Make me buy a lens....

[dawesy]

Mr UPS arrived today and brought me a new baby D300... This is my first Nikon so I have, as I am want to do, jumped into the middle of the Ocean with no lifeboat in sight! The battery is charging and the camera sits on my desk wearing Craig's 50 1.4.

I had ordered a 17-35 but Poon cannot get them at the moment. I had picked that lens because I don't really want to have any DX lenses as I would like FF in 18-24 months, I don't like the sound of the hyperfocal behaviour on the 17-55, and the 14-24 doesn't take filters. So while not super wide, it covers me for most of my landscape work, and will be pretty wide when FF comes along (for me). Add a 50 prime and I won't miss the long end. It will get partnered with a 70-200 later.

So, they appear to be available in two places, DigitalRev via ebay for similar money but with the risk of so many bad reviews, or ECS in Sydney for about $800 bucks more and the guarantee of service, or at least the availability of a shop front. I haven't actually called them to check the availability though, just noted they have it listed on the web.

What is a guy to do? Are DR a big risk? I seem to hear only good things about ECS? Do you think my choice is a bad one, given this is a mainly landscape, cityscape, group shots and full body portrait lens?

I really hate making the decisions that involve spending this much money, I so rarely have it!

[Marvin]

Well, I would be saving the $800 and ordering from Digital Rev. I have ordered from them before and had no problems (although I gather other people have). It's not just like a one or two hundred dollar saving, eight hundred dollars is a lot!

[ATJ]

Jon,

Maybe you could get an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II. They are a DX lens, but they are very cheap. I have one which I bought for underwater use and despite being very plasticy, I'm very happy with it. Mine was around $129 delivered from Poon.

[stubbsy]

dawesy

I'm not sure if this is much help since what I'm about to recommend is made from the same unobtainium as the 17-35, but my most used lens by maybe 2:1 is the 28-70 f2.8 - brilliant for walking around and it takes filters

[dawesy]

dawesy

I'm not sure if this is much help since what I'm about to recommend is made from the same unobtainium as the 17-35, but my most used lens by maybe 2:1 is the 28-70 f2.8 - brilliant for walking around and it takes filters

Not quite wide enough for me I'm afraid. I do however have my eye on a 24-70, in about a year or so based on current financial estimates, particularly if I go FF. However, I did read elsewhere that your next used lens ins the 17-35, which just points me back in it's direction. All that's left is who to buy it from, and I am thinking for peace of mind local may be the best bet. It seems no one who has had a warranty issue with DigitalRev has been happy, and for something this pricey I would like some peace of mind!

[stubbsy]

However, I did read elsewhere that your next used lens ins the 17-35, which just points me back in it's direction.

Yep if you want wider I'd be saying the 17-35 f/2.8. Add that to the 28-70 and I'd say I probably take 90% of my shots with those 2 lenses.

[djKianoosh]

a little late reply, but the Tokina 12-24mm is a fantastic wide lens. Went to Washington DC and got some real nice shots.

http://flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/2306038808/
this one was cropped a little so it doesn't look like 12mm, but it came out great regardless.

[aim54x]

if your thinking of goin FF soon, then prob stay away from the DX lenses. look at wat you need, if you want something all in one, then consider the Tamron 28-300 VC, I have not had the chance to play with one, but it does look interesting. If it is anything like the 18-250 (crop lens) then I would buy it. If you want something f/2.8 then maybe have a look at the Tamron 28-75, it is quite a nice lens, not up to the same level as the Nikkor 24-70 though.

[Alpha_7]

Just to update this thread, Dawesy and I both have Nikkor 24-70 2.8 so I guess he's lens lust is somewhat abated.

[dawesy]

As I posted elsewhere I did get the 17-35 and have quite enjoyed it. Posted up a river shot or two taken with it in the snowy mountains. As Craig mentions I did end up with a 24-70 as well thanks to a deal he scored I couldn't refuse, so I now officially have all the gear and very little idea!!

Hopefully my 'scent' shoot Friday night will lift the idea factor a tad!

[petermmc]

The 17-55 is the best high quality all rounder for the d300. The 17-35 is legendary but was really designed for full frame and falls well short of an all round lens for a d200/d300. The 17-55 covers some of the range of both the 14-24 and the 24-70.

I too have been thinking about what next and am concentrating on getting a d300 rather than selling my 17-55 for some of the new top end lenses. Whatever you do, try the 17-55 and you may well be pleasantly surprised with its sharpness and speed.

Also, I might add, the 17-55 is available and from Poon is a real steal at the moment. You could almost get the same money trading it in in Australia as Poon sells it for.

All of the above is only my humble opinion and millions may disagree. Hope it adds to your body of knowledge before making an expensive decision. Have a play with a 17-55 before you decide.

[dawesy]

Like I said, I already have the 17-35 and the the 24-70. Both awesome lenses.

I looked at the 17-55 but discounted it as I didn't want DX, wanted a landscape lens more so than an all round lens and didn't like it's reported hyperfocal behaviour. If I was primarily shooting events then it would be a must, but for me the 24-70 does that well when I need it and the 17-35 is on when I am out in the truck trying to finally get decent shot of the Australian bush!