Changing most of my lens lineup... thoughts?

[Messiah Khan]

I am hopefully soon to add some serious heavy artillery to my lens lineup; A 500mm f4 VR (Or maybe a 600mm), and I am excited by the idea. However it is also making me rething my entire lens lineup. At the moment I have;

Sigma 10-20mm HSM
Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM
Nikon 60mm f2.8 AF-S Micro
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR
Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM Macro
Sigma 300mm f2.8 HSM
Sigma 1.4X TC

As you can see, most of my lenses are Sigma. While i love many of the lenses, and they have all done me proud, I am considering changing them for Nikon equivalents and shuffling some focal lengths about etc. So I'm thinking of ending up with;

Nikon 12-24mm f4 or 10-24mm f3.5-4.5
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR
Nikon 60mm f2.8 AF-S Micro (Actually the Girlfriends lens, so staying)
Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR
Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S
Nikon 500mm f4 AF-S VR
TC-14E II
TC-17E II

At the moment I will be using all the lenses on my D300, so DX lenses are fine. But It's a shame that Nikon don't do a ultra wide zoom FX which is smaller then the 14-24 and can take filters. Something like a 14-24mm f4 would be nice. So either the Nikon 12-24mm f4 or 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 it is. Any thoughts? Im thinking the 12-24mm at the moment.

At the moment I use the 30mm f1.4 as my walkabout, but I want to add the 24-70mm f2.8, so this would become my walkabout. I may add a small fast prime for low light, but I think this could wait for a while, and I eventually want the 85mm f1.4, so that would serve the purpose.

Right, the long primes is where it will mainly change. At the moment my wildlife lens is the Sigma 300mm f2.8 with 1.4X TC. This will hopefully change to the Nikon 500mm f4 with 1.4X and 1.7X TCs. I would still like a 300mm for birds in flight and sports etc. However carrying a 500mm f4 and a 300mm f2.8 would be too heavy and bulky, so im thinking of swapping the Sigma 300mm f2.8 for the Nikon 300mm f4. I could then also add extension tubes and make a great setup for dragonflies and larger insects.

Which just leaves my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. I love this lens, and it was the first lens I bought. But if I was using the Nikon 300mm f4 for dragonflies etc, then the 150mm would be used less, and the reach of the macro wouldn't be needed as much. So I'm thinking either just use the girlfriends 60mm, or get a 105mm VR instead. Would be hard for me to part with, but it would be the last step to go to an all Nikon setup. While I have nothing against 3rd party manufacturers, and they make some great lenses (I have been happy with all mine), my D300 has issues with them when trying to do focus adjustment, as it just sees all the sigma lenses as one lens. The Nikon lenses would also hold their value better.

Any thoughts or ideas on this plan? I think my selling my existing lenses, I should be able to make the transfer without too much :biggrin:expense (well, bar the cost of the 500VR anyway. )

 

[grumpybadger]

Thought it was a 600?

Anyway, main input is that I had a 300/2.8 and a 500/4 and one had to go as it was too much kit. So, the 300 went in a heartbeat. If you use your 300 with a 1.4 a lot of the time then really it is a 420/4.

I keep weighing up a 300/4 prime. They are as you say a great choice for BiF

 

[fracster]

To be honest mate,I sold some Nikon stuff to go to Sigma,simply because,for what I do,the big zooms in the Sigma range appeal a lot more. I spent ages mulling between a 600 F4 or the 3-800 Sigma.For flexibility the Sigma won.

Wether that was the right choice or not,who knows,but since adding the 120-300 sigma,I have the majority of what I photograph for pleasure,covered by two lenses.

Just my thrupenny bit.......

 

[Martyn...]

The 300 f4 is indeed a versatile lens, with a close focus of 5' works nicely for dragonflies, as well as birds in flight, takes the 1.4TC well, nicely balanced lens on the D300. In fact I use this for insects more than I do my 105VR, as you have a greater working distance from the subject.

12-24 Nikkor sharp and great colours, love mine.

 

[Xup]

Think Id go for droping the 300 and 500-F4, and just go for the 400 f/2.8 and use tc's when needed.

 

[grumpybadger]

problem is that 400/2.8 doesn't fulfil the role. It's as nearly as heavy as both combined, doesn't have the reach of the 500, which means you would be relying on tele's all the time and is too heavy for handholding for BiF.

Might be a good plane lens. It's certainly a good sport lens, but its not a wildlife lens

 

[Messiah Khan]

Thanks for the replies.

