Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #8 · Nikon D300s upgrade or What! |
I personally have not found the 18-35, 24-85, or any of the 70-300 lens to be as good as the 28-300.
The 18-35 is better than the 28-300 from 18-27mm
2. And then at least that much for expensive FX lenses. How much money do you want to have tied up in camera gear? (That is constantly losing value.)
3. The Nikon 18-35mm AFD was one of the worst lenses I've owned. Lots of distortion at the wider end. Yeah, 20 years ago it was considered to be a pretty good lens. I've tried many ultrawide lenses and the best is still the Tokina 11-16mm. To get a lens that good for FX, you'll have to spend $1,800 for the NIkon 14-24mm.
Kent, camera gear is not an investment that holds value, any more than a car. You get mileage out of it, and it gets you from point "A" to point "B", and it's a good car. If the camera or lens gets you the shot for years at a time, it's a great camera. You use it until you use it up, and until it's cheaper to replace than to fix, and you get the latest model you can afford that does what you need it to. I spent $3500 on a refurbished D2H... which I can get for about $300 now - but I beat the snot out of that camera, made some great pictures with it over the course of years, and got my money's worth out of it before I put it on the shelf when it's mirror box stopped working.
I'm a firm believer in cameras being treated like tools, not luxury items. Not to say I beat my gear around, but I actually use it. I make my living with cameras - and though in the past year I've bought over $50,000 worth of video and still cameras, I don't look at what the cameras are worth today (I try not to, actually... the second it comes out of the box, that $1000 you'll never see again! haha) - I look back at what they were worth to me on location while filming and shooting paying work, or serious hobby work. Carpenters have hammers, chisels, etc, I have cameras, lenses, and lights. What I make with my tools is what my gear is worth.
If you're buying any photo-related gear as a financial investment, buy rare and antique glass (Nikon 300mm f/2 AI, anyone?), shelve it until you have the sole surviving copy in mint condition and sell it for a killing to a collector... but you won't get much use out of that chunk of glass sitting on a shelf. I believe the OP wants to buy the right gear to get the right shots, not flip rare gear to collectors.
Also, the 18-35 AFD, though it has some moustache-shaped distortion, is one of the best sized, light weight, low price quality lenses out there if you're shooting more PJ style wide shots, rather than architecture (terrible for that usage). That said, to match the 11-16mm f/2.8, you have very few options on FX, and the most comparable lenses in quality (Nikon 14-24/2.8 AFS, Tokina 16-28/2.8, Rokinon 14/2.8) do not accept filters easily (and you need 4x4 filters), whereas the 11-16/2.8 takes a standard 77mm. That low-cost D700 may seem like a good deal, until you get sticker shock on the lenses that make it sing.