New Equipment Purchase

[William W]

It is very important to understand that whilst I stated I would buy a Nikon Lens – that is a personal choice. And one which comes from my bias AGAINST third party lenses, generally: and having used many (third party lenses).

It is very important to understand that (quality) third party lenses can produce very good images and will not (should not) necessarily inhibit Photography or the quality of it - 99.9% of the time.

WW

[Betterbirdie]

Bill you've changed my mind. I'm looking at the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 G ED S DX. I see this lens was put into the market in '03! That makes me think that Nikon will come to market with an upgrade soon. Any thoughts on that anyone?

[Manfred M]

Bill you've changed my mind. I'm looking at the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 G ED S DX. I see this lens was put into the market in '03! That makes me think that Nikon will come to market with an upgrade soon. Any thoughts on that anyone?

My personal guess is that there will not be a replacement for this lens. It comes from the era where Nikon's pro (D2X) and semi-pro (D300) cameras used crop-frame DX (APS-C) sensors, and these costly lenses served that market niche. There hasn't been a high-end crop-frame camera released by Nikon in over two years; with the D7000 being the latest one. It is also the oldest DX camera that is still being manufactured (the D90 is still listed, but is no longer being manufactured).

The latest high-end amateur camera was the full-frame (FX) D600 that came out this year, and their latest lens is the full-frame, f/4 70-200mm lens. This is seen by some members of the Nikon community as a sign that Nikon is moving the high-end amateur market to full-frame and and leaving the DX format for entry-level or mid-range users. I suspect that they might be right, which is why I've only purchased FX lenses over the past 18 months, even for use on my DX bodies. The last lens I bought was the f/2.8 14-24mm Nikkor.

[William W]

Bill you've changed my mind. I'm looking at the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 G ED S DX.

Well, I hope YOU changed your mind, based upon useful input.
As I mentioned previously, I am no longer au fait with the detailed ins and outs of the Nikon System, having not used Nikon Cameras for many years - and when I did, it was Film.

For detailed comment about any particular Nikon Lens, I would advise you should seek that from Nikonians who have and use the particular lens in question, here (and elsewhere).

Certainly my experience is that Manfred (GrumpyDiver) has a wealth of knowledge about Nikon gear and also presents as objective an opinion, as we humans possibly can: there are other exceptional people here at CiC also, I have just particularly noticed Manfred's posts, about Nikon Gear.

WW

[Betterbirdie]

Got it, Thanks again. I hope to learn more and have fun doing it.

[William W]

No problem - Merry Christmas.

[Betterbirdie]

Manfred I would have to study more to think about considering FX lens for our D-90. Can you direct me to material. What future path would we need to think of by making this type of purchase. As always I'm guessing there are limitations and benefits...

[Manfred M]

Andrew- I’ve re-read you previous posts and am now trying to figure out where you are planning to go with this lens.

Your daughter already has a lens that covers the focal length of the lens you are now thinking of buying, the Tamron 18-270mm lens, so I’m not quite sure what the benefit of getting a 17-55mm lens is going to do for her, as she already has most of that focal length covered (other than 17mm). In general, I try to not duplicate focal lengths I already have, unless there is a very specific reason to do so. I can understand how the 11-16mm lens fits into the scheme, but not the 17-55mm.

My other thought was that if you are going to duplicate some of the existing focal length, then getting a DX lens would be one way of future-proofing your purchase. Your daughter is shooting with a high-end consumer camera, and if she were to replace it at some point in the future and decides to get another high-end consumer unit, then she will likely be into a full-frame FX camera, but would not have a suitable lens. Going with a FX lens would reduce the risk. There is no performance penalty in putting a FX lens on a DX camera; the downside tends to be price. You are looking at a fairly expensive lens in the f/2.8 17-55mm, so you might want to see if any of the FX lenses might be worth getting instead.

[William W]

I don’t want to put words into Andrew’s mouth, but as it was I who suggested a fast standard zoom I feel obligated to cover the situation from my perspective regarding the Tamron 18 to 270.

