Anticipating future bout of NAS

<p>Was playing with a D700 and was surprised that its size wasn't that different to my d300s, size being my main reason against going fx (and cost obviously).<br>

So that set me planning / daydreaming about future nikon purchases. (Please humour me here (shun!), this is a case of imagined / future want, definitely not yet in the 'need' category).<br>

Not being that aware of fx normal zooms available i've spent a while browsing the lenses available, and found the tamron 28-75 2.8. half the weight and a third of the cost of the nikon 24-70 2.8 and seemingly a very well regarded lens.<br>

Current kit is d300s with tamron 17-50vc. In my imagined, wealthy near future i have 2 directions.</p>

<ul>

<li>Upgrade the glass to 17-55 nikon, cost approx £600 + my lens; or </li>

<li>upgrade body to D700, cost of approx £750 plus my d300s.</li>

</ul>

<p>I also note thet the d700 + 28-75 is lighter than a d300s and 17-55, and only slightly heavier than the d300s+17-50vc.<br>

So what direction would you go if you were in my imagined situation.<br>

Just chewing the cud..</p>

<p>Roughly speaking, the D700 is a $2500 DSLR body and the Tamron is around $600. How many other lenses are you getting? Without other lenses, some 80% of that total budget goes to the body and 20% to the lens. To say the least, that is a very wrong picture.</p>

<p>Is there something wrong with the D300S such that it cannot get the job done so that you need a D700? The D300S has a 100% viewfinder, dual memory cards, and video capture. The D700 has none of those features.</p>

<p>Me, if I would have to choose just on paper I would prefer to have a 17-55 than a Tamron 28-75.</p>

<p>Myself I had a D200+Tamron 17-50 and I've sold the lens (plus some other manual lenses) to buy a Nikon 17-55. Both cameras are in perfect balance and the 17-55, compared to the Tamron is much much better built, has faster autofocus and nicer color rendition and sharpness.</p>

<p>hi <strong>shun</strong>, the why i could see myself buying a d700 is the larger viewfinder and better high iso capability. I note your point regarding ratio of lens cost to body, but not sure how this invalidates the use of the tamron on a d700, from what i have seen the tamron is a very good lens. from http://photozone.de/:-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The resolution figures are among the highest tested among the standard zoom lenses - the center resolution is generally excellent and the borders follow closely on very good to excellent levels. The distortions are verylow as is the amount of vignetting and even CAs are very well under control.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But then it also points out sample variance as being an issue..<br>

<strong>breogan</strong>, the comparison i was making wasn't directly between the lenses, but the lenses in conjunction with the bodies, ie d300s with 17-55, or d700 with 28-75 tamron</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Sorry Phil, I ws trying to make a extrapolation of the 28-70 from the 17-50.</p>

<p>Both lenses are have a similar build quality. My 17-50 extended quite a bit when zooming and, in a year of use, developed a slight wobble that surely would gone worst with time. The lens felt plastic and weak from day one. The 17-55 is build like a brick.</p>

<p>I can tell you that the AFS from the 17-55 is a plesure to use, I has nothing to do with the Tamrom autofocus motor (or the AF motor from body). Is fast, accurate and silent. The tamron AF motor was quite annoying.</p>

<p>I haven't tried the 28-70 so I can't comment how the picture quality compares.</p>

 

<p>I like the 28-75 lens, and the D700 is great, but is the need for a new camera a pressing issue? A D300S is an excellent camera and a 17-50VC is an excellent lens, and NAS all too often results in somebody getting a noticeably better shot 2% of the time while spending 200% more money...</p>

<p>Usually with digital, if you like what you have, you can hold off on upgrading it and wait to see if the next generation gives you a substantial improvement.</p>

