sell 12-24 nikkor ?

[heartyfisher]

Hello all,

 

Been agonising over this for a few days now..

 

I have a 12-24 Nikkor.. Lovely lens.. I mostly use it to help out my wife's

business (Real estate). I also have the 18-200VR .. just got that 3

months ago.. and it does not want to get off my nikon body..(D70)

Lately I have been getting intrested in more low light event photography

which the 18-200 is weak at.. due to the slow lens and lots of

subject movement. So a 50mm 1.4 is going to be bought as soon

as I can scrape up some cash. So I thought maybe I can sell off

that lovely 12-24 and get a sigma 10-20 and the Nikkor 50mm as well..

 

The good thing about this plan is

 

1 ) I get a bit wider coverage from the 10-20 which i find to be slightly

lacking in the 12-24. Rooms having 90 degree corners and although nikkor says it

covers 99 degrees.. I find that in actual use it just manages to miss it by the

slightest bit. may be its the D70? Any one else find that this is so?

2) I can probably get the 50 mm 1.4 from the money difference.

 

The bad about this plan is ..

1) There may be a 1.1 almost FF camera from nikon the the future.. the 12-24 can

probably be used very sucessfully on this 1.1 FF nikon camera.

2) I can probaly get the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 but I like the 1.4 and the amount I can

get for the 12-24 may not cover that and the sigma.

3) This is a short term issue with money .. and I should just wait and get the

1.4 50mm when I can afford it. In the mean time I will just have to make do for

the event photography thing.( an imposible task I think.. any suggestions on

event photography with the 18-200VR? on a D70 )

4) The sigma is not a nikkor..

5) I really dont like light fall off at the edge that the reviews say the sigma

has. How bad is it? I use stitching software to stich a 360% panorama for the

realestate stuff I do. light fall off at the edge would be a pain to fix.

however I dont do the panorama thing often.

 

Looking forward to all your great comments!

[conrad_hoffman]

Can't comment on the actual lenses, but I regret selling almost every piece of photo equipment I ever have, and usually ended up paying more money later to replace it. Keep the lens and wait until you can afford what you want. I've also looked at the Sigma and think it would be a great addition to the 18-70/200 zooms. BTW, I don't understand your comment about 90 degree corners and 90 degree coverage- two different things, or do you mean you want to stand in a corner and see both walls, in which case you're not completely in the corner and will certainly need more than 90 degree coverage.

[Ed_Ingold]

The angle of view for a lens is usually that on the diagonal of the frame. By simple geometry, if the diagonal field of view is 99 degrees, the horizontal (long dimension) will be 82 degrees. Since you are stitching panoramas anyway, you can achieve any field of view you wish up to 360 degrees. You can emulate a simple wide angle lens by choosing to stitch a rectilinear projection rather than the usual cylindrical projection. Besides, the wider the lens, the more difficult it becomes to avoid vertical convergence.

[Rene11664880918]

I think Conrad is right! If cash is the problem you should just wait. I have only got rid of two glasses in 25 years, 1 was an Osawa lens. I bought it coz it was cheap but after I shot a roll of film with it I never used it again. The second was an FD tele-converter. I found out the hard way thet it was better to buy a longer lens. The lenses that I like I can't sell them even if I don't use them. So, Yeah! If you like what you have keep it and wait. If you didn't like them that would be a different story

[david_manning1]

FWIW--

 

I have a 12-24 f4.0 Tokina zoom that I like on my D2x. When I put it on my F6, it works

great down to about 18mm, which is obviously very close to the 17mm wide end on

Nikon's wonderful 17-35 zoom. Wider than 18mm and you see the frame shrink, which

I've been tossing around as an interesting creative idea anyway. From 18mm up to 24mm,

it's a great ultra-wide on the full-frame. I have no problem using it like that, and it goes

in the bag with either body I use.

 

Hope this helps.

 

----Dave.

[klix]

Used to have a Sigma 10-20mm; now have a Nikon 12-24mm.

 

Yes there is a big difference betweem 10 and 12mm; however, the barrel distortion at 10mm is so extreme that it was almost cartoonish, and required a lot of PS work.

 

At the same focal lengths, the Nikon's IQ is just in a different league.

 

You ALREADY HAVE the Nikon, so, all you really need is to add the 50mm. Are you saying you can't come up with $100?

[ellis_vener_photography]

keep it.

[robert_hooper1]

The 12-24mm is an outstanding lens. I doubt if your wife's real estate business is in any way disadvantaged because of the perceived limitations of your Nikon 12-24mm.

 

Save up for the 50mm f1.4. After all, its less than 1/3 the price of your other two lenses, and you obviously had no problem justifying them.

[mars790]

like David, i have the Tokina 12-24 (my only 3rd party lens out of

8). you can sell your Nikon for $550-$600 maybe and pick up a

mint used Tokina for less than $400. the Tokina performs great

and actually has less distortion at 12mm than the Nikon. i

wouldn't go for the Sigma. not as well built and mucho distortion.

 

with the $200 or so saved, put that towards the 50 1.4 - you'll love

it.

[greg_morgan]

I'd keep the 12-24 and add a 50mm...maybe a macro 50-60mm? The 12-24 won't work on a

full-frame camera... it's a "DX" lens, which means it's for APS sized sensors, like your D70.

It'll vignette on a FF camera.

[heartyfisher]

Thanks so much for all the views.. Still thinking ... but will probably wait.. until I can try out the sigma 10-20 in a shop..