Through performing well on a couple of freelance jobs, I've been offered some more work but I'm concerned about my kit. On most of the jobs I've done so far, I was using somebody elses kit (the guy I was working for). The new jobs will be using my own gear, I've got a D300 but just basic lenses.

If I perform well on these jobs, there should be more work available (publicity shots for major hotel chain, regular hotel magazine etc). I've pretty much decided to buy a Nikon 24-70 f2.8, is there anything else to consider ? It's just shy of a grand but I'm looking at it as an investment, however if I can get something of even similar quality for a few hundred less I'll be able to buy another couple of bits I need.

If the Nikon is far superior (and all advice I've had so far seems to say it is) I'll go for it, but just want to make double sure I'm not missing a rival.

Thanks

 

 

 

Nice one, wish I could land something like that

Anyway, regarding the lens, I have the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and it's a cracker, a real cracking piece of glass.  If you don't require the range of the 24-70mm then the 17-55 can be had for £700 new, so quite a saving. 

Have you considered second hand?  You might get some decent savings.  Remember that you need a lot of work to pay back a £1000 investment.

---

I use Canon and have two "L" lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 100-400 f/4.5, but for sharpness the Sigma 24-70 cannot be beaten. Before paying out £1000 check out the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens - Nikon Fit, only £300

---

MY GALLERY

Thanks Martin, I think you've just saved me £300. I did look for the 24-70 second hand but even a used one on ebay is going for over 900 with a couple of days left !

The crazy world of Ebay!  I recently sold a lens for more than I paid for it

Thanks should go to Jonathan Ryan really, he pointed me in the right direction before I moved to Nikon.

Just a note, some of the cheap prices don't include the petal lens hood which is about £30 I think.

www.ffordes.com have 3 second hand in for £649 and I'm sure you will get a guarantee with them.

You can buy me a beer with the savings

---

I don't knock anyone for the kit they have (Well except those with Nikons - but only in jest ) But I have to date only bought Canon gear - one reason being the zoom ring all go the same way (Ok exept the 100-400 - which I don't have!) and they are set out the same - zoom ring at the camera - focus at the other end.

Just so that I can pick up any lens and it works as you expect - particularly useful in sports etc when things can happen quickly. May not be important to yuo - and I fully understand - but its just a thought.

---

Mark

Digital Photo Group
My Website

Ne nuntium necare

You should also look at the Sigma 18-50 EX Macro f2.8. It's an excellent lens, producing very high quality images. It'll also allow you a wider field of view than the 24-70, which may be useful for some of your work - room shots, for example. The link below gives further information.

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/18-50mmEX.htm

The Nikons probably have the edge on some points but I'm not sure that at the start of your career it's worth the price, and I think the lack of a properly wide angle of view might be a real drawback for you (obviously this doesn't apply if you but the DX format 17-55).

I bought the Sigma because I couldn't afford Nikon glass as well as the D300 and have never regretted it. Even if I had lots of cash to spare now I wouldn't buy either of the Nikons mentioned as I rate the Sigma so highly.

---

My DCM Gallery

OK.....somebody mentioned my name ;)

Siggy 18 - 50 EX Macro 2.8. As Eileen says one stunning lens. I use a mid range zoom a lot and could justify buying any of them if I needed it. For the last two years I've used the Sigma. Very sharp, nice contrast, small and fast. It's also cheap.

Nikon 17 - 55 2.8. I've used this lens a little. It has a very strong reputation as Nikon's classic medium zoom. I haven't used it enough to know but the shots I've seen from it don't make me rate it much higher than the Sigma optically. Build quality is something else - if you abuse your kit then get this one because you will break the Sigma (I did....).

Nikon 24 - 70 2.8. Almost certainly the best zoom Nikon have ever made. Well worth the grand I paid for mine . Outrageously sharp and loads of contrast. This has been called the new standard to measure all lenses by.

But a couple of other thoughts.....

1. All of this is based on real world use - I don't test lenses in labs or pay much attention to test charts.
2. The 17 - 55 and 18 - 50 are both DX lenses - great on crop sensors, not good on full frame.
3. Most people seem to like the effective 24-70 length which is roughly what a 17 - 50 is on a crop camera. You may find the 24 - 70 too long on a D300.
4. I've never used a D300 - it may be that the 24 - 70 has a magical relationship with the D3. Seriously.

For a crop camera I'd get the Sigma (yes, instead of the Nikon 17 - 55). For a full frame the 24 - 70.

---

Kidography. It's like photography. But more fun.

