Calling All NAS Enablers, Need Help - Update: Decision Made

[annnewjerz]

I'm in trouble. I have managed to really keep my NAS under control these past five months as a result of saving for our upcoming trip(s) to WDW. But I'm getting the itch again and I don't know if I'll be able to deal with it much longer.

Here's my situation (it's a little wordy, but what's new?).

I was thinking about renting the 10.5 fisheye for our October trip and the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 & Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for our trip in December since these are all lenses I have an interest in maybe purchasing down the road. Total, it would be almost $300 to rent these for the 10-day period including shipping and insurance.

Right now on KEH, I can get a Nikon 105 f/2.8 AIS (bargain rating I believe, which I'm fine with) for $200. I have always loved the "look" of the shots Jeff has posted with his, they have a sort of dream-like quality to them. My only hesitation is the lack of metering with my D90. Side note: Would this be a huge deal in normal ourdoor well-lit conditions?? I would just get a meter reading with another lens and then swap them out and manually set the aperture and shutter speed, and oh yeah---shoot in RAW so I could fix my mistakes later.

The more I use the primes I do have (the Sigma 30, the Nikon 50 and the Nikon 60) the more I like them and find myself using the 18-200 less, so I figured the 105 would be a nice addition, right??

So---would you a) rent the 3 lenses for $300 or b)buy the 105 and rent a wide angle for December only?

 

[Suburbanmom]

LOL - You have quite a problem, don't you! LOL
I'd buy the 105 and rent the wide angle. A lens you can keep is always better than 2 you have to return.

 

[dmccarty]

I would recommend the 105mm/F 2.8 D lens but not sure I would say the same with AIS. I have the 105mm/F2.8D lens and it gets used frequently. It is used for taking photos of my kids soccer games. A 80-200 zoom would be better and I might buy one but the 105 fits the size of the fields where the kids are playing soccer. A 180mm is a tad long most of the time.

Having a micro lens, a tripod, remote release and a good ball head really opens up a lot of photography around the house. I have a paper box full of Kodachromes of flowers. One day I will get them scanned, printed and framed.

You might want to wait for a 105 D lens to show up on the market. I really don't understand a macro lens with VR. VR does not stop the movement of the flower in the wind. If VR COULD stop the movement then it would be worth the money! I have spent more time than I care to think about setting up a photo and then waiting for the wind to stop....

VR could help of course if the lens is not use for close ups.

Later,
Dan

 

[spinetnglr]

PM sent .. I am an enabler of the worst kind

 

[Gdad]

Oh sure- blame me for your NAS...

You know I love my 105 AI-S- it's far and away my personal favorite macro between the 105 AF-D, the 105 AF-S VR, and the Sigma 150, all of which I have owned and sold- but I think the metering thing would be a pain honestly. If I got it I would definitely not be swapping lenses to meter- I would just guesstimate the exposure and adjust by the histogram. But I never had one when I used an incompatible camera so I don't know for sure.

 

[Gdad]

Okay- out of curiosity I threw it on the D40 went outside and took a wild guess at the settings- late afternoon shade- ISO400-f8-1/125 was a little dark- 1/100 looked pretty good exposure wise. I guess metering is not all that tough.

 

[Chikabowa]

I personally haven't necessarily been enthralled with he 105mm when I've rented it. I found it searching for focus more often than being reliable. Plus the lack of a meter would drive me insane, even though like Jeff, I can guesstimate pretty well.

But with that said... I've wasted more money renting lenses long-term (7-10 days) and I pretty much refuse to do it anymore. It made me sick when I realized that I could have purchased my 70-200mm lens with the money that I had spent renting it for various reasons.

So my suggestion would be to set up an account at a local pro-shop that rents lenses (if you have one, otherwise, do it online) and rent each one of those lenses for a couple of days. I know my local shop, if you pick it up after 3pm on Friday and return by 10am on Monday, you are only charged a one-day rental (which usually ranges between $10-35).

I would purchase the lens you know you want (the 105mm) and then rent the others and figure out if you want to buy them from that. I know you probably want them for Disney... but could you buy one of them for $300?? If so, buy it, if you hate it, it won't loose much value and you can sell it!

 

[YesDear]

Jeff at least it is better you get blamed. It is usually me!

My personal belief is I would probably not get the 105. Great lens, but for all the other things you need I mean want, I would quell that desire and save for a 10.5.

But that is me.

You do not want to know how I have been feeding my photo needs recently. At least the economy is happier!

 

[Quicklabs]

I hate to participate in your NAS, but since you asked and I COULDN"T refuse, and you knew I would have to weigh in (payback for your enabling ways!!! LOL)
As for the fish--I'm thinking there's a steep learning curve on that one. And while Disney has some great potential fish shots, it might be more frustrating than fun on your vacation. Rent the fish some other time when you can devote 100% attention to just that one. You don't want to be futzing with all those lenses, anyway.

The 80-200. Hmmmmm-tricky call here, because I was thinking about renting the 70-200mm myself for my trip. But that's a lot of lens to lug around Disney. On the fence about this one. I'm leaning toward "no".