<p>IMO the 17-55 is overpriced. getting it adds almost nothing in the way of IQ over your current lens. not sure its worth $1000+ for faster AF and better build. the 28-75 is not quite as sharp at 2.8 as the 17-50 (non VC), but otherwise a very good lens for the money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... the tamron on a d700, from what i have seen the tamron is a very good lens."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are a NAS sufferer, and your postings betray this, be sure that third party lenses will never be enough. You will spend on them, until you finally own true Nikon gear. NAS is that bad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"the why i could see myself buying a d700 is the larger viewfinder and better high iso capability"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly NAS is a problem. I`m not one to give advice (here a founder member of NAS anonymous), but I`d ask you to check by yourself both cameras, side by side. Only in this way you`ll know if the trade is worth it. I bet that for most people performing this test, FX is not worth it.</p>

<p>Eric, I guess... I've paid the double for the 17-55 (second hand) than what I've paid for the 17-50 new.</p>

<p>I my opinion, when I see the product as a whole (not only picture quality) I think I didn't pay that much. But I understand that many people only look for IQ. In my opinion that's not the only thing that matters.</p>

<p>breogan, IMO the 17-55 is worth about $800-$900. i wouldn't pay $1500 for it, which is what it is going for new now. it's certainly not 2-3x as good, IQ wise, as the 17-50, and if you're going to spend that much, might as well pop an extra $200 for the 24-70. for the OP, it's much more of a lateral move than going to an FX body, since you're essentially paying a huge premium for an incremental increase in optical quality if at all, plus faster AF speed and better build. OTOH, it's fair to ask the OP why they even need to upgrade anything at all, since the d300s/17-50 is quite capable. is the better VF and high-ISO performance really worth it? if you're going to add anything, might it not make sense to add something you don't already have? in other words, swapping a 17-50 for a 17-55 is simply a case of throwing money at NAS. but picking up an 85/1.4 or a lens you don't already have makes much more sense to me, since you're gaining capability.</p>

<p>Well, that's what I've paid for the 17-55...</p>

<p>Eric, I see your point. It's just that I've paid 800$ for a D40x new and after a few months I felt I've bought a piece of plastic. Then 400$ for a Tamron 17-50 and again I had the same feeling. Then I've bought a D200 (second hand) and I really saw the light, time latter I changed the Tamron for the nikon and I feel my money has been really well spent.</p>

<p>Sure, the quality of my pictures has nothing to do with the gear I have. It's just that I love to spend my money on high quality things and get the feeling that they are going to last much longer.</p>

<p>My father always bought few thing but of high quality. He had a F3 and a 50mm/1.2 when I was a kid and my first camera was a FM2 with a 50/1.8 AIS. I am used to sturdy metal things, I can't stand the cheaper made weak plastic ones.</p>

<p>But, again, this is only my personal opinion.</p>

<p>Leaving aside the D300 v D700 argument. I too decided to go for Tamron's 28-75 as the walkabout midrange zoom of choice on my D700, for the exact same reasons as Phil. Nikon's 24-70 is really just too big and heavy to lug around all the time, especially if it's not the only lens you carry.</p>

<p>Nevertheless a few months ago I was ready to drop the cash on the 24-70 Zoom Nikkor for its optical quality alone and I tried 3 different samples in 3 separate retailers. All 3 Nikon lenses suffered from a sloppy, stiff or gritty-feeling zoom action, which I didn't think was acceptable in such a pricey lens. I then read several online reports about this lens having to be returned for servicing after the zoom ring had seized up. That settled it. No thanks Nikon, I'll pass on this one!</p>

