Please talk me out of this...

[xj0hnx]

Lens hold their value WAY better than bodies, so I'd go with good glass, and the least expensive body that will do the job you need it to.

 

[astroNikon]

^ Nikon P520 =-/

That's better than a cell phone in which your profile lists ...
as the P520 has a Manual mode. you can learn alot from that little camera.

 

[goodguy]

Yes and no.

No dont buy it in this price.
Yes buy it used of ebay or other source for much less.
I saw it on ebay for sale for around 360$ so if I was in the market for such a lens thats what I would do and for that amount, paying over 600$ for this lens when you can get it for almost half the price of ebay or other second hand sources sounds almost like a sin to me.

Good luck.

 

[71M]

Parker, would you recap for us what it is you want to do/achieve with a new set-up; if you are thinking of spending, say, about a grand or so, you can get an older used, but ok body - with a much bigger/better sensor than your P520 - and a decent superwide to wide zoom. But what else do you want beyond real estate pictures?

 

[EIngerson]

If you are buying a lens for payed and taxed work. Buy quality and write it off in your taxes.

 

[Derrel]

Buy the smaller, lighter, HANDIER 16-35 f/4 VR-Nikkor for a little under $1,000 on the current $300 rebate!!!! If you want a D610, sure. But skip on the 14-24.

 

[goodguy]

Buy the smaller, lighter, HANDIER 16-35 f/4 VR-Nikkor for a little under $1,000 on the current $300 rebate!!!! If you want a D610, sure. But skip on the 14-24.

Sorry Derrel I am a bit confused why skip the 14-24mm ?
From what I understand only 2 negatives of this lens is that it is very expensive and will not take filters.

 

[ratssass]

i don't understand the 18-250 macro for canon....i would decide my body first.....lol

 

[Parker219]

Maybe the 2mm difference not worth 1 k?

 

[robbins.photo]

Maybe the 2mm difference not worth 1 k?

My God man, that's insanity. Of course it's worth the 1k difference. You won't have to move your camera 2 mm closer, or further away.. or.. well, 2 mm! Think about that. Ok, granted I have no idea how far that is in a real unit of measure not used by space aliens but it sounds like an awful lot to me!

Lol

 

[71M]

I'd assume with any of these zooms, the sweet spot is around middle focal lengths, stopped down a bit...but then again, with raw and software, less of a problem.

 

[Derrel]

Buy the smaller, lighter, HANDIER 16-35 f/4 VR-Nikkor for a little under $1,000 on the current $300 rebate!!!! If you want a D610, sure. But skip on the 14-24.

Sorry Derrel I am a bit confused why skip the 14-24mm ?
From what I understand only 2 negatives of this lens is that it is very expensive and will not take filters.

Not quite. The 14-24 flares a lot. It's HUGE, and heavy, and it has a limited range...the 14-24 is almost useless for people work, where the 16-35 has a much broader range (in angular view) than the 14-24. The 16-35 has VR, for better panning shots, and for stabilization when shooting in the wind, one-handed, aboard boats, in cars, or in windy conditions.

The difference between 24mm on the top end and 35mm is 24,28,35mm...three recognized lens lengths that are useful on FF. The 14-24 is a wide-to-wide..it has first gear and second gear...and that's "it".

The 16-35 is a wide to wide, and a wide to semi-wide (28mm),and a wide to semi-normal (35mm)...it has first,second,third, AND fourth gears...

Filters, VR, better ,wider focal length range, smaller, lighter,less-conspicuous, half the price, equal sharpness for the 16-35 VR.

 

[grafxman]

I've shot thousands of photos with my Sigma 18-250mm macro and I love it to bits. I used it on my Canon 7D for all of my museum photos and many of my zoo and aquarium photos. It's never ever let me down.

 

[goodguy]

Buy the smaller, lighter, HANDIER 16-35 f/4 VR-Nikkor for a little under $1,000 on the current $300 rebate!!!! If you want a D610, sure. But skip on the 14-24.

Sorry Derrel I am a bit confused why skip the 14-24mm ?
From what I understand only 2 negatives of this lens is that it is very expensive and will not take filters.

Not quite. The 14-24 flares a lot. It's HUGE, and heavy, and it has a limited range...the 14-24 is almost useless for people work, where the 16-35 has a much broader range (in angular view) than the 14-24. The 16-35 has VR, for better panning shots, and for stabilization when shooting in the wind, one-handed, aboard boats, in cars, or in windy conditions.

The difference between 24mm on the top end and 35mm is 24,28,35mm...three recognized lens lengths that are useful on FF. The 14-24 is a wide-to-wide..it has first gear and second gear...and that's "it".

The 16-35 is a wide to wide, and a wide to semi-wide (28mm),and a wide to semi-normal (35mm)...it has first,second,third, AND fourth gears...

Filters, VR, better ,wider focal length range, smaller, lighter,less-conspicuous, half the price, equal sharpness for the 16-35 VR.

Yep you make a strong case there to go with the 16-35mm VR and I did forget how big and heavy the 14-24mm is.
Thank you

 

[Parker219]

Well as of right now it is 8 votes for YES and 9 votes for either NO or change something about my order.