pmac1985 wrote:
I've been thinking the same recently, but with my 70-200 vr2
Its a great lens but I'm not a pro and find myself not using it due to the size and weight,that and the fact i nearly always have one or both my kids with me who are both under 5.
If i do I can buy the sigma and use the rest to pay of more of my d800 as half was on finance... but I know I will regret it as soon as I do,even though its only been used maybe 8 times max in over a year.
No way I could trade the 70-200 vr2 for the Siggy, but of course if you're not using it enough then its a fair trade. Once I got to grips with the 70-200 at 200mm for my portrait stuff I was hooked. So much so that I picked up the chubby as well!! You think the 70-200 is heavy.... Lol.
My posts and another were deleted, not sure why; so, I'll try again.
CT,
You didn't trade lenses. You adjusted your lenses kit, which most of us do every so many years. You sold one and bought another. The Sigma 35 1.4 reviews are awfully good, so enjoy. For all you know, you might really miss the l14-24 and end up buying another one--it happened to me.
Jun Zhou wrote:
where did u get 35mm in CA?
btw, do you try the lens under live view to see if you can autofocus? I have sig 50mm and it can't focus under live view with D600, so I have to send back to Sigma for "upgrade".
I'm not sure, but trenchmonkey said a few pages back on the other Sigma thread that it's 4 years. It would be very hard to believe that Sigma is only offering 1 year on these.
Jan 04, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Sounds like a great idea. No point in keeping lots of money tied up in a lens you don't use, no matter how great the lens is. This way you have a lens you will use and some cash on the side.
Interesting. I think 90% of my images on the Nikon system come from a 14-24, so the idea of selling it to fund a 35 is totally alien to me. But to each their own.
Managed to sell on one of my snakes so had the funds available to keep the 14-24 as well. Sat here this morning at the office with the 14-24 packaged up and ready to send to it's new owner, but contemplating cancelling the order and taking her home again. However, I found the invoice in the box this morning and I bought the lens in November 2011 and have literally used it on assignment once, and apart from that it's barely left the peli-case.
Just popped in to my local camera store to have a look at the 105mm f2.8 micro VR and the guy dropped the price from £679 to £562 so I coudn't resist. I figure this will serve a dual purpose for being used for macro and detail work, but also doubles as a great portrait lens too.
For many people who are into UWA photography, it’s often an innate compulsion. If you aren’t afflicted, I wouldn’t worry about missing the range. Are you mad to get rid of it? No way! It’s all about using the right tools to help you create the sort of images you most enjoy. The 14-24’s superlative performance is otherwise irrelevant.
I was going to say that I would have made the same decision going for the Siggy 35mm F1.4...but am I reading that right that you didnt get the 35mm, you bought the 105mm instead? Or did you get both the 35mm and the 105mm?
Cassario wrote:
I was going to say that I would have made the same decision going for the Siggy 35mm F1.4...but am I reading that right that you didnt get the 35mm, you bought the 105mm instead? Or did you get both the 35mm and the 105mm?
Both . The 14-24 was being sold to fund the 35mm Siggy but in the meantime I sold on one of my snakes for £925 so had enough to buy the Siggy and keep the 14-24. Thing is I had already sold the 14-24 through Amazon by this point which I could have cancelled but decided to let her go to someone who will use it regularly and snapped up a superb deal on the 105mm. So it's almost like I traded the 14-24 and got 2 lenses in it's place so not too bad at all.
You did the right thing. Selling something you don't use for something you will use is practical and sensible. I'm thinking of selling my Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 and buying the 35 Sigma. Same focal length and although the Zeiss is superb the new Sigma appears to be even better.
zesto wrote:
You did the right thing. Selling something you don't use for something you will use is practical and sensible. I'm thinking of selling my Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 and buying the 35 Sigma. Same focal length and although the Zeiss is superb the new Sigma appears to be even better.
Horses for courses. 14-24 is a phenomenal ultra-wide zoom lens on all current Nikon bodies, but the catch is its weight. If you hike the entire Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine without any help from porters, you will probably don't want to carry it on your own shoulders. Will any 35mm FL cut it? For me, my go to lens will be Nikon 28 1.8G. It's compact, light, and wider than 35 focal length, first of all. And what really amazes me is that it can be easily turned into 33.6mm using 1.2x crop, and 42mm FL with 1.5x (DX crop) on the fly. Of course, the downside is that you can get 1.4 fstop.
I have the 24 f1.4 so I'll go to that if I need any wide angle stuff. I can imagine that hike would be pretty intense with so much heavy gear. I never found the 14-24 heavy but then I don't struggle with the chub either.... much...
. The 14-24 was being sold to fund the 35mm Siggy but in the meantime I sold on one of my snakes for £925 so had enough to buy the Siggy and keep the 14-24. Thing is I had already sold the 14-24 through Amazon by this point which I could have cancelled but decided to let her go to someone who will use it regularly and snapped up a superb deal on the 105mm. So it's almost like I traded the 14-24 and got 2 lenses in it's place so not too bad at all.