Practical purchase or reckless spending?

[JustJazzie]

I have a bit set aside to put towards my hobby. Well call it roughly $250.

The only lens I have to go with my nikon df is the 50mm kit lens.
I also have my sony nex7 with an 18-200 and a 50.

I've basically been using the nikon as a portrait only camera, and picking up my sony for close ups and wide angle. Next summer, I will be investing in a 70-200f4, and later, I will probably get something like the 24-702.8.

So, I have been eyeing the nikkor 24-105 f3.5-4.5d. It gets pretty great reviews for being such an inexpensive lens. Mainly, so I can use my nikon a but more often. It's a handy range, and has a macro setting. But will it be THAT much higher quality than what I am getting with my sony super zoom? Is it a waste of money since I'll be covering that range with higher quality glass in the not sooo distant future?

I've also considered getting a better speed-light with ttl and maybe some fun backdrops or something instead. I feel the urge to get something, but not sure if it's really a smart call. Thoughts?

 

[Designer]

I think duplicating a focal length you already have is probably a a waste of money unless the new lens is significantly better.

As for other items; I advocate for a speedlight if you don't have one. Personally, I wouldn't find much use for a fun backdrop. More like lights and modifiers.

I've been thinking about a macro lens, but haven't put one on my wish list yet.

 

[JustJazzie]

I think duplicating a focal length you already have is probably a a waste of money unless the new lens is significantly better.

As for other items; I advocate for a speedlight if you don't have one. Personally, I wouldn't find much use for a fun backdrop. More like lights and modifiers.

I've been thinking about a macro lens, but haven't put one on my wish list yet.

I have a speed-light, but it's full manual so I don't find myself using it often enough. I DO want a macro lens, but really with the 18-200 and 24 mpx I'm able to do some pretty up close stuff with my current gear so It isn't really all that high on the list. I have quite a bit of lighting gear and modifiers already.

 

[EIngerson]

The 70-200 was the best purchase I've made since getting into photography. It's probably on my camera 90% of the time.

 

[JustJazzie]

The 70-200 was the best purchase I've made since getting into photography. It's probably on my camera 90% of the time.

That is my next *true* desire, but there is quite a difference between a $250 lens and a $1500+ (if I decide I want the 2.8) so that's a no go right now!

 

[CameraClicker]

To get a nikkor 24-105 f3.5-4.5d, now, and a 24-70 2.8, later. Or, to just save some more and just get the 24-70 2.8. That is your first question?

What is the difference in weight? Would that difference make it worth keeping both lenses to use at different times/places? Would one become a backup lens in case the main lens had a problem or was dropped?

I don't shoot with Nikon much. I hear they have a really excellent 105 mm macro lens that is a real macro lens rather than a zoom with a macro setting.

"But will it be THAT much higher quality than what I am getting with my sony super zoom?" Well, the gang here may be able to see the difference, and you may be able to see the difference. Friends, family, and the general public will not see the difference. So, it depends on who you are shooting for.

A flash with TTL lets you get snap shots during an event where everyone is milling around. You don't have to keep track of how far away everyone is. The camera and flash work it out. If that is something you are contemplating, it would be worth having a good flash.

 

[Derrel]

Do you mean the 28-105, for like $168? I was actually impressed by the lens on Lens Across America. I thought the distortion on it was very good at the wide-angle end.NIKON 28-105MM F/3.5-4.5 D IF MACRO AUTOFOCUS LENS {62} - KEH Camera

I used it on 24MP FX Nikon, and it was a good shooter. And unlike MOST zooms, this lens has pretty good macro capabilities. Read the Ken Rockwell review.

 

[JustJazzie]

Do you mean the 28-105, for like $168? I was actually impressed by the lens on Lens Across America. I thought the distortion on it was very good at the wide-angle end.NIKON 28-105MM F/3.5-4.5 D IF MACRO AUTOFOCUS LENS {62} - KEH Camera

I used it on 24MP FX Nikon, and it was a good shooter. And unlike MOST zooms, this lens has pretty good macro capabilities. Read the Ken Rockwell review.

That's the one. I found one for $250 that's in "like new" condition, and shipping from the USA. The ones for $170 are before shipping, and shipping from overseas. Nevertheless, that is the one. My 18-200 has TERRIBLE distortion, but I know that can be fixed in post.... Color rendering in it is pretty poor as well.

 

[Derrel]

AT KEH, "EXC" or Excellent condition it's $168, with probably THE best return policy in the USA... KEH.COM is America's largest used camera and lens dealer. They are the best-known dealer for used Nikon in the USA. Their grading is conservative...EXC from them might easily be graded Like New by many other dealers or e-Bay vendors. Just as a point of information, ProPhoto Supply had one for $125 here, a few months back...so $250 is IMHO, wayyyy overpriced for that lens. The newer, 24-120 AF, not the VR version, is MUCH less than $250.

 

[JustJazzie]

AT KEH, "EXC" or Excellent condition it's $168, with probably THE best return policy in the USA... KEH.COM is America's largest used camera and lens dealer. They are the best-known dealer for used Nikon in the USA. Their grading is conservative...EXC from them might easily be graded Like New by many other dealers or e-Bay vendors. Just as a point of information, ProPhoto Supply had one for $125 here, a few months back...so $250 is IMHO, wayyyy overpriced for that lens. The newer, 24-120 AF, not the VR version, is MUCH less than $250.

Thanks Derrel! I'll check out KEH. But you've avoided the question- should I get it? Will I find it useful even after I have the 70-200?

 

[Derrel]

Yes, it's a far better walk-around lens than any 70-200, just because it's got the wide and normal ranges covered and it's a lightweight lens. I think for $168, it's a good value. A 70-200 or 80-200 is a one-trick pony: those are ALL-tele. They simply can NOT make wide-angle photos, or interior shots with groups in a living room, and so on. As much as I like a 70-200 or 80-200 for outdoors, it is a lousy tool for a lot of uses. The 28-105 AF-D was actually a pretty useful lens when I had it for Lens Across America; I was impressed by what it could do, and how well it shot. For $168, I do not think there is a better used Nikkor for an FX body.

 

[JustJazzie]

Yes, it's a far better walk-around lens than any 70-200, just because it's got the wide and normal ranges covered and it's a lightweight lens. I think for $168, it's a good value.

Awesome! KEH doesn't have one now. I'll try to be patient and not pay too much.

Edit: maybe they do have one! Typed in 24-105 *sigh*

 

[Natethephotog]

I used it on 24MP FX Nikon, and it was a good shooter.

Late to this thread, But i just purchased a used D600 with the 28-105 and hoping for the best.
Im glad Darrel you've had good luck with the lens on your 24mp FX . I was debating between it and the Tamron 28-70 2.8. But 168$ (b&h) it couldn't be beat. I too saw the Prophoto supply price and still think they are a bit overpriced, their d600's were going for 1200 and were from their used dept. so plenty of shutter clicks as well.