Need advice on value of some NIKON gear.

A place for us to talk about Nikon related camera gear.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.

Need advice on value of some NIKON gear.

Postby blackD200 on Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:22 pm

Now moving to the digital world, ( got a D200 n just bought a AF80-200 F2.8ED) and now need to fund a 17-55 f2.8 so am prob gonna have to let go of some of my older gear - anyone know how much the following may sell ;

:: NIKON F90
:: AF NIKKOR 35-70 F2.8D
:: AF NIKKOR 75-300 F4.5-5.6 - full metal made in japan unlike plastic 70-300

other non NIKON items
:: MAKINON 2X teleconverter
:: Sekonic Flashmate - lightmeter
:: METZ 45 CT-4

Both F90 & 35-70 was cleaned & serviced by MAXWELL 3months ago - optics of lens practically new. I see that the 35-70 are still available new for about $1400 - how much do they go second hand...

Not 100% sure if I should sell them - I guess if they aint worth much then I'd prob just hang on to them. Have had many good times with these gear :D

Any advice would be great - thanks guys.
blackD200
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Hills District

Postby Ivanerrol on Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:34 am

IMHO

Both of those lens work very well on the DSLR's. notwithstanding the FOV crop factor.
Ebay values for those lenses are in the range of $ 250- 400 for the 35-70 and $ 175-300 for the 75-210.
The F90 may bring as low as $ 100 and you maybe lucky to get over $ 200.
Even F4's are now in the $ 300's

Different weeks bring varied selling prices.

Personally I would buy a lower cost DSLR such as the D80 and keep those two lenses. A reasonable alternative to the 17-55 is the DX Kit lens 18-70 or the 18-55. Even the full frame 18-35 is a reasonable substitute for the 17-55 on DX.
User avatar
Ivanerrol
Member
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Ivanhoe Melbourne Australia

Postby Yi-P on Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:12 am

Keep all those stuffs, you wont be getting much back as Ivan said.

Maybe you should keep on shooting with those gears until you really decide that the 17-55 is your choice of lens.

Digital and the older 135 format is different and your taste of lenses and shooting style may change accordingly...
User avatar
Yi-P
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Sydney -- Ashfield

Re: Need advice on value of some NIKON gear.

Postby daniel_r on Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:54 am

blackD200 wrote:Now moving to the digital world, ( got a D200 n just bought a AF80-200 F2.8ED) and now need to fund a 17-55 f2.8 so am prob gonna have to let go of some of my older gear - anyone know how much the following may sell ;

:: NIKON F90
:: AF NIKKOR 35-70 F2.8D
:: AF NIKKOR 75-300 F4.5-5.6 - full metal made in japan unlike plastic 70-300



Instead of purchasing the 17-55/2.8, why not keep the 35-70/2.8 and pick yourself up one of the fantastic 17-35/2.8 Nikkors?

The 35-70/2.8 is a great lens, and not much off the pace of the 28-70 at all. (others... if you're looking at the 28-70 but it's a bit out of reach, the 35-70 is a really good affordable alternative!). The 35-70/2.8 is also smaller than the 17-55/2.8 and 28-70/2.8

I can see a nice kit line-up: 17-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8.
It's a DX-free lineup, keeping your options open (should you keep the F90 around for a bit of occasional film work / backup body) etc.

Of course this all depends on what you want to shoot :)
D.
Daniel_R's Flickr gallery
I shoot with Nikon stuff.
User avatar
daniel_r
Senior Member
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Canberra, ACT.

Postby blackD200 on Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:55 pm

thanks for the advice guys.

Personally I would buy a lower cost DSLR such as the D80 and keep those two lenses. A reasonable alternative to the 17-55 is the DX Kit lens 18-70 or the 18-55. Even the full frame 18-35 is a reasonable substitute for the 17-55 on DX.


I have a D200 already and prefer it than the D80 =) I also have the 18-70 D70 Kit lens, but i find it lacking that extra speed on lowlight situations. I also find that the 75-300 a little slow especially on the 200mm range at f5.6. -- of course this is when shooting natural light.

I'm planning to shoot events and mostly weddings. Will also be doing studio work for family portraits.

During weddings is where i find i need that extra speed.
The 35-70 is a brilliant fast lens - just not wide enough after the crop factor. I would prefer the 17-55 over the 17-35, many tests show that they are quite close - the 17-55 just gives me that little extra zoom and to close the gap for the 80-200...

I can see a nice kit line-up: 17-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8.
It's a DX-free lineup, keeping your options open (should you keep the F90 around for a bit of occasional film work / backup body) etc.


Inetresting line up - I like the thought of DX free ???- I will keep this in mind - I just saw a 17-35mm sell on eBay for $680 - maybe i should have placed my bid....

The reason for servicing the F90 and the 35-70mm was to keep it as backup incase the D200 craps itsef on an event. But the F90 and D200 are so far apart - i'm actually thinking of just getting another digital body like a second hand D70 or D70s...

