Selling Things for Full-Frame.. Ideas?

[D-B-J]

I do want the 85 1.4 D lens .. That's the only 1.4 that I want

I love my 85 1.8G--it's a wonderful lens.



Also, interesting fact, I looked through all my images and the ones with the sigma were all shot at 17mm or 50mm.. the extremes.

 

[D-B-J]

Or I could always get a 17-35 2.8... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

[Tailgunner]

Or I could always get a 17-35 2.8... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I rented a 17-35mm prior to buying my 18-35mm and I wasn't too impressed. The reviews I read was mixed, some love it, some don't. It seems to have a equal issue...sometimes turning into a scream and sometimes ending in a bad motor. Since it's been discontinued, I was afraid I would have issues getting it fixed in the future if needed worked on.

You should really read the reviews for the new 18-35mm. It holds up to the 16-35mm and 17-35mm quite well.

http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm

 

[D-B-J]

Or I could always get a 17-35 2.8... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I rented a 17-35mm prior to buying my 18-35mm and I wasn't too impressed. The reviews I read was mixed, some love it, some don't. It seems to have a equal issue...sometimes turning into a scream and sometimes ending in a bad motor. Since it's been discontinued, I was afraid I would have issues getting it fixed in the future if needed worked on.

You should really read the reviews for the new 18-35mm. It holds up to the 16-35mm and 17-35mm quite well.

Oh I didn't even notice it was discontinued. I think I'll end up with the 16-35, and in a few months pick up a 20 or 24mil 1.8/1.4 prime.

Jake

 

[Tailgunner]

If you got the coin for a 16-35mm, why not consider the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8? The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is exceptional from what I've read. I thought serious about it my self, still thinking about it but it weighs 2 lbs.

 

[D-B-J]

If you got the coin for a 16-35mm, why not consider the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8? The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is exceptional from what I've read. I thought serious about it my self, still thinking about it but it weighs 2 lbs.

Because it can't accept standard 77mm filters (making the thousand or more dollars of my Lee system useless), and 24 is shorter than 35.

 

[astroNikon]

If you got the coin for a 16-35mm, why not consider the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8? The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is exceptional from what I've read. I thought serious about it my self, still thinking about it but it weighs 2 lbs.

I think he said that "Lee" said no .... the square filter Lee ...

 

[astroNikon]

by the way, to start things off I'll give you $1500 for your d800 !!
a good start to get money to buy lenses.

 

[D-B-J]

by the way, to start things off I'll give you $1500 for your d800 !!
a good start to get money to buy lenses.

Money for lenses for a camera I won't have?

 

[Tailgunner]

If you got the coin for a 16-35mm, why not consider the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8? The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is exceptional from what I've read. I thought serious about it my self, still thinking about it but it weighs 2 lbs.

Because it can't accept standard 77mm filters (making the thousand or more dollars of my Lee system useless), and 24 is shorter than 35.

OIC, Lee filters makes a holder for the Nikon 14-24 but it still comes up 11mm short.

 

[D-B-J]

If you got the coin for a 16-35mm, why not consider the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8? The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is exceptional from what I've read. I thought serious about it my self, still thinking about it but it weighs 2 lbs.

Because it can't accept standard 77mm filters (making the thousand or more dollars of my Lee system useless), and 24 is shorter than 35.

OIC, Lee filters makes a holder for the Nikon 14-24 but it still comes up 11mm short.

And that holder uses larger/different filters than i have

 

[runnah]

Why do you need an UWA that is 2.8?

I personally feel that it's a bit of a waste of money.

 

[D-B-J]

Why do you need an UWA that is 2.8?

I personally feel that it's a bit of a waste of money.

I don't. At all.

 

[runnah]

I don't. At all.

Really? Maybe we shoot differently but I am not concerned about dof when shooting ultra wide. I am also normally shooting off a tripod when in low light. Plus with the d800 the ISO could make up some of the difference in stops.

I do like 2.8 for the middle and high focal lengths but for uwa is just seems unnecessary.

 

[astroNikon]

Because it can't accept standard 77mm filters (making the thousand or more dollars of my Lee system useless), and 24 is shorter than 35.

OIC, Lee filters makes a holder for the Nikon 14-24 but it still comes up 11mm short.

And that holder uses larger/different filters than i have

Okay , I'll give you $300 for your Lee system.

Yeah, I'm cheap.