Opinions Needed - Trading In Lenses.

[annnewjerz]

Which lens collection seems the most well-rounded and overall just the one that you would want most? I am thinking of trading in my 18-200mm VR but can't decide whether I should and if I do, what I would replace it with:

A. Nikon 18-55mm VR
Nikon 18-200mm VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro or 105mm f/2.8 Micro
Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 Fisheye

B. Nikon 18-55mm VR
Nikon 18-200mm VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro
Sigma 10-20mm Ultra-Wide

C. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro

D. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Sigma 10-20mm Ultra-Wide
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro

 

[Quicklabs]

I don't think I could trade in my 18-200. It is such a great walkaround lens. I like your list D, but with the 18-200 instead of the Tammy.

 

[annnewjerz]

I don't think I could trade in my 18-200. It is such a great walkaround lens. I like your list D, but with the 18-200 instead of the Tammy.

That's the thing, I don't know if I could trade it in either...especially considering what I paid a few months ago v. what KEH has estimated they would buy it for

How do you think this one sounds:

-Nikon 18-55mm VR (have it)
-Nikon 18-200mm VR (have it)
-Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (have it)
-Sigma 10-20mm Ultrawide (new) or Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye (used)
-Nikon Micro (haven't decided on focal length yet)

THEN - which one of these would you choose?

-Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 70-300mm VR

With the Sigma 30, I'm worried it may not be a diverse enough lens collection...too many in the same focal length. With the 70-300mm VR I would be worried that I wouldn't get enough use from it or that I may need an autofocusing lens that is good for low light sometime in the future and not have one.

UGH!! I swore the other day I was going to put off all of this thinking until after Christmas, but I can't.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think I would just wait a while, take my time to see what I like best under different circumstances. Shooting in winter is probably different than in summer. Don't rush it. I'm sure I wouldn't want to part with the 18-200, either - at least not yet.

 

[YesDear]

Me thinks you think too much! It appears you have a common Christmas case of NAS. It will pass.

You will never have enough lens or ones that will do everything you want. It is a long time process.

I would not get rid of your 18-200.

 

[annnewjerz]

Me thinks you think too much! It appears you have a common Christmas case of NAS. It will pass.

You are right, I do. I am just so excited about all of the possibilities, I want them ALL!!!! Is that so much to ask???

I would not get rid of your 18-200.

I'm not. The thought just crossed my mind that maybe I should ditch it for something better, but the truth is I really like it...very convenient for walking around all day and not having to switch lenses at all.

I think I'm done now. I really am going to spend the rest of the week trying to completely ignore it and just focus on getting done all of my Christmas stuff. I'll only be checking back once I have actually made a purchase...which I'm about ___ this close to doing, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

 

[Steve's Girl]

THEN - which one of these would you choose?

-Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Nikon 70-300mm VR

Personally, I don't find 300mm a big difference from 200mm. You're covered with VR up to 200mm. I would get a 2.8 lens. Either the 17-55 or 28-75 you mentioned. I find myself using my Tamron 28-75 a lot. It is the lens that stays on my camera most of the time, especially this time of year. The weather is so awful that most of my photography is indoors and 2.8 is really great to have for that. It allows me to keep my shutter speed up and keep up with my constanstly moving kids. VR is good for lower shutter speeds, but will not help you when your subject is moving! The downside of the 28-75 lens is that it is not quite wide enough. I've thought about upgrading to the Nikon 17-55 some day for that reason. But then again, I do use the 75mm end quite a bit too. I also have the Sigma 30 1.4, but rarely use it. I've considered selling it, but keep thinking that someday I'll use it more. I do also have the 18-200 VR and really like it as a vacation or walkaround lens, but it just isn't fast enough for indoors and is a bit soft for more "serious" work. I decided on the 28-75 focal length by looking at my exif data and seeing what focal length I use the most.

 

[annnewjerz]

Personally, I don't find 300mm a big difference from 200mm. You're covered with VR up to 200mm. I would get a 2.8 lens. Either the 17-55 or 28-75 you mentioned. I find myself using my Tamron 28-75 a lot. It is the lens that stays on my camera most of the time, especially this time of year. The weather is so awful that most of my photography is indoors and 2.8 is really great to have for that. It allows me to keep my shutter speed up and keep up with my constanstly moving kids. VR is good for lower shutter speeds, but will not help you when your subject is moving! The downside of the 28-75 lens is that it is not quite wide enough. I've thought about upgrading to the Nikon 17-55 some day for that reason. But then again, I do use the 75mm end quite a bit too. I also have the Sigma 30 1.4, but rarely use it. I've considered selling it, but keep thinking that someday I'll use it more. I do also have the 18-200 VR and really like it as a vacation or walkaround lens, but it just isn't fast enough for indoors and is a bit soft for more "serious" work. I decided on the 28-75 focal length by looking at my exif data and seeing what focal length I use the most.

I have seen people chart their most commonly used focal lengths using a program online...any idea what it is?

The 28-75 is very tempting, for indoor shots, since getting my 50 f/1.8 I have been using that, but a lot of the time 50mm is just too tight for shooting in a small room unless I want a very close up shot.

