£1500 to spend - what would you buy?....

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
For a bit of fun I'm wondering what to spend £1500 on.

Current line-up is:

D2X
12-24 f/4
17-50mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8
60mm macro f/2.8
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.8
SB800
SB28
SB28DX

Thing is i'll be getting a £1500 per annum allowance from my employer soon to cover the cost of buying my own equipment and I really don't know what to blow it on.

Suppose the key thing would be a longer lens than my 80-200mm; and f/4 300mm Nikon would be a good idea but I've seen several Sigma 300m f/2.8s knocking around on ebay for around £800. The other thing would be a fisheye, probably a 10.5mm f/2.8 Nikon. Could probably get the both for around £1200.

Or I could could chip in a get a used D3 body for £2K.

The other option i was looking at was a 14-24mm. Pricey i know, but it offers me that faster max aperture over the 12-24mm (albeit with 2mm of zoom lost) and better IQ. What are people's ideas about the 14-24mm - one thing I've always wanted more from my 12-24mm is a closer focusing distance and less fringing in strong sunlight.

Decision, decisions!! :)
 
What things do you usually shoot?

It does look like you have a good range of high quality lenses and flashes covered, so the D3 /D700looks like a good choice.

Alternatively just hang-on to it to cover repairs and upgrades when you actually want something particularly. (unless there are restrictions on how you can spend it)
 
Blue eagle, forgot to mention - I do magazine stuff for a publisher of angling mags. The investment will predominately be for use on mags; I don't shoot wildlife personally so don't need a long lens other than for work, but 200mm just ain't long enough. Wider lenses will be more of interest for my personal photography along with work shoots.

The problem I have with the long lenses available for Nikon at the moment is that there's realistically only the 300mm f/4 that's affordable. The 400mm f/4 is three years worth of money and the 80-400mm is good but just not what I want to invest in (have used one before and it was good but not so good I'd buy one).
When Nikon come out with a better 80-400mm that has faster AF then I may be interested but for the moment a prime seems to me a better buy, hence the interest in the Siggy 300mm.

Regarding restrictions; they're footing the bill for any major repairs, spare batteries, CF cards, filters and flash batteries. The money is putely to allow me to buy equipment and upgrade as time progresses.

I was looking at the 17-55mm f/2.8 at one point as a sharp, reliable all-round lens (to replace the Tamron) but that was before I realised that's DX-only; obviously if I go FX (which I inevitably will) then the 12-24 and the 17-50 will have to go, which is why the 14-24mm is appleaing. That said there's also the idea of a 17-35... jeez, this is getting messy!!! :)
 
If you want to go full frame, a D700 or possibly a 2nd hand D3. You'll probably need to chip in a couple of hundred for either option but that's a lot easier to swallow when somebody else is covering £1,500 of the cost. Of course, at least one of your lenses is Dx so would need upgrading unless you'ld be happy using it on an Fx body on Dx mode.
 
I think you've already identified the issue "...200mm just ain't long enough." If it's for what you get paid for doing, then you need the right kit surely. Go for a telephoto.
 
Know what I'd get if it were me, EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM, 1.4x and 2x tele-converters. Pretty much the only piece of kit I could do with that I can't afford...not that I can afford much recently anyway :bonk: But then I'm not shooting Nikon so ignore me :)
 
if you need LONGER lenses, then going full frame is just going to cost you even more money as you 'reclaim' the difference in fov between crop and FX.

The 14-24 is by all accounts stunning, however it is very expensive.

Sigma 300mm 2.8 or 120-300 2.8 would likely be a good choice for your longer lens stuff, seems a good investment, and end of the day you need it to do the job.

I honestly can't justify or find sufficient reason to go to a 17-55 2.8 over the tamron 17-50, it's excellent but by no means 3* (second hand) build quality better than the tamron, and basically identical in terms of the pictures that come out the back of it.

300 2.8 £850
fisheye - either nikon or tokina 10-17 zoom £350
for a better UWA, you could sell the 12-24 and get the tokina 11-16 2.8? would be pretty much cost neutral.
maybe change the old sb's for sb800's, cls is amazing - cost would be about 250 total
 
Sigma 120-300 2.8
 
itsdavedotnet, totally agree about the 17-55 Vs the 17-50 looking at it now, especially as the Nikon won't transfer over to FX in the long run.

The 300mm f/4 was always the first choice long lens because A) it's a prime and B) it's the only cheap thing Nikon do in the telephoto sector. That 120-300 sounds interesting though, although ti's then encroaching on my 80-200mm for space in the bag. Might look further into that.

The Siggy 300mm f/2.8 still keeps flagging up in the back of my mind as a potential good buy - just don't know enough about them.

looked at the 14-24 online today and it's just soooo much money, I just couldn't justify getting it when i could get a telephoto AND a fisheye AND a used flashgun for the same money.

"....for a better UWA, you could sell the 12-24 and get the tokina 11-16 2.8? would be pretty much cost neutral..."

