DSLRUsers.com

Hi gang,

Just come home with a brand new 50mm 1.4 nkon lens.
It was supposed to be an 1.8, but the guy mixed up the order. The price for the 1.4 was $690, ouch. I didn't really know what to do as I planned on spending something like $200, bu the bloke has been good to me and he sold it to me at cost, $690. (I saw the invoice and it was Camera House)

What is the normal retail for one of these. Ive looken on the net and the only one I saw was at Vanbars for $550.


Help Birddog, may I please do all my purchases with you in future. In fact my spending is almost exhausted, but can afford one more lens before Christmas and perhaps a second in Feb/March. I now currently have the kit lens, the 50mm 1.4 and a Sigma 70-300 APO super macro2.
The lenses I am looking at, are the Sigma 12-24 (Birdog) and the VR 70-200 by Nikon(also Birddog)
Do you think with my current lenses, I really need the VR70-200.


Looking forward to your advice,, Help again Birddog

Regards
Nigel

Nigels, Hi and welcome. Birddog sells those for $400, Vanbar sells at street retail of $550 even Maxwell's rec retail is only $745 and nothing ever sells for that. Sorry to say the guy had a lend of you, you should go back and tell his manager that is why you wont buy from them again (or better yet head office) or return the goods. Join the guys here and we will make sure you don't fall in any potholes in the future.

Ps Nigel, the difference between a Sigma 70-300 and a 70-200VR is the difference between a Hyundai and a Porsche. Both will get you there but not in the same fashion. I know which I would drive

Thanks for the info Glen,

I will in fact go back to see him tomorrow.

You have however made my next choice a little more difficult, although I would rather have the cold facts of life. Perhaps I should contact Birdy and get them both now.


Regards
Nige

Glen,

The Hyundai = good resale value
The Porsche = poor resale value
You could buy a few Hyundai's and still have enough left to buy a few more lenses with the money you would loose on the Porsche in the short term.

You will not loose if you decide to sell the 70-200VR it is an awsome lense, just like the Hyundai's.

Cheers,

Darryl.

Nigel, sorry to be blunt but no point trusting a conman with the your photographic budget which can turn out to be quite a bit. Choose which lens you will use more now and buy that, dont worry about gaps in your range. If you use more telephoto lenses, buy the 70-200 and have the very best tool in your hands you can for the majority of your shots. If you think you will use the wide angle more, buy it now. Both are good lenses and well worth purchasing, purchase what you will use most, no need to have every focal length from 12 to 600mm covered. The guy from Camera House is a bald faced liar, you will be hard pressed to find too many at $690 retail, little alone wholesale for that.

Here is Maxwells page on that lens, price guide in top right corner in red
http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/niko ... 4d_af.html


Bottom line is the 70-200 is streets ahead of what you have, but keep the sigma for its handy macro function

Nigel,

Here was I, sitting quietly, biting my tongue at Glen's post, and here Darryl walks in and drips oil over the nice clean floor of the Alfa workshop!

Not from the Hyundai, of course; it fell apart on the way over because of its poor design and lack lustre construction.

And it certainly wasn't built to perform under extreme conditions.

Speaking from my own experience, I don't drive Hyundais because I don't consider them safe enough or well designed.

And the only glass we have in this house, for our Nikons, is Nikon glass, for much the same reason: I don't consider that other manufacturers make Nikon glass, and in the longer term, buying just the Nikon glass works out cheaper than buying something else while on the way to eventually that same Nikon glass.

G'day Nigel,
I think Glen hit the mark... Which lens would benefit you most would depend on what you do most... Especially if it's stretching the budget which we're all subject to... Mr. Mortgage has a lot to answer for!

If you already have the 70-300, the main diff by getting the 70-200VR is the VR function. If you use that heaps and have trouble with the ol' shaky hand syndrome (like me) then that'll help heaps, but if you don't have that worry, then why spend the $? I only bought a VR lens as I was binning a lot of my shots due to camera shake... I also have the Sigma 70-300 APO and the pics seemed nice from a quality perspective, so nothing wrong with the lens from that angle...

Both will be around for a while so which do you reckon you'd use most? I think that will help you decide... The other you can always get later... A new toy early next year perhaps?

Re: Hyundai Vs Porsche, I ain't going there! (But I love German machinery)

Cheers,
Mudder

Darryl, YOU'RE DREAMING!

Taken from http://www.redbook.com.au two 1999 cars (5 yrs old), Hyundai Excel (took first in list in both cases) purchased for $13,990 top private resale $6,800 (dealers are even harder) or 48.6% retained value versus Porsche 911 purchase $184,000 top private $112,000 or 60.9% retained value. When I purchased my first Porsche when I was 23, I paid more for it than the guy who bought it new, as the cars went up so much then. I benefited from that on both Porsches and Mercedes all the while getting to drive a car which offered high secondary safety features (especially compared to a Hyundai) and even higher primary safety features, best brakes in the world, handling, performance. Haven't you seen the ads "friends don't let friends drive......Hyundais". Darryl, think of your friends and family if you choose to drive a Hyundai, another death which could be prevented. I might write a letter to Carl Scully tomorrow...

Darryl is right the 70-200 is an awesome lens, nothing like a hyundai, as it has high speed focussing with AFS, fast aperture of 2.8 (allowing you to do portraits or low available light shots) and is well recognised as a superb performer. Nikon lenses also have good resale. A 70-300 can be a reasonable tool in the right hands, but needs careful usage to obtain its sweet spot.

