Keep or sell this DX lens?

[focusphoto]

<p>When I bought my D800, I kept my D300. Fortunately, I had a decent number of FX lenses to begin with.<br>

I sold all but one of my DX lenses - the venerable 17-55 f/2.8. <br>

I told myself I would keep the D300 (for which I also have the vertical grip, extra batteries, and plenty of CF cards) as a backup camera. I haven't taken a single picture with it since I got the D800, although I let my girlfriend use it once or twice. (one time, she tried to put a CF card in backwards, bent the internal pins, and I ended up shelling out around $300 to get it repaired but that's another story). <br>

I have the following FX lenses in my kit, and I use them all: 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, 60mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 24-120mm f/4 VR, 16-35mm f/4 VR.<br>

So, you guessed it - I'm debating selling the 17-55.<br>

I could still keep the D300 as an "emergency" backup body, and make due with one of the FX lenses I already have. Upgrading my backup body for a "just in case" scenario is not really feasible right now, and none of my jobs are such that I simply MUST have two bodies with me at all times. I'm not shooting weddings or critical events where I only get one chance.<br>

Also, I know myself. If something happened to my D800, God forbid, I would not be very happy back on my D300. All my thoughts would be bent towards a new D800 and I'd obsess until I figured out a way to make it happen.<br>

As far as keeping the 17-55 to use on my D800, I'm not really seeing any benefit to that. I've got that range kind of covered with the 24-120, which is slower but does have VR. <br>

I'd put the funds back into photography, either saving towards a dedicated video camera, or maybe a 35mm prime for the D800.<br>

Curious to hear what you guys would do. Again, I'm not a wedding photographer. Small freelance jobs, ones that can be scheduled or happen over several days (tennis camps, a dance studio, some local real estate shots, some portrait work, engagement photos, that sort of thing) . Shooting nature and local concerts for pleasure. Family photos. If I were to land a gig somewhere that required a second body for backup, I'd rent a D800 for a day or two.</p>

 

[RaymondC]

<p>I think yes - you simply haven't used it and you said you rather rent another D800. Used and new FX will get cheaper and cheaper. How old is the D300. Even thou it is still a v nice capable camera. </p>

<p>With a D600. For me I still use my 10yr old D70 so I have kept a 35mm DX and the Sigma 10-20. Which I used at the base ISO which is what I do most with photography. But I have sold my 18-70DX. Even if that was the more practical outdoor social lens websize snapshots - you know Facebook nothing more. The D70 is so cheap it;s not worth selling unlike the D300 for now that is. But you've made me think again if I should sell my mint condition 10-20, since I could use my D600 but then again, I still enjoy the D70 and b/c I just shoot off a tripod I wouldn't mind getting a future DX body in the year 2020 even a D3000 class body - I don't necessarily require slick controls for tripod work. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Since you have that range pretty well covered and use the D800 most of the time - I'd bail on the 17-55 f2.8. </p>

<p>Be prepared for sticker shock though - depending on where / how you sell it. I've seen them on the Bay going in the $700-800 price range. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Doesn't sound like you must have that 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S any more. Should your D800 fail, you have the 16-35 and 24-120 to cover that focal length range. Those are only f4 and is not as convenient as one lens that goes from 17-55 on a DX body, but it sounds like you can get by.</p>

[focusphoto]

<p>David - I know, I'm prepared for that. I was thinking I could at least start at $900. It's in mint condition, with both caps, hood, and all original packaging. I'm pretty good at selling lenses - I usually post a custom web page, with studio shots of the lens and a gallery of photos I've taken with it.<br /> $900 gets me a 35mm (or maybe even an 85mm for portraits) with change to spare, or almost halfway to a Canon XA20 video camera...</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd sell the D300 with lens as a pair, looking if some local photography club or other local contacts know somebody who could be interested.</p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>Sell both and use the money for something you will use. I sold off a D7000 and a D90 a while back and it felt really good to get that equipment out of my mental inventory. You'll feel better once you do. You already have a plan for backup equipment if you need it.</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

Sell both and buy a used D700 as a back-up body.

 

Erase the expression "x1.5" from your brain. It is very liberating.

[Two23]

<p>It doesn't make sense to have $800 tied up in something not being used.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Sell them both and get a D5300. Then you won't need the dedicated video camera (the D5300 video is excellent), and you'll still have the longer shots covered in bright light (with the 70-200 on the D5300). You'll also have a sharp, flexible, BRAND NEW back-up camera body with GPS built in. You might not use it much, but you just might find you will keep your 24-120 on it and keep your 16-35 on your D800. You could also keep the 24-120 on your D800 and your 70-200 on the D5300. Those two kits would work very well together, with very little overlap. If your D300 did 24 megapixels without the anti-aliasing filter, would you shoot with it more?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

Sell quickly as long as there are still people out there that can be persuaded to spend $8-900 for that lens instead of

going for cheaper and better options available new and with warranty.

 

My 16-35 replaced the 17-55 for most of my shooting - and the Sigma 35/1.4 takes care of the rest.

[eric_arnold]

<p>sell the 17-55 and get a sigma 35/1.4 for the d800. keep the d300, since the 1.5x crop can give you extra reach with telephoto lenses. the 35mm would be a good investment for an FX user.</p>

[rjacksonphoto]

<p>How likely is it you'll buy one of the smaller, lighter DX bodies, such as the D3200 or D5300? They make great travel bodies. In that case, the 17-55 would make a great combination. If it is unlikely you would ever go that route, I'd sell it.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Anytime I take a paid photo-shoot, no matter how small, I have backup of most important equipment with me. That means camera body + standard range lens + flash. If I drop my main camera with lens and flash and all go to pieces - I have full backup in the trunk of my car. I may not use my backup but it buys me peace of mind. That said, 17-55mm might be too much for merely a backup, you can sell it, buy a lesser lens and still have money left for something else.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I try to reverse the question. Ask yourself if you had the $800, but not the lens, would you now go buy the lens. If the answer is no, then you should sell it. This works great for stocks as well, especially after they've lost money and you no longer have faith in the company but don't want to take a loss.</p>

<p>I have tons of gear that fails this test, but I'm too lazy to take the time to sell. But at least I know what gear I should sell.</p>

[robert_landrigan]

<p>I'll echo the folks saying ditch the 17-55 and get the Sigma 35 1.5, did that very thing and I can;t begin to tell you how much more useful a lens it is. If you want a smaller/lighter alternative, Sell the D300 and 17-55, grab the soon to be out 35 1.8 FX and a little critter.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>Eric why do you suggest the D300 would be better than the D800? The D800 shoots 18 megapixels at the APS-C crop size, while the D300 shoots 12 megapixels. Wouldn't it be better just to shoot and crop the images from the D800?</p>