<p>IMHO and that of several reviewers, one lens that comes close to the IQ of the Nikon is Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8. However, and I can't stress this enough, <em>make sure you buy this lens from a reputable dealer and that it comes with the correct maker's warranty cards for your region</em>. Tamron have some widely-reported QC issues with this lens, and you may have to exchange it once or more times to get a good sample. But when you do get that good copy it's a brilliant lens and an absolute bargain. I've compared mine with an Ai-S 28mm f/2 Nikkor prime and with the 85mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor. The Tamron zoom equalled or beat the two primes at comparable apertures on sharpness alone and was only let down by its marginally greater vignetting and distortion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the quality of my pictures has nothing to do with the gear I have. It's just that I love to spend my money on high quality things and get the feeling that they are going to last much longer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>NAS is pretty easy to justify, isn't it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO and that of several reviewers, one lens that comes close to the IQ of the Nikon is Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i had the tamron 28-75 before i went to FX and got the 24-70. i havent had QC problems with either. from an IQ standpoint, they are indeed close. the nikkor easily wins on build quality, focus speed, and sharpness @2.8. but if you dont need to shoot wide open a lot or shoot action, the tamron is the better bargain. i will say that it's a fugly-looking lens which is capable of gorgeous-looking images. if aesthetics were all that mattered, tamron would be out of business. but i dont buy camera gear just to admire it.</p>

<p> </p>

Yeah, the Tamron's an ugly one all right. But it's so much lighter than other options, and very sharp starting at f/4 - and

let's face it, none of these lenses are particularly good performers at 2.8. I think of 2.8 as an emergency thing and a

way of making the AF sensor work better.

<p>As an addendum to my experience with trying to find a good 24-70 Zoom Nikkor: I was astounded by the attitude of the salesperson in my local branch of C*l*met. Their sample of the above Nikkor lens was by far the worst, and the zoom ring became almost immoveable at around the 50mm mark. I asked if this was the only example they had in stock and was told "yes", to be closely followed by "if you're going to buy it I'll fetch the box". This was after I'd pointed out that the zoom ring was almost too stiff to move. What a joker! Talk about dumb optimism.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>NAS is pretty easy to justify, isn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not exactly that (although NAS has something to do with that). You should see my refrigerator, my car and my furniture. They are not the cheapest.</p>

<p>Here we have a say: "If you are poor you should spend more money on something you want, because you can only spend it once". You know, "buy cheap and you'll buy twice".</p>

<p>Honestly, i don't want to convince anyone. I am happy with my decision, that's all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>let's face it, none of these lenses are particularly good performers at 2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not true. the tamron 17-50 is incredibly sharp wide open, and the 24-70 is also right up there. the 28-75 IMO is usable @2.8 but tack-sharp @f/4. i've heard the 17-55 isn't that great wide open, which if true, is disappointing.</p>

<p>the thing is, for DX, a 17-55 is like a Cadillac. it's expensive and overbuilt for how it performs. A Toyota works just as well in most cases and sometimes better, but... it's a Toyota.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Honestly, i don't want to convince anyone. I am happy with my decision, that's all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i can respect this. i won't say i've never considered the 17-55, because i do shoot a lot of events, but when i had the 17-50--it was stolen--i never felt let down by the optical quality, and the build held up surprisingly well considering its plastic. i would be willing to pay >$1000 for a minty 17-55, but not more than that. i currently have the sigma 17-50 OS which is a great lens for DX, has a decent build, plus stabilization, and is less than half the price of the nikkor. if i'm shooting a paid event, i usually pull out the FX body and the 24-70, but for walkaround use, a compact lightweight zoom on a DX body is just so much more manageable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nikon's 17-55mm lens has long been available in the $850-$1100 range used. Nikon's lens give exceptional IQ at f2.8. </p>

 

<p>FX vs. DX, that's the bigger question...it's more important than 28-75 on FX vs. 17-55mm on DX, I think.</p>

<p>Personally, if I didn't already have a few pricey FX lenses, I would just stay DX...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Phil,<br>

The upgrades you are considering are so boring. Upgrading from dx to fx with standard zoom lens is such a cliche! Get yourself a fisheye, a super tele or 1.2 fast prime - start something adventurous!</p>

<p>I have enjoyed using my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 with my D700 the past few years. Smaller and lighter than the Nikkor and if it fails I will go to the camera store and find another good sample. I am not sure it is sound to use just a dollars percentage to dismiss the Tamron as a poor fit, I suspect it is as good or better than the 24-120mm f4 Nikkor - apples to oranges though. Good glass at what ever price should be used with good bodies and if sharpness is the top priority then good technique using a tripod would be a must. I am not sure you will gain much from this exchange but it is your money. I did not want to have your NAS which is one reason I went from a D200 to the D700. Not a 100% viewfinder but it is worth the price for me.</p>