I also noted that lens was available to his Daughter: but ALSO I noted that the other two lenses are quite fast and also that the D90 is not a ‘super high’ ISO camera. and later if another camera is purchased F/2.8 across the range will only be even more beneficial for 'photojournalism'.

Concerning Landscapes - the old (and also the new) Tamron 18 to 270 has a mass of distortions (systemic to all super zoom designs - even the marvellous Canon EF28 to 300L) and it would be much 'nicer' for a good and talented Student (or any Photographer) to have a kit of (three) high quality zooms, each with less zoom compass than a super zoom.

(I have HAD to use he earlier model Canon 35 to 350L and the Barrelling and Pincushion sent me more insane than the insanity with which I was born. Even though MOST distortions of super zooms now relatively easier to adjust in digital Post Production than it was with film – I would always head a budding student away from super zooms, unless it was an absolute necessity or if it is kept and used as a back-up lens in the kit. The distortions of most super zooms, once noticed by the Photographer as they get a sharper and more discerning eye tend to send them quite mad).

Considering also that there is no mention of Flash; also considering that “photojournalism’ often tends to be sans flash by way of situation; also considering that the Tamron 70 to 200/2.8 already overlaps the Tamron 18 to 270 in respect of FL; also that it was specifically mentioned that the Tamron 18 to270 was the ‘old’ model . . .

– I assumed (always a bad move), that I could discount this lens as it was likely the first ‘do everything lens’ and as the Student has grown (in experience and skill) the 18 to 270 is not used much – or will not be used much, if a better and faster lens is available and therefore it was OK to for me to remove it from the equation – on that basis: I wrote what I wrote.

WW

[Betterbirdie]

Yep, my daughter does not like the old 18 -270. Tamron made a defective clutching zoom that is not smooth. She knows she likes the Nikon kit lens and wants me to stay away from Tamron. I like the FX thoughts, I'll go with Nikon for quality. It as if we're starting over by purchasing nicer gear by staying with Nikon lens. So for over all travel, landscape, indoor friends shots, and some sports shots; Nikon offers: at f/2.8 AF - a 17-35mm, a 24-70mm, and a 14 -24mm. Since the existing lens are cover up to 270mm, I'm thinking about the 24-70mm.
Santa no longer comes down the chimney, so I guess I need to ask her which of the above subject shots she would most like to be ready for with this super nice lens she will have...

[William W]

YOU ARE A GOOD DAD - not for spending the money: any Dad can do that.
But for spending the TIME and EFFORT.

Bravo, DAD.

WW

[Manfred M]

Now I am starting to get the picture. I was not aware that the Tamron super zoom was defective. I have the three pro Nikkor zooms; f/2.8 14-24mm, f/2.8 24-70mm and the f/2.8 70-200mm. I use the latter two lenses for 90% of my shots.

Bill: I agree with you on the limitations on the super-zooms. My wife has the Nikkor 18-200mm and it is her "go to" lens and, as expected, it does some rather strange things optically. That being said, the upside is that while I am changing lenses, she is getting the shots. If I run her files through DxO optics, it cleans up the distortion from the lens quite nicely.

The f/2.8 24-70mm Nikkor is the one lens I probably shot with the most on my D90 (and now on my D800). While it is a mid-range zoom on a FX, it performs as a bit longer lens (36-105mm equivalent) on the D90. From a quality standpoint, it is fast, sharp and has low distortion. It is weather sealed and internally focusing (i.e it stays the same length, regardless of focal length when mounted on the camera). The lens is not stabilized (and I believe the equivalent Canon is not stabilized either), so that does put some people off. Bottom line is I love this lens.

The f/2.8 14-24mm lens is my newest acquisition and I picked it up this summer just before I had some major surgery on my foot so I haven't had a really good opportunity to use very much it yet. It is stunningly sharp, even at 14mm; even more so than the fixed focal length f/2 14mm Nikkor. The main downside of this lens is that it does not take any filters. I have two other ultra wide angle lenses that do not take filters over the front lens element, so I’m less concerned than some other people might be.