Thought it was a 600?

It still might be, but I've been considering all the options, and the 500mm f4 VR seems like the most flexible and sensible option. My heart still says the 600mm f4 VR, but my head is telling me that the 500mm would make more sense. I've read every review and looked at every picture I can get my hands on, but I think I now need to get myself to a dealer that has both in stock and play with them both.

To be honest mate,I sold some Nikon stuff to go to Sigma,simply because,for what I do,the big zooms in the Sigma range appeal a lot more. I spent ages mulling between a 600 F4 or the 3-800 Sigma.For flexibility the Sigma won.

Wether that was the right choice or not,who knows,but since adding the 120-300 sigma,I have the majority of what I photograph for pleasure,covered by two lenses.

Just my thrupenny bit.......

Thanks for the idea. The Sigma 300-800mm is actually one that was on the top of my list for ages. I agree that the flexibility of a zoom would be great, and I have no doube the IQ is very good as well. But a Nikon prime is likely going to have even better IQ, faster AF and hold it's value even better.

The 300 f4 is indeed a versatile lens, with a close focus of 5' works nicely for dragonflies, as well as birds in flight, takes the 1.4TC well, nicely balanced lens on the D300. In fact I use this for insects more than I do my 105VR, as you have a greater working distance from the subject.

12-24 Nikkor sharp and great colours, love mine.

Yeah, the 300mm f4 is very tempting. What sort of mangnification can you get using tubes? Any idea how well it copes with the 1.7X or 2X converters?

Working out the finances, and I may have to leave the super wide swap for a while, as the 12-24 is a scary price show. I would also be happier waiting for a FX compatible lens, just incase I go that route eventually.

Think Id go for droping the 300 and 500-F4, and just go for the 400 f/2.8 and use tc's when needed.

That's not an option I'm afraid. The 400/2.8 is just too heavy and short. At the moment I use a 420 f4 setup which I find too short. So the 400/2.8 would have to be used with converters all the time, which I would rather avoid. Ideally I need a 600/4 or 800/5.6 with the weight and size of a 500/4.

 

[Werecow]

I've got canon gear so i'm probably not much help, but i went with the 500 F4 purely because i find it a really nice lens to use hand-held for birds in flight compared to the 600. The 600 just crossed the line into "awkward b*gger" territory

Have you considered the 200-400 F4? It's supposed to be fantastic.

Also i love the combination of my 500 and 100-400 lenses for flexibility though people say the nikon 80-400 is a bit slow focussing in comparison.

 

[pragmatist]

When you talk about wildlife is it mostly avian or larger? I say this because for small birds the 600 with 1.4 tc is a real winner or in your case with the 1.7tc.
I have used the 500 and find it a tad short whereas my 600 even with 1.4 can sometimes fall short but in general is a superb lens so don't discount the 600mm

 

[HoppyUK]

I would just say that I think wholesale change such as you've listed is dangerous! I would start with just one really important lens that you have clear need for, and just start with that. See then how other options fall around it in practise.

And I would much rather have the 17-55 2.8 than the 24-70 2.8 unless you are moving to full frame almost immediately. That would be my key choice lens.

 

[OneTen]

Ali, I wouldn't be worrying about your lens line up, you have the one thing that money can't buy...TALENT! That combined with your commitment, you're on to a winner no matter what you decide.

...pass me a sick bucket!

 

[Miss McT]

Ali, I wouldn't be worrying about your lens line up, you have the one thing that money can't buy...TALENT! That combined with your commitment, you're on to a winner no matter what you decide.

...pass me a sick bucket!

I agree wholeheartedly. It's his talent that produces those stunning shots, not just the glass . Though I guess I would agree anyway given that my other half wants to spend all our money . Oh the trials and tribulations of being a tog wifey

 

[specialman]

Nikon 12-24mm f4 or 10-24mm f3.5-4.5
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR
Nikon 60mm f2.8 AF-S Micro (Actually the Girlfriends lens, so staying)
Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR
Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S
Nikon 500mm f4 AF-S VR
TC-14E II
TC-17E II

My humble opinion...

Nikon or the Tokina a 12-24 - both great, both well built.

24-70 + 70-200 - go for it. If I had the cash they'd be first on my list.

I've been looking at the 60mm - I like the size and weight of a 60mm over a 90/100/105mm and it gives great results

The long lenses I know naff all about - reckon if you can afford them then go for it