<p>Thomas, cliches become cliches simply because they reflect a common occurrence or relate to many peoples situations. So of course we're going to see similar questions time and time again, because of the popularity of mid-range zooms and because a growing number of DX users are wondering if they should make the switch to full-frame.</p>

<p>To suggest a fisheye lens as a suitable substitute for a standard zoom is provocative at best. And just owning a piece of exotic hardware isn't at all adventurous - it's what you do with it that counts (another cliche, but true). I'm sure that 99% of the most "adventurous", moving and visually stunning photographs of all time were taken using lenses with focal lengths between a moderate wideangle and a modest telephoto. I can't remember one fisheye shot that stands out in my memory - they all just look like boring round blobs with detail too small to see - nor one particular shot taken with a super-tele.</p>

<p ><strong>Andy L</strong></p>

<p >the need for a new camera is not pressing in the least. the main influence being current lack of money.. there may well be a successor to the d700 by the time i'm ready to buy. surely there will be a successor in plenty of time for next years olympics?</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Jose Angel</strong></p>

<p >i'm not actually that bad in only wanting nikon gear, but given a larger bank balance things may change. but there isn't any nikon alternative in size to the tamron 24/75.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Eric Arnold </strong></p>

<p >the direction i see myself going in eventually is to fx, but the main reason i haven't in the past is the size of the 24-70 lens. I wasn't aware of lenses like the 28-75 then. Regarding your suggestion to try other lenses, i already have the nikon 35mm, great low llight / small lens, and just recently the sigma 105 2.8 macro. Heres a macro picture i took a couple of days ago. <a href="http://rapscallion.eu/photos/the-fly/">http://rapscallion.eu/photos/the-fly/</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Thomas K.</strong></p>

<p >i was actually thinking of buying one of these...<a href="http://goo.gl/W8Vpc">http://goo.gl/W8Vpc</a>. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Carl Becker</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p >Good glass at what ever price should be used with good bodies </p>

</blockquote>

<p >+1</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>So what direction would you go if you were in my imagined situation.<br />Just chewing the cud..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phil,<br>

You didn't indicate an important decision making factor - the main reasons <strong>for</strong> going FX.<br>

This way it is not easy to fit in your imagined situation, but as you say "<em>size being my main reason against going fx </em>" and you do not complain about <strong>image quality</strong> of your present set, why not just staying with it? What reasons do you have to consider new gear (any) as an <strong>upgrade</strong>?<br>

The politically correct will obviously be to answer your question with the <strong>rational purchasing mind</strong> and talk about your "needs" versus this or that one piece of gear. But does that make any sense?<br>

If we were driven only by our <strong>real needs</strong> we wouldn't probably own most things we do and this apply to a lot of goods not just camera gear. <br>

So, if you feel that "sick", "shopping therapy" can help you and doesn't compromise your finances you shall go ahead to avoid the feeling of frustration...but be aware because the medicine will not prevent your "<em>daydreams</em>" a short while after the purchase and when a new toy'sannouncement is made you will most likely have another bout, providing you don't read magazines with reviews and group tests to find the "best of...", as this can also cause an immediate effect based on existing stuff.</p>

After all, this also happens to most of us that don't use a particular gear to reach professional targets, no matter how conservative and conscious consumer each one thinks of itself. lol

 

 

 

 

 

<p>Rodeo Joe:<br>

My answer to Phil's qustions was intended to be slightly provocative and not too serious - but this conversation in not entirely sane. The OP confessed to having a bout of NAS -a shock treatment in needed. Exotic glass can open new avenues for photographic exploration. And maybe shooting with a fisheye only intead of a standard zoom can bring interesting results- who knows?</p>