I also had a hard look at the Nikkor f/2.8 17-35mm, the f/4 16-35mm lens (both of which take filters) and the fixed f/2.8 14mm lens as well. The same comments that were made about the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm lens apply here as well; it is a specialty lens on a FX camera, and a bit less so on a DX.

So, for two of the lenses on your list, the biggest downside is that they are running at close to $2000 each. For that money, you could buy the f/3.5-4.5 24-85mm (at around $600) and the f/4 16-35mm @ $1260; these are both FX lenses. I think I did look at both lenses when I was in the market for a wide angle and mid-range zoom, but in my case, the cost was not a major consideration, so I went with the top of the line lenses. If you chose to add DX lenses into the mix, it would cost you even less, but there are risks.

[Betterbirdie]

Well listen to this. I found the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G ED IF -S and a AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED; from an individual that may be sold for $2,050. Suppose to be slightly used over last two yrs. The Micro sound neat.

[Colin Southern]

Bill: I agree with you on the limitations on the super-zooms. My wife has the Nikkor 18-200mm and it is her "go to" lens and, as expected, it does some rather strange things optically. That being said, the upside is that while I am changing lenses, she is getting the shots.

Quite clearly Manfred, you NEED to be using two cameras then

May I suggest a D4 and a bunch of flowers?

[Manfred M]

The micro-Nikkor would not tempt me at all. I have one on loan from a friend and I have played around with it for the past few months. I'm not into macro work and using the lens has convinced me that it is not something that would interest me. Having a lens I never use sitting around is not good use of my money.

That being said, I can pick up the f/2.8 24-70mm for $1469 and the 105macro for $795, brand new from a dealer here in Canada.

http://www.adencamera.com/product-ov...105&Category=7

http://www.adencamera.com/product-ov...497&Category=7

That is only a savings of $214 for used gear. I'm not sure what they are going for in the US, but it doesn't sound like a super deal to me.

[Betterbirdie]

Yea the new equipment has 5 Yr. Warranty. Nikon keeps USA citizens out of foreign markets by not providing warranty on such purchases, cross borders, I think.

[Colin Southern]

Yea the new equipment has 5 Yr. Warranty.

Nikon providing a 5 year warranty on equipment? Doesn't sound right to me, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Update: Just saw that in the link -- pretty impressive. I take it that it's just a promotional thing though, and that Nikon aren't looking to offer 5 years across the board though?

[Manfred M]

Nikon providing a 5 year warranty on equipment? Doesn't sound right to me, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Update: Just saw that in the link -- pretty impressive. I take it that it's just a promotional thing though, and that Nikon aren't looking to offer 5 years across the board though?

The 5-year warranty on Nikon lenses is standard here in Canada. Sigma has a 10 year warranty on theirs. The D800 has a standard 2-year warranty.

[Colin Southern]

The 5-year warranty on Nikon lenses is standard here in Canada. Sigma has a 10 year warranty on theirs. The D800 has a standard 2-year warranty.

Wow.

Just did a bit of "Googling" - seems that Canon & Nikon both stick to 1 year ... unless it's Nikon and it's in Canada. Very interesting ... would have thought that's one heck of an incentive for Canadians to buy Nikon.

Any Canon equivalent over there that you've heard of?

http://help.nikon.ca/app/answers/det...VIWGFkbA%3D%3D

[Manfred M]

Wow.

Just did a bit of "Googling" - seems that Canon & Nikon both stick to 1 year ... unless it's Nikon and it's in Canada. Very interesting ... would have thought that's one heck of an incentive for Canadians to buy Nikon.

Any Canon equivalent over there that you've heard of?

http://help.nikon.ca/app/answers/det...VIWGFkbA%3D%3D

So far as I understand it Canon's warranties are North America wide, i.e. any gear bought in Canada or the USA are covered by the same warranty and the equipment will be serviced in either country. Nikon's is country specific, so any Nikon gear purchased in the US will not be repaired by Nikon Canada, and vice-versa.