What to do

[DJT]

Trolling the forums the other night & saw a lens that I thought I needed / wanted.
Whilst preparing to take my case to the minister of finance, this got me to thinking a bit about my current bag of goodies.
The lens that got me thinking is a Nikon 80-200 AFS f/2.8.
I already have a Sigma 70-200 HSM f/2.8, that I am quite happy with so I don’t really need the Nikon (wallet talking – just ignore this statement for now).

I currently have Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 & 90mm macro, Nikon 35, 50 & 80 and the Sigma 70-200.

The thing is I bought the Sigma primarily for the kids & their sport. Now that they have cut back on their sport I just don’t get it out of the bag. I took it out about 2 weeks back just to make sure it still worked (sad, but true) and it does.

So should I just off load the Sigma or will I miss it.

If I do decide to sell the 70-200, should I just grab an old 70-300 or similar as a long lens and also get myself a wide angle like a 10-20.

Or

Sell the 70-200 & 90 and get a Sigma 150mm macro, that way I have a long lens + macro & I’m not doubling up on the 85 & 90 ( I think I like this option)

Or

Other suggestions welcome

[Craigvtr]

As soon as you sell something you will find you desperately need one two weeks later. Just add to the collection.

[Mr Lensbaby]

A nice Sigma 180 at the right price may be the way to go

[DJT]

A nice Sigma 180 at the right price may be the way to go

Now if I only new someone that had one that I could borrow for a while. The 150 is more in line my virtual budget, size & weight look good too.

Craig, I'm gonna wait 2 weeks just to see if your right. Adding to the collection unfortunatley at this stage of life is not an option.

[Redgum]

DJT, don't bother, save your money and go and shoot some photos with what you have.

[David]

Always a tough one, what do I WANT and what do I NEED.

I have bought and sold the 10-20mm you mentioned because I got a 10-22MM Canon lens and so I longer needed the 10-20mm for my landscapes. I also bought and sold the 70-200MM L Canon lens before I bought the 100-400MM L Canon and missed it straight away. But now I am eyeing off the 2.8 version of the 70-200mm simply because people I know have it, I like the results they are getting with it, but have failed to convince myself that I NEED the lens in my kit, I don't so I will not buy it. It will not make me a better photographer, it will not cover focal lengths or IQ I do not have once I master what I already have and for a landscaper I have more than enough in my camera bag without ever thinking I NEED something else.

My thinking was to buy good quality (not the best or latest) lenses to cover focal lengths I did not have in my kit which I now have done...10mm-400mm in Canon lenses...so for me I am looking at sitting on what I have for a year and getting enough experience to know what fixed focal length lens/es I could consider down the track for specific types of photography.

I can not advise you beyond saying the 10-20MM is a great wide angle landscape lens if you want to do wide angle landscape photography IF you are not using a full frame camera body. And this is where it gets dodgy, I don't even know what camera you are attaching these lenses to. Good luck with your choices mate, it is never easy figuring out where to go next or whether to just sit on what you have - avoid looking at the FOR SALE sections for awhile if you are tempted to buy something on an impulse , works for me.

[kiwi]

wow, what cant you use a 70-200 on ? sigma one even does reasonable macros

i think youve unfairly pidgeon-holed it a a sport lens

[bigdazzler]

I agree. The 70-200 is very versatile and can be used for a lot of stuff mate. I wouldnt get rid of it.

[DJT]

Thanks for the reponses guys. Using a D200 David.
Reckon I'll take redgums advice & sit with what I've got.
Had another play with it today & perhaps I've just been a little lazy in getting it out of the bag.
I guess it's ok for the odd portrait even if it's just horsing around

[Redgum]

Atta Boy! Nice horse.

[Tannin]

Let me get this straight ..... you have a perfectly good 70-200 that you hardly ever use and you are thinking of spending good money on buying [another one? (Well, an 80-200/2.8, which is near enough to the same thing.)

Hey, I am well-known as a bit of a lens maniac, but even I have never gone that far into Let'sjustspenditanywayland.

I was going to suggest something nice in the 400mmish range, but if you are barely using the 70-200, anything longer would be pointless.

That leaves you with two good plans:
1: buy an ultra-wide
2: don't buy anything.

Me, I'd have the ultrawide.

[fillum]

I understand your conundrum DJ, I have a Nikkor 70-200 and pretty much only use it for the kids footy. (I'd use it for portraits if I could find someone willing to be photographed ). Not sure what else I could really use it for as I find it a bit cumbersome to be wandering about with. (In my hands with the scalloped lens hood attached it's almost a lethal weapon ).

Something that might work better for you might be the Nikkor 18-200mm - pricewise I think it would roughly be an even swap for your 70-200. The disadvantages would be the drop in image quality (an assumption as I haven't used the Sigma but pretty sure this would be the case); the drop in max aperture (the 18-200 is 'technically' f/3.5-5.6 but you might as well think of it as an f/5.6 lens); and when focusing close the maximum focal length drops well below 200mm. The big gain however is versatility, particularly when you want to travel light. I have the 18-200mm and also the Tamron 17-50mm and even though there is overlap in focal length I use both regularly as they each have strengths in different areas.

The Sigma 10-20mm would be a good option if you are looking for something at the wider end.

Not sure that I've helped any ...



Cheers.

[DJT]

Thanks Tannin & fillum
"let'sjustspenditanywayland" yeah I got to the fence & the grass didn't look any greener. Not sure I need more than 200mm if I did I'd start with a teleconverter.
Whenever I go for a photo walk, I come back wanting a wide angle. But I'm struggling finding time to go for walks, so not a high priority (it's a want)

18-200 not for me, might as well get a point & shoot (joke) I don't have a problem with lens swapping so it's not even a consideration.

Might have to let Santa know I need a wide angle for Christmas

[mpot]

Let me get this straight ..... you have a perfectly good 70-200 that you hardly ever use and you are thinking of spending good money on buying [another one? (Well, an 80-200/2.8, which is near enough to the same thing.)

Sounds like a case of "lens lust"...
(where practicality doesn't really come into it ;-))

[kiwi]

Obviously not too many here using a 70-200 as an event lens, which is it's primary purpose and bloody brilliant at, if you have an issue carrying it around I recommend you get an r-strap so it then can tuck nicely along your thigh like a gun holster when you are walking about

If you don't also use it as your primary outdoor portrait go to lens then you are just not trying hard enough




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigdazzler]

If you don't also use it as your primary outdoor portrait go to lens then you are just not trying hard enough

+1

[DJT]

If you don't also use it as your primary outdoor portrait go to lens then you are just not trying hard enough

So what do I do with my 85mm

[kiwi]

Well, do what I did to it......

[bigdazzler]

So what do I do with my 85mm

use em both, thats what I do ... ones 2.8 and I assume the prime is 1.4 .. different beasts mate.

[DJT]

use em both, thats what I do ... ones 2.8 and I assume the prime is 1.4 .. different beasts mate.

I wish, nah 1.8 but it's nice .
What did you do with yours Darren