Now for my two penny worth - as we have learnt on this forum the cosmetics of the SB800 are Nikon - but the internals are National (Panasonic). The Proton car is crap IMO but has Lotus suspension. Nikon lens at one time were manufactured in Japan now China and elsewhere. Many of the parts in Nikon lens are made by Sigma. The D70 CCD is supposedly Sony - ad nauseum.

In this day and age no matter what we buy if we delve into the finer aspects of the manufacturing process we will find that they are composed of a multitude of different manufacturers parts.

The reason that we purchased a D70 simply put is because we like this camera. If you like Tokina, Sigma, Tamron or Nikon then buy and use with the knowledge that you purchased what you wanted.

Cheers

Chris

But if I drive a porshe at 60kmh the same as I would a Hyundai, would I notice any difference?
If I don't work in extreme conditions why should I expect the lenses to.
As for the analogy of the Hyunday breaking down, are you saying that the cheaper nikon lenses are prone to a short life span? Whatever happened to "A Nikon is still a Nikon"

phillipb wrote:But if I drive a porshe at 60kmh the same as I would a Hyundai, would I notice any difference?

Absobloodylutely.

And in so many ways, too.

mudder wrote:G'day Nigel,
If you already have the 70-300, the main diff by getting the 70-200VR is the VR function. If you use that heaps and have trouble with the ol' shaky hand syndrome (like me) then that'll help heaps, but if you don't have that worry, then why spend the $? I only bought a VR lens as I was binning a lot of my shots due to camera shake... I also have the Sigma 70-300 APO and the pics seemed nice from a quality perspective, so nothing wrong with the lens from that angle...
Cheers,
Mudder

Nigel,
The difference of the 70-300 and 70-200VR are:
- the 70-300 is not the fast lens like the 70-200 (2.
- Non VR and VR
- Glass & built are quite big difference in between the two.
- Price: 70-300 = $200.00/ 70-200VR = $2500.00

Thanks Birdy

That about sums it up in one

Cheers
Ray

Birddog114 wrote:- Price: 70-300 = $200.00/ 70-200VR = $2500.00

And while not disputing the differences in quality between Nikon and non-Nikon lenses, and we can't ignore the incredible benefits of VR, that 10 times price factor means a lot when purchasing on any kind of budget.

It is possible to take good photos with "lesser" lenses - I have seen impressive results from Sigmas and Tamrons.

I think it is important to keep the spending on your hobby to what can reasonably be afforded, and to know that your photographic skills will enable you to take good photographs with whatever equipment falls within your budget.

Greg B wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:- Price: 70-300 = $200.00/ 70-200VR = $2500.00

And while not disputing the differences in quality between Nikon and non-Nikon lenses, and we can't ignore the incredible benefits of VR, that 10 times price factor means a lot when purchasing on any kind of budget.

It is possible to take good photos with "lesser" lenses - I have seen impressive results from Sigmas and Tamrons.

I think it is important to keep the spending on your hobby to what can reasonably be afforded, and to know that your photographic skills will enable you to take good photographs with whatever equipment falls within your budget.

Greg,
Agreed, but there are more lust on the 70-200VR than the 70-300G
The Nikon 70-210 f4 has a very good report on the D70/ D100 but it's not served the demand and purposes for people intend to do, like shooting under dark or with natural light, the 70-300G and 70-210 could not match or follow the 70-200VR, as same as with some of Tamron and Sigma glasses.
Sigma has the 70-200/2.8 APO HSM, it's equivalent with the Nikon 70-200VR, then again people did not like/ feel comfy with its built, sometime has problem with Nikon mount and have to be re-chipped.
Depend on your pocket, of course if you can afford it then 100% you'll go for the best of the range + brand name.
I never have any bad sample with Tamron nor Sigma, I'm the proud owner of Tamron 90/ 180 macro same as 28-75, and did not have any Nikon Macro lens. I had many opportunities to play around with Bigma, Sigma 12-24, 70-200APO, but at the end I lust the Nikon brand, just my experiences.
Conclusion: The operator got the blame not the machine

PhilipB, yes you would notice the difference in handling, responsiveness, etc but the biggest difference to be noticed is when an errant child runs across the road, the ten metre shorter stopping distance could make all the difference. Kris on these forums who has a modified Audi S3 has put better brakes on it, I don't know if he considered Hyundai brakes but I know he ended up with Porsche brakes

Nigel, it sounds like the budget isn't the absolute deciding factor for you, one way to decide on purchases is decide now what you would like to acheive and end up with (be that a 70-300 or 70-200VR, etc, etc) then buy that glass now rather than purchasing twice. Sort of like buying the best you can afford, but rather buying the best you intend to afford. Buy it once. Maybe you could let people know what you intend to take photos of and you could get a range (and it will be a range, look at this thread!) of opinions. A lens doesn't have to be expensive to be good, note the 50 1.8.

Another thought, like many here I beleive Nikon lenses are a great match for the Nikon camera and usually represent the best quality, match and resale value. I don't believe you can go wrong buying good quality Nikkors. Some lenses such as the 70-200VR are universally acknowledged as best in their class. All ranges have strong and weak points. I will probably get a few points of view on this but the two area I would consider a third party lens are wide angle and macro. There is a range of opinions which is best in these areas, coupled with the price difference for a Nikkor would allow me to consider other brands. remember lenses are compromises and you have to pick the unit which is closest to your needs.

Good luck in your choices

Hi Nigels, if you can manage it the best way I can see would be to take your camera with the Sigma lens you already have and try out the Nikkor VR lens and compare. If you can't pick a difference that is significant enough to warrant the extra $$$, don't buy it.

Anyone with a VR feel like a photo day to let him try it?