 

[Jeff Fillmore]

Do you shoot subjects that you need more reach than the 18-200vr can give you? You obviously vave the 18-55mm range covered with both lenses so depending on your shooting style I would say if you answered 'yes' then sell the 18-200vr and get the 70-300vr then you will have the 18-300mm range covered with vr lenses with the exception of 55-70mm which is not that big a deal. If you answered 'no' I would say sell the short lens and just keep the 18-200vr for an all purpose lens. The 28-75/2.8 would pair up nicely with the with the 70-300 (I will take a fast lens over vr any day) but 28mm is not very wide to have as your widest zoom.

As for the Sigma 30/1.4- When I was shooting a DX camera I found this lens way way better and more usefull than I did the 50mm. As you mentioned I always found the 50mm just too long for a lot of shooting situations- plus you will get Auto Focus on your D60. I never used my 50mm after I got the Sigma 30 until I went to FX.

Interesting choice between the Sigma 10-20 vs the 10.5 Fisheye. Even though they are in the same range they are wildly different animals. If you like the fisheye 'look' then go for the fish. If you are not a big fan of that and just want an ultra-wide you might want to consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8 which after having them both I liked much better than the Sigma.

As for the macro- I forgot to tell you I got some clarification on the metering of AIS lenses on the D60. HERE is a link.

 

[annnewjerz]

If you answered 'no' I would say sell the short lens and just keep the 18-200vr for an all purpose lens. The 28-75/2.8 would pair up nicely with the with the 70-300 (I will take a fast lens over vr any day) but 28mm is not very wide to have as your widest zoom.

I'd LOVE to sell my 18-55mm VR and get the faster lens, but I have no idea how. I guess I could take it into a camera store and sell it, but I looked on KEH and unless they are going to give $100 or more, they won't take it (I believe). The estimate for that lens is only $86. Grrrrrr.

Interesting choice between the Sigma 10-20 vs the 10.5 Fisheye. Even though they are in the same range they are wildly different animals. If you like the fisheye 'look' then go for the fish. If you are not a big fan of that and just want an ultra-wide you might want to consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8 which after having them both I liked much better than the Sigma.

I love the look that a fisheye provides, I'm just not sure exactly how often I would use it and if it is worth the expense. A bargain fisheye on KEH is $400, but for the same price or only slightly more than $400 I could get a brand new some other kind of lens (ultra-wide, the Sigma 30, the faster kit lens, etc.)

As for the macro- I forgot to tell you I got some clarification on the metering of AIS lenses on the D60. HERE is a link.

Thanks for the info about the AIS lenses, that doesn't sound too difficult. I wouldn't mind a little trial and error and I'm sure after shooting enough with it, I'd get the hang and it would take many fewer mistakes before getting an exposure I like.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Here's what I'd do:

24-70mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8 VR

Then throw in a fisheye if you want to have some fun, or maybe one of the cheaper ultrawide zooms. But with the two above, you've got some good quality pro glass with constant aperture covering about 95% of what you're probably going to shoot. Quality comes at a price, though. About $3K for the pair. And hang on to the 18-200. You won't get much for it in trade anyway.

 

[oogieboogieman]

I have never sold any of my lenses only bought more. I'm cheap and I get angry when you only get pennies on the dollars for what was paid. I've looked into selling a couple of lenses and just ended up keeping them. I even told my wife that the lenses are like golf clubs and that you can't play with just one. I think to play by the rules I can't go over the 14 club/lens rule without getting penalized.
Good Luck with your decision!

 

[senecabeach]

Which lens collection seems the most well-rounded and overall just the one that you would want most? I am thinking of trading in my 18-200mm VR but can't decide whether I should and if I do, what I would replace it with:

Am I mistaken or didn't you just get the 18-200 a few months ago??
If I may ask, why would you get rid of it or what don't you like about it?
Are you looking for faster..2.8 or lighter to carry.

 

[annnewjerz]

Am I mistaken or didn't you just get the 18-200 a few months ago??
If I may ask, why would you get rid of it or what don't you like about it?
Are you looking for faster..2.8 or lighter to carry.

You are not mistaken, I did get it just a few months ago (in October). I have re-thought this entire thread, I'm going to keep it, I was just having visions of bigger/faster/better lenses...and then I woke up from my daydream and realized I've really enjoyed my 18-200.

I really really like it for the size and weight, it is a good walk-around lens. I enjoy not having to carry around anything other than my camera and this lens, and maybe a filter and gorillapod or something if I am going out shooting for the day.

I sort of don't like it for the reasons of it's not very fast and it is slightly softer than I'd like (but that could be user error). It was the first lens I had purchased (other than the kit lens) and I guess since getting faster lenses I just got a little spoiled not being able to use this one hand-held in some dimmer situations. The downside to trading this one in for something like the Sigma/Tamron or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 would be the fact that that lens is far from a "walkaround" lens in terms of size and weight.

As a result, I have determined that rather than ever trade in a lens (with the exception of my kit lens which I hope to chuck soon) - I will just keep on buying more and adding to the collection. I'll eventually have the 18-200mm VR AND the 70 or 80-200mm f/2.8 As you can see, I move from one daydream to the next fairly quickly.