Woohoo, another help me spend my money thread...

[Aloicious]

I've looked at the 120-300 before and it seems like a solid lens (especially if it's the OS version which seems to get better reviews than the older non OS one), but I absolutely LOVE my 24-70 and 70-200vr2...if you're sold on the 120-300, I think you'll probably enjoy it, I don't know if you're still looking at the 17-35. but for kids/wedding, I would think a 24-70 would be much more useful, especially since they're in a similar price range. still nice and wide, perhaps not quite as much, but much more useful on the long end. I don't do weddings, but for my work, I find that I'm using the 24-70 much more than I originally anticipated when I purchased it.

either way, when you get that 120-300 you should do a small review on it, I'd like to see how you like it.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I've looked at the 120-300 before and it seems like a solid lens (especially if it's the OS version which seems to get better reviews than the older non OS one), but I absolutely LOVE my 24-70 and 70-200vr2...if you're sold on the 120-300, I think you'll probably enjoy it, I don't know if you're still looking at the 17-35. but for kids/wedding, I would think a 24-70 would be much more useful, especially since they're in a similar price range. still nice and wide, perhaps not quite as much, but much more useful on the long end. I don't do weddings, but for my work, I find that I'm using the 24-70 much more than I originally anticipated when I purchased it.

either way, when you get that 120-300 you should do a small review on it, I'd like to see how you like it.

I'll certainly end up posting a review. For now, yes, I am still considering the 17-35. Since I already have the 35-70, it would allow me to get another focal length instead of just upgrading the one I have. We'll see how I feel when the money is in the checking account.

 

[Aloicious]

oh, I didn't realize you already actually had the 35-70....you might also consider the 16-35, its f4, but from what I understand, if you don't need the full f2.8, it's just as good or better in optical quality and a good amount less expensive. has VR too...just food for thought.

 

[Kerbouchard]

So, after going back and forth, pretty much deciding on the 24-70/70-200 route, I finally got my money, and low and behold, a 17-35 2.8 and a Sigma 120-300 2.8 were both posted on Craigslist for good prices. Only really got to shoot them when testing the lenses, but my God, at 300 2.8 the background just melts away. Lens does backfocus a bit, but set it to -4 and it's perfect. No regrets at all.

On the 17-35 2.8, I do have a bad feeling about it. It has the notorious 'squeaky' focus when first using it. A couple of times through the full focus and it's fine, but it does squeak the first two or three times. It was almost a deal breaker for me, but he knocked a few hundred off of the price, so got it for a great deal. From looking the issue up, some say it is a non-issue and some say it is. Seems to be a fairly common thing with this lens with most reports saying it doesn't effect anything.

In any case, a homerun on the Sigma and I guess I'll have to wait and see on the Nikon.