Now, for the Tokina. THAT has some possiblilities. Not a lot to lug around. And you could have lots of fun with crazy angles as well as being able to get close and take some really cool shots. I didn't use my 10-20 nearly enough last time. That's what I'm going to be concentrating on this trip.
So, I'm leaning toward the Tokina.

But, you called for enabling, and I haven't really enabled. Yet. So...

Don't buy the 105mm. That's $200 in your pocket. Now, if you rent the Tokina, it's what, about $60 for 10 days? OK, with the $200 SAVED on the 105 and $60 bucks for rental, you're almost halfway home on owning the sucker. BUY the Tokina. If you don't like it, you can sell it: everybody is trying to get their hands on one. You'll probably still be out no less than $100 on that. So, you're MAKING money either way. Genius, huh?

Take your 30, your 18-200 and the Tokina to Disney. What the heck, throw in the 50 as well--you can carry that baby in your pocket. You'll be travelling pretty light and have everything you need!

 

[annnewjerz]

Okay- out of curiosity I threw it on the D40 went outside and took a wild guess at the settings- late afternoon shade- ISO400-f8-1/125 was a little dark- 1/100 looked pretty good exposure wise. I guess metering is not all that tough.

I wouldn't consider it blaming you per se, more attributing my lens lust to your wonderful shots. That sounds much better, right??

Thank you so much for doing this. It's nice to see it isn't such a huge deal. I wouldn't swap out the lenses to get a meter read all the time---I just meant if I wasn't yet comfortable guessing for the first few times, I could start out with another lens, make a mental note of the settings and then swap out for an afternoon of using the 105.

Hrmmmmmmmm.....

 

[annnewjerz]

I personally haven't necessarily been enthralled with he 105mm when I've rented it. I found it searching for focus more often than being reliable. Plus the lack of a meter would drive me insane, even though like Jeff, I can guesstimate pretty well.

Thanks for the feedback Susan. Luckily, I expected this to be your response because I remember you singing the praises of the Nikon 60mm---which led to me purchase it around 6 months ago. The 105 I more as a mid-length fast telephoto lens than a macro. AND--the hunting for focus wouldn't be a problem, because it's a manual focus lens rather than auto focus.

But with that said... I've wasted more money renting lenses long-term (7-10 days) and I pretty much refuse to do it anymore. It made me sick when I realized that I could have purchased my 70-200mm lens with the money that I had spent renting it for various reasons.

I wouldn't rent anymore if I had spent enough total to buy the 70-200 either!

I would purchase the lens you know you want (the 105mm) and then rent the others and figure out if you want to buy them from that. I know you probably want them for Disney... but could you buy one of them for $300?? If so, buy it, if you hate it, it won't loose much value and you can sell it!

This was sort of my thinking. I actually don't want the 105 for Disney, just want it in general. It's just that I can only buy one of them between now and the end of the year---so with the 105 being the cheapest, it just seemed to make the most sense. For something as taste-specific as a wide angle or fisheye, I'd definitely rent for a few days first. Hopefully I can find out if there is a pro shop nearby. Never looked---but I live 45 minutes from Philadelphia so I'm sure there must be one somewhere around here. The local camera shop rents out lenses, but they don't offer any type of insurance and I just didn't get a good feeling about renting from them.

 

[annnewjerz]

Jeff at least it is better you get blamed. It is usually me!

My personal belief is I would probably not get the 105. Great lens, but for all the other things you need I mean want, I would quell that desire and save for a 10.5.

But that is me.

You do not want to know how I have been feeding my photo needs recently. At least the economy is happier!

Nope, not you this time.

I have an offer right now to borrow someone's 10.5 (cough cough KARYL ) but am not sure if I'll do it yet. If I do, I'm sure I'll want it.

But you see John, this is merely what lens should I purchase right now. With Christmas coming within the next few months, I'm sure there will be no shortage of camera-related purchases with my holiday money I can always get the 10.5 then!

I hate to participate in your NAS, but since you asked and I COULDN"T refuse, and you knew I would have to weigh in (payback for your enabling ways!!! LOL)
As for the fish--I'm thinking there's a steep learning curve on that one. And while Disney has some great potential fish shots, it might be more frustrating than fun on your vacation. Rent the fish some other time when you can devote 100% attention to just that one. You don't want to be futzing with all those lenses, anyway.

The 80-200. Hmmmmm-tricky call here, because I was thinking about renting the 70-200mm myself for my trip. But that's a lot of lens to lug around Disney. On the fence about this one. I'm leaning toward "no".

Now, for the Tokina. THAT has some possiblilities. Not a lot to lug around. And you could have lots of fun with crazy angles as well as being able to get close and take some really cool shots. I didn't use my 10-20 nearly enough last time. That's what I'm going to be concentrating on this trip.
So, I'm leaning toward the Tokina.

But, you called for enabling, and I haven't really enabled. Yet. So...

