 135mm pushes the edge of what I want to spend. But could get the 135 DC and have something totally different. If I get 2.8 primes I save a few dollars.

Or I could get a proper telephoto 70-200. I have the vintage push pull 70-210 which still works fine but I lust for better. I don't want to fork over the cash needed for the new Nikkor VRII. But I can get the classic 80-200 2.8 (yes they still sell that new, and it is in stock). Or the Sigma, or order a Tamron. With the Sigma and Tamron I would benefit from image stabilization for about $100-200 more than the 80-200 2.8 Nikkor. The Nikon 70-200 F4 VR about the same amount. (Yes I know I just missed the big Nikon FX sale )

Or I can replace that one broke and was returned with a new 24-70 2.8 Tamron with VC. I read the reviews of that lens and they sound great. They also still sell the AF-D 24-85 2.8-4.0 which seems to be fine bit of glass, old technology but it would save me several hundred dollars - as in about half as much at $720.

But the Artsy Sigma 24-105 F4 sound interesting - it seems to rate as good as or better than Nikons 24-120 F4 which is several hundred more. Their marketing of the Art series may be working on me. ....

Or do I go long and add a 600mm to my collection? But I just bought the 200-400 at Christmas and have not really decided if I'm into birding enough to spend that much just yet.

Feeling overwhelmed by the choices.


So what am I missing?


The Prime option gets me a faster professional lens without breaking the bank too much, especially if I opt for the 2.8's instead of the 1.8's (those 1.4 are just too much).

The 24-70 2.8 was such a lovely lens I'd like to replace it, but at what cost? (Apparently $1,249).
Or should I take this opportunity to get a proper telephoto? What makes most sense given my collection so far?

I seem to be spending my evenings watching Youtubes of the Nikon Guy and others doing reviews. After each review I think, hmmm maybe that one, .... and the list grows longer.

I can spend up to about $1400 but less is better.

BTW all prices are in Canadian Pesos so my good friends south of the border don't point out my prices are off that's what we pay here.

 

[Mr. Graceful]

I'd suggest 2 lenses:

1. Used 28-70 AF-S. You can find them regularly in the 750-850 range.

2. 24-120 f/4. Used or new. A bit more, but perhaps a bit more versatile.

Also, if you're going to go the 24-85 (either AF-S or AF-D) route, there's no reason to buy that new. You can find them in excellent condition for relatively cheap.

 

[David Beale]

Thanks for the reply Mr. Graceful.

I do buy used - indeed I'm in this quandary because I bought a used lens that ended up failing - so I now have a store credit. "The Camera Store" (that's their name) in Calgary Canada has only a few used items and while there I did look at all their FX Nikon mounted used lens on offer - none were of interest to me. Thankfully they did give me a store credit but that pretty well means I need to spend that $630 on new stuff that they sell. It does not need to be a lens but right now that's what I think I want - have considered getting some ND filters and trying my hand using those. And maybe a Lensbaby 12mm fisheye just for fun shots (they have that on clearance for $150). Or a really good monopod head. Not hard to spend $630 in a camera store.

RE: The Nikkor 24-120 F4; their price is $1369. I think the 24-70 F/2.8 VC by Tamron would be better choice and less by about $120. The Sigma 24-105 F/4 is $999 but not in stock and I've heard that it is often not in stock. I'd have to call the store and see if they are going to be having any more in stock. I wonder if that extra 15mm of reach is worth the extra $370?

The used market is part of my consideration however because after buying this lens I'll probably go back to the used market. Your point about the 24-85 is well taken - used these can be had for less. I've been told the used 35-70 2.8 is a great lens and often sold even more cheaply.

 

[David Beale]

That is a great deal $930 CDN apparently which is way less than the $1300 and change they want at the store.
But I my refund is a store credit so needs to be applied to purchase from that store.
Really leaning towards that Tamron 24-70 F2.8
But tomorrow I'm going to a camera show in Edmonton. Get a chance to talk to the distributors and handle some new glass.

 

[rbsinto]

David,
In my opinion your priorities seem to be misplaced. "Lusting" (as you admitted you do) after lenses shouldn't be your concern, but instead the photographic results that lenses can help you achieve should be.
You appear to be enamoured with the lens as if owning them is an end in itself, rather than what they can do for you.
You have neither stated which photographic genres you engage in, or wish to engage in, nor what it is that you wish to achieve that the lenses you currently own are uncapable of allowing you to do effectively.
Asking other people to recommend glass without giving this information results in them merely giving you a shopping list of lenses that they own, would like to own or like, based on their interests, not yours.
I respectfully suggest to try to look at this situation from a results-based perspective before you let that pile of cash burn a hole in your pocket, and buy more stuff just for the sake of buying it.
Robert

 

[Retief]

Don't dismiss the 70-200 f4, heck of a nice lens. And would fit nicely, especially a used one, in your budget. Much less costly than the f2.8 as long as you the one stop is not a show stopper.

 

[David Beale]

Well my "quandary" is settle for the moment - and my "lens lust" satisfied - hopefully for a while.
I appreciate your comments Robert and do understand your excellent points.
But my wife decided to buy me a new lens for my birthday (coming up next month) and bought me a new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC at the McBains Camera Show in Edmonton. Had a chance to try it out at the Edmonton Parrot Show - so much colour - will post some images later in the Bird section.

Thanks for the advice.

I still would like to get the 70-200 2.8 someday - but probably not anytime soon.