Nikon lenses - is there an alternative?

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, currently run a selection of Nikon lenses but as I'm gettin a kit paid for by work (as posted about previously), I want some ideas.

I've asked for a 24-70mm f/2.8, a 60mm macro and a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR to complement my own 12-24 f/4 to be used on a D300. I opted for the Nikon's because they seem to be something of a benchmark. The 24-70mm is hard to get hold of at the moment I'm told but nonetheless, it's a good set-up that i think will work.

However, I do have to provide a 'cost effective' but high quality alternative so I was looking at the 24-85mm f/2.8-4 and the 16mm f/2.8 for the wide-to-mid zoom length. What are the non-Nikon alternatives like? I see a lot of plus points said about the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF and the EX versions - are there any others alternatives I should consider?
 
If your remit is ultimately to produce the best images the most cost effective way then go Nikon. From a purely financial point of view the Nikon glass will hold it's value, Sigma lenses lose their value like yesterday's newspaper.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Example...?
Click to expand...

the sigmonster? :P

I'm very happy with the tamron 17-50 f2.8, and sigma 70-200 f2.8, and the best ultrawide angle is meant to be the tokina 11-16 f2.8... that is the 'holy trinity' of offbrand lenses really, and costs (new) in total about the same as just one of the lenses you've listed...

on the other hand, at the end of the day... you're shooting professionally, and need to get the best images possible... beancounters will be beancounters mind...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Sigma lenses lose their value like yesterday's newspaper.
Click to expand...
Wish that was really the case, coming from some one who's been looking at and buying second hand lenses for a while.
Having said that, personally if I could afford it, I'd go for the Nikon glass, but then I'm only an amateur and do not have a business reliant on it.
 
dapprman said:
Wish that was really the case, coming from some one who's been looking at and buying second hand lenses for a while.
Having said that, personally if I could afford it, I'd go for the Nikon glass, but then I'm only an amateur and do not have a business reliant on it.
Click to expand...


Okay, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 new from Jessops just over £2300, secondhand value at 3 months old? £1100

That's a fairly serious loss if you ask me....
 
Nikon lenses will be compatible with all future bodies. The longevity of the lenses and their reliability should also be taken into account, plus the higher contrast and overall image quality.

If you want to get it past the beancounters, just tell them the cost of renting something while you get the "alternative" repaired, plus the cost of the repair.

In business, down time from any tool is something that has to be factored in....they save £300 on the lenses, then miss the rpint slot because you can't get a job done on the allotted day because of th e"cheap lens letting you down". How much does it cost to re-schedule the print run?

Might be worth a go.

Same as with your price for work done or about to be done, don't drop it just because someone sucks in through their teeth - justify it.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Okay, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 new from Jessops just over £2300, secondhand value at 3 months old? £1100

That's a fairly serious loss if you ask me....
Click to expand...

Most pro lenses are heavily overpriced at that retailer (see Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 580EX mkII)

Edit: on the other hand, I can see Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 still holds value, while all Sigma lenses of that age had been long forgotten. For Canon mount Sigma is a very risky purchase.
 
daugirdas said:
Most pro lenses are heavily overpriced at that retailer (see Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 580EX mkII)
Click to expand...


Even if it had been bought at the next cheapest retailer it would still have been an £800 drop :shrug:

The 580 is only 33 quid more at Jessops than the cheapest retailer, according to cpb, I'd hardly call that "heavily overpriced", the 70-200 is a bit pricey mind you :lol:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Example...?
Click to expand...

Depends when one bought the lens,but my 3-8 certainly has not dropped in value.Granted,if one bought one now,then maybe the drop would be significant.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Okay, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 new from Jessops just over £2300, secondhand value at 3 months old? £1100

That's a fairly serious loss if you ask me....
Click to expand...
Well for zoom lenses it's the opposite. On eBay and in the camera shop adverts, lenses like the 18-50 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 27-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, all go for not much less than original cost. Same for comparable Tokina and Tamron.
 
dapprman said:
Well for zoom lenses it's the opposite. On eBay and in the camera shop adverts, lenses like the 18-50 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 27-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, all go for not much less than original cost. Same for comparable Tokina and Tamron.
Click to expand...


The opposite to a loss would be a gain, so are you saying the lenses you've highlighted are worth more secondhand than new? :naughty:

If the original buyer had opted for a 120-300 over the 300 then it would still have lost between £600-£1000 over the same period, going by Ebay prices and also you can't equate what a shop will ask for a secondhand item with what the original owner will get paid for it when the shop buys it in...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The opposite to a loss would be a gain, so are you saying the lenses you've highlighted are worth more secondhand than new? :naughty:

If the original buyer had opted for a 120-300 over the 300 then it would still have lost between £600-£1000 over the same period, going by Ebay prices and also you can't equate what a shop will ask for a secondhand item with what the original owner will get paid for it when the shop buys it in...
Click to expand...
If you bought pre-March then yes (even if that's not what I meant :p) - I know I could make 30% profit on my Nikon fit Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (but then would have to spend the new value to replace it ...)
 
dapprman said:
If you bought pre-March then yes (even if that's not what I meant :p) - I know I could make 30% profit on my Nikon fit Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (but then would have to spend the new value to replace it ...)
Click to expand...

You'll need to explain what you do mean, as from what you've said so far it appears that secondhand zoom lenses are worth more than new ones, without taking price rises into account. I also believe the op was talking about pro-grade lenses, no disrespect, but the Tamron 70-200 doesn't really fall into that category ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top