Don't buy the 105mm. That's $200 in your pocket. Now, if you rent the Tokina, it's what, about $60 for 10 days? OK, with the $200 SAVED on the 105 and $60 bucks for rental, you're almost halfway home on owning the sucker. BUY the Tokina. If you don't like it, you can sell it: everybody is trying to get their hands on one. You'll probably still be out no less than $100 on that. So, you're MAKING money either way. Genius, huh?

Take your 30, your 18-200 and the Tokina to Disney. What the heck, throw in the 50 as well--you can carry that baby in your pocket. You'll be travelling pretty light and have everything you need!

So I was confused by how you were "enabling" exactly because you kept telling me not to rent or buy ANYTHING!! Then I got to the end. Well put, Laura. So many decisions!! Unfortunately---the Tokina is going right now for like $650, so half-way there is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think

AND---this doesn't help me with my desire to buy something right now. You see? While very sound advice, very problematic because it means I still have MONTHS AND MONTHS to keep my NAS under control. I don't know if I can.

 

[YesDear]

There is something really great about NAS, this group and you!

NAS is never going away

This group is like all other groups, we have a good variety of approaches.

From what I know about you, you are going to get what you want. (That is not a bad thing) and you can use which ever opinion you need to satisfy your NAS!!!

 

[WDWFigment]

Unfortunately---the Tokina is going right now for like $650, so half-way there is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think

I agree with QuickLabs completely. The Tokina and fisheye are too cheap of lenses to rent. I see the Tokina (Nikon mount) for as low as $625 shipped on eBay right now. I get daily email updates on it (despite having purchased it months ago, I suppose I should change those email settings...) from eBay and I regularly see it for $525-575 shipped.

Plus, Bing.com cashback for eBay is 10% right now. Even for the $625 price, you're looking at it costing around $562.50. Even after paypal and ebay fees, you would be ahead if you did decide to resell it after buying.

 

[annnewjerz]

There is something really great about NAS, this group and you!

NAS is never going away

This group is like all other groups, we have a good variety of approaches.

From what I know about you, you are going to get what you want. (That is not a bad thing) and you can use which ever opinion you need to satisfy your NAS!!!

Oh John, you always know how to bring me right back down to Earth. I never think I'm really that bad until you chime in and put me in my place!!

I know---I shouldn't, but whenever I get money for doing something photography related (took some pics this weekend for our neighbor)---I feel like it's only right of me to rush out and spend it. Having $250 in my pocket just waiting for a rainy day doesn't sound like much fun to me!!

And you're right. You know me well enough to know that I'm going to get what I want, because out of 10 opinions telling me to wait---there will always be Laura, Jeff and Johns in the world to tell me to spend.

You're starting to sound like my DH.

 

[ColleenG]

WARNING!! Dumb newbie question coming. I get what NAS is, but what does it stand for? For the life of me I can't figure it out.

 

[Code]

The 105 I more as a mid-length fast telephoto lens than a macro. AND--the hunting for focus wouldn't be a problem, because it's a manual focus lens rather than auto focus.

I thought you wanted the 105mm for macro until I read that you already have the 60mm. My take is that manual exposure on macro stuff might not be so bad as you have time to be more deliberate and you're manually focusing anyway, but used as a medium tele, that just sounds like an exercise in frustration.

 

[TinksDH]

ColleenG:

Nikon Acquisition Syndrome

 

[Gdad]

If you already have the 60mm for macro I would have to agree with Code and say skip the 105mm. The smooth manual focus is the ticket for macro stuff but not all that great for everything else unless you are just in to that kind of stuff. And as for the AF macro's in the 105-150 range I mentioned they all focus hunt like crazy and are even more frustrating to use as a medium tele.

 

[Chikabowa]

I triple agree... if you don't get the 105 for macro, I'd totally skip it. If you want a fast prime lens that has beautiful bokeh and is just freaking awesome, buy the 135mm f2. That lens is awesome... however it's old. And I've heard rumors that Nikon is releasing a newer version of the lens (BTW - If I could get myself to ever put down the 70-200, the 135 would be a close second. ).

The problem with the super wide angles and the fish eye is that they are kind of speciality lenses. If you are doing portraits of people, there is just too much distortion to make them great portraits, it just makes people and body parts look weird. If you are specializing in landscape and architecture, then I could see wanting the super wide angle and that totally makes sense. I know you shoot with a cropped sensor, but even so, a 10mm lens, is still 15mm on your cropped sensor, which is still pretty super wide angle. I hate shooting with the 20mm prime on my full frame because it's just distorts everything too much.

But the fish eye... as cool as it is... can be sooooooooo overdone. You don't want to come home from Disney with 1000 fish eye pics, you'll get bored really quickly. I felt that way when I bought the Lens Baby Composer... it's awesome. For like 1 or 2 shots. Then it just looks over-done and boring. And I find myself hardly ever using it. Which was kind of a waste of $300.

So with that... I would weigh your choices. It sounds like the Tonkina might just be the perfect solution with renting the fish eye from time to time when you want something a little different to play around with.