Don't know much about the 11-16 either, although I guess from the number of votes it gets in threads that it's good. Had a brief glance at it in a shop but haven't had a serious play with it on the D2X. Think the Tokina stand might be a good place to start when i hit Focus@NEC in a fortnight :)

On the CLS thing: need to see it in action with my own eyes to see if it's worth investing further into. I like the SB800*–*I'm used to it – plus they're a bit more compact than the SB900, which i think might be overkill for what I want. Could be a potential good investment but think the Skyports will stay for now - glass is where it's at for me in my heart of hearts :)
 
Sigma 300 2.8 prime sucks like a vacuum cleaner.

Thats why its cheap!
 
I'd spend it on the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 , if you're getting good enough results with your current body the lens will be a much wiser investment.

If you want a prime the Nikon 300mm f/4 is excellent and a lot lighter but you lose the flexibility of the zoom.
 
It is a little difficult to say what YOU would benefit from most as it is very personal be if I had YOUR kit now and had £1500 a year to upgrade it this is what I would do.

You have a D2x which is a brilliant camera and although a few years old is still quite capable but I would be tempted to blow most of the £1500 on a full frame D700.

This would leave you with maybe £200. You have a decent enough collection of lenses and several of these will really work well on the D700 ( I know as I have a 50mm and 80-200mm)...

For a little more reach I just bought a Kenko PRO 300 DG 1.4TC on ebay for £59, this works REALLY well with the 80-200 and would still leave about £140

From memory isn't the 12-24f4 a crop lens?? If so I would probably sell this and add the £140 and try and get a full frame lens of the same range. You are not going to have enough for the Nikon but what about a Sigma 12-24, I am sure that they have a FF lens of that range that you should be able to afford.

Then next year I would be looking at a AFS 24-70 f2.8 :love:
 
King_Boru said:
Not the ones I've used. They have been pretty darn good. Any particular reason for your statement?
Click to expand...

Oh just the honest professional opinion of my trusted local glass merchant (who sells the things, but is honest with me)
 
You can very nearly get a 70-200 f2.8 VRII for that right now.
 
specialman said:
On the CLS thing: need to see it in action with my own eyes to see if it's worth investing further into. I like the SB800*–*I'm used to it – plus they're a bit more compact than the SB900, which i think might be overkill for what I want. Could be a potential good investment but think the Skyports will stay for now - glass is where it's at for me in my heart of hearts :)
Click to expand...

Give it a shot, even if you just buy one sb600 on here to have a play with and sell it on for no real loss other than the postage (though don't keep it, the 600 is a pain to trigger with skyports for when you do need radios, and not built as well as the 800)

I'm a full manual shooter when it comes to light at heart, but for editorial stuff, particularly what you do, it's really fantastic, and not just a triggering system but all the metering and automatic-ness of it is just fantastic...great to be able to just throw the flash in the right direction and the metering system do the rest. Imo the 'problems' with using it outdoors are over hyped, and you can always bash your commander unit on a TTL cord if that helps, also giving you another light off camera.

I'm sure some assistant from nikon will happily talk your ear off about it at focus, and I'd really advise you to have a play, it makes life easy for quick portraits etc, particularly on location. Makes setup / pack down time quicker too. You can still connect the skyports to the pc sync socket, so no issues there if you need radio triggering, or 3 flashes (for cls, you'll need one on camera in commander mode)

Don't need sb900's, they're slightly easier to change mode on, but I prefer the smaller size of the 800's too.

Even rockwell raved about the tokina 11-16 o_0 which says something to me tbh...
 
itsdavedotnet said:
the 600 is a pain to trigger with skyports for when you do need radios
Click to expand...

Sorry to drag this off topic, but why do you say that? It doesn't have a PC Sync port, but a hotshoe adapter fixes that (for a few HK dollars) - no different to a Canon flash (unless you have an 580EXII where they have finally woken up :D)
 
I think someone's got it in for me - been on a shoot today. Took two shots, packed the gear away, moved venue and when I came to get the kit out again the D2X isn't working. Focussing screen has fallen out and all my lenses won't open up - everything's stopped down to minimum aperture so focussing is knackered and metering is pants!!

It's on its way to fixation now so hopefully the repair bill won't be too much and I can have it back for monday. Proper f***ed off :(
 
desantnik said:
Sigma 300 2.8 prime sucks like a vacuum cleaner.

Thats why its cheap!
Click to expand...

I find mine stunning, not THAT cheap either. maybe I just got lucky with a sharp good copy.....



ON TOPIC- if it were me who had Nikon kit and £1500 to spend then I would go for a D3 body
 
Sounds like the tab that operates the aperture ring on the non-G lenses has snapped - quite common fault on Nikon bodies it seems :(
 
Love the D700 as I do, it's not much good if you're after more reach. So, Nikon 300mm f4, or D300.
 
ouch...maybe spend some of the £1500 on a D200 body (about £400inc grip) as a backup camera, so you can always get the job done?
 
desantnik said:
Sounds like the tab that operates the aperture ring on the non-G lenses has snapped - quite common fault on Nikon bodies it seems :(
Click to expand...

Think that's what it is. Hopefully a quick turnaround :)

itsdavedotnet said:
ouch...maybe spend some of the £1500 on a D200 body (about £400inc grip) as a backup camera, so you can always get the job done?
Click to expand...

Just sold one two months ago - hindsight is a wonderful thing!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top