I'll keep shooting with the 18-70 and the 80-200 for the time being till i get more serious into it and get some more funds...

thanks again for the info guys....
blackD200
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Hills District

Postby Traveller130 on Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:01 pm

Besides being slightly green with your D200 (can't quite convince management of the $2500 investment), I'd suggest you consider a couple of prime lenses. I am looking through THAT AUCTION SITE at the moment for some used Nikon glass. I've just got a 60mm micro, and was blown away by its sharpness and contrast. It will make a great portrait lens (90mm eq with a 1.5 crop factor) and for macro stuff in the studio.
It's MUCH better than the DX 17-80 kit lens, and only cost me $350. So hold on to your old glass (at least your 35-70 2.8). If you want the extra reach of the 300mm, consider a 1.4 teleconverter to your 80-200, you will get the same reach for 1 stop slower.
Cheers
Bo
Traveller130
Newbie
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:04 am
Location: Collingwood, Melbourne

Postby marcotrov on Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:15 pm

I agree with Daniel the 35-70 is a great lens and does indeed give you a good line up. I have both the 37-70 and the 17-35. Terrific bith of them
cheers
marco
marcotrov
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2577
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Postby Reschsmooth on Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:34 pm

I am in the opposite corner - I have the 17-35 (fantastic lens - the 1.5 crop makes it almost a great standard lens) and the 80-200 (2.8) plus the 50 1.8. I have kept an eye out for the 35-70 as it is generally a quarter or less of the price of the 28-70, and it would cover me from 17-200 (except for the gap between 70 - 80). The only thing holding me back is trying to avoid spending too much money at the moment. So, I will trade you your 35-70 for my appreciation? :lol:

Also, I bought a f90x a few months ago, with MB-10 battery pack/grip for a shade over $200 - so there isn't any value in them any more.

P
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Postby Matt. K on Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:16 pm

Don't underestimate that 35-70 2.8D. They are excellent lenses and very useful as a walk-around lens. For those just getting into DSLRs I would grab that lens.
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9981
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby blackD200 on Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:36 pm

Reschsmooth wrote:So, I will trade you your 35-70 for my appreciation? :lol:
Also, I bought a f90x a few months ago, with MB-10 battery pack/grip for a shade over $200 - so there isn't any value in them any more.
P


ummm.. I think i would prefer $$$ to be used to fund another lens :wink:

Yeah i didnt think the F90 will be worth much, I would rather keep it than let it go for less than 200 bucks... :?

there is no doubt the 35-70 is a brilliant lens, it just isnt wide enough for my liking and needs.

The more advice I get from you guys the more I'm starting to really like the idea of the 17-35, 35-70, 80-200. DX free kit... :D
blackD200
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Hills District

Postby Reschsmooth on Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:39 am

blackD200 wrote:The more advice I get from you guys the more I'm starting to really like the idea of the 17-35, 35-70, 80-200. DX free kit... :D


Even ignoring the potential for a full-frame Nikon DSLR, the beauty is that the kit transfers beautifully from the D200 to F90(x). I was meeting up with some friends last Friday night at the Rocks, and wanted to take some shots around the old pub. Now, I knew I would be having a beer or two, so didn't want to take the D200. So, the F90x worked perfectly and I had no concerns about safety or drunken camera spills in the rain. :lol:

P
User avatar
Reschsmooth
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Just next to S'nives.

Postby blackD200 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:51 pm

Reschsmooth wrote:
blackD200 wrote:The more advice I get from you guys the more I'm starting to really like the idea of the 17-35, 35-70, 80-200. DX free kit... :D


Even ignoring the potential for a full-frame Nikon DSLR, the beauty is that the kit transfers beautifully from the D200 to F90(x). I was meeting up with some friends last Friday night at the Rocks, and wanted to take some shots around the old pub. Now, I knew I would be having a beer or two, so didn't want to take the D200. So, the F90x worked perfectly and I had no concerns about safety or drunken camera spills in the rain. :lol:

P


wouldnt even dare lugging the D200 for pub meetups :D
I usually bring a small point and shoot(pentax) for those moments.

I think at this stage - am looking for the 17-35.. I'm keeping the F90 and the 35-70 =) seems like a waste if theyre only worth a couple of hundred bucks...

thanks for the advice fellows...
blackD200
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Hills District

Re: Need advice on value of some NIKON gear.

Postby Ordinary K on Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:34 am

daniel_r wrote:I can see a nice kit line-up: 17-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8.


Snap!

I've been using those three as my lead lenses since I rejoined the SLR world in February. The line-up works really well.

This isn't important for most folk, but:
I *LOVE* being able to change aperture using the aperture ring - much faster, more accurate and frees up a command dial for buttonless access to exposure compensation. I couldn't do that with the 17-55G (or any G series lens).

FWIW I was told my old F90X+MB10+MF26 *might* fetch $300 - so I shoved a redundant 20mm f2.8 on the front and have it hanging from the ceiling as "modern art"...

HTH
Ordinary K
Newbie
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:06 pm
Location: South Hobart


Return to Nikon