Thanks for the advice everyone, I've just bought the Nikon 17-55. I looked at the Sigma but the build quality was a bit flimsy imho compared to the Nikon. Image quality seemed a little better as well, but I'd struggle to tell them apart in a blind test to be honest. I really really wanted to get the 24-70, but need to get a new tele zoom for some equestrian events I'm doing and the £300 saving will help.

I'm planning on getting the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR unless anyone else is kind enough to save me some more cash :)

Martin, thanks again for the tip. If I get a chence to pass any work your way I'll let you know

 

 

Colin Thompson:

Thanks for the advice everyone, I've just bought the Nikon 17-55. I looked at the Sigma but the build quality was a bit flimsy imho compared to the Nikon. Image quality seemed a little better as well, but I'd struggle to tell them apart in a blind test to be honest. I really really wanted to get the 24-70, but need to get a new tele zoom for some equestrian events I'm doing and the £300 saving will help.

I'm planning on getting the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR unless anyone else is kind enough to save me some more cash :)

Martin, thanks again for the tip. If I get a chence to pass any work your way I'll let you know

 

 

The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR is the best lens Nikon make, so don't consider anything else. At around £1,100 it's still a bargain.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Colin Thompson:

Thanks for the advice everyone, I've just bought the Nikon 17-55. I looked at the Sigma but the build quality was a bit flimsy imho compared to the Nikon. Image quality seemed a little better as well, but I'd struggle to tell them apart in a blind test to be honest. I really really wanted to get the 24-70, but need to get a new tele zoom for some equestrian events I'm doing and the £300 saving will help.

I'm planning on getting the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR unless anyone else is kind enough to save me some more cash :)

Martin, thanks again for the tip. If I get a chence to pass any work your way I'll let you know

Nice one, you won't regret it I'm sure.  Now for my next trick...if you can live without the VR for a £400 saving get the 80-200 f2.8.  This is brilliant.  I don't have time to find you one at the moment, but try Microglobe.co.uk as they had them new for £599 when I got mine.  WHExpress have them for £649.  There are a few versions available, I have the AF D ED version.  Some have push-pull focus rings I think, again Jonathan or OB should be able to help with this more than I can. 

---

OldBoy:

Colin Thompson:

Thanks for the advice everyone, I've just bought the Nikon 17-55. I looked at the Sigma but the build quality was a bit flimsy imho compared to the Nikon. Image quality seemed a little better as well, but I'd struggle to tell them apart in a blind test to be honest. I really really wanted to get the 24-70, but need to get a new tele zoom for some equestrian events I'm doing and the £300 saving will help.

I'm planning on getting the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR unless anyone else is kind enough to save me some more cash :)

Martin, thanks again for the tip. If I get a chence to pass any work your way I'll let you know

 

 

The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR is the best lens Nikon make, so don't consider anything else. At around £1,100 it's still a bargain.

The 70-200vr is an outstanding les and is well worth the money.  I got mine delivered for £903 from abroad, but i wasn't to bothered about it coming from abroad cause they have an international warrenty.  This lens with the D300 is a killer combination.
Just for refernce, I've got the 18-50mm sigma f2.8 and it gives lovely sharp images on the d300.
(got my D300 yesterday and used it on my second paid job last night)

---

My Duff Photos

I think the thing that makes the 70-200 stand out from the crowd is its autofocus, which is very very quick and can lock on in low light situations where other lenses would struggle. That is why it's particularly popular with photographers who use it when the light is low and flash isn't an option - weddings, gigs, social occasions generally.

VR is very useful also in such situations.

The 70-200 can also be used with a teleconverter, which allows you to have a longer length sometimes without needing to buy another lens. This might be useful for your equestrian events. I'm not sure if the 80-200 can be used with teleconverters.

I believe that both are full frame lenses so if you were to move to a full frame Nikon in a few years time they would still cover the whole field of view.

This is one case where I'd strongly recommend going into a shop to try the lenses if you're unsure. In my case I planned to buy a cheaper telephoto zoom, but trying every other decent zoom side by side with the 70-200 really showed up the difference - particularly on autofocus.

---

My DCM Gallery

martin_hurton:

Colin Thompson:

Thanks for the advice everyone, I've just bought the Nikon 17-55. I looked at the Sigma but the build quality was a bit flimsy imho compared to the Nikon. Image quality seemed a little better as well, but I'd struggle to tell them apart in a blind test to be honest. I really really wanted to get the 24-70, but need to get a new tele zoom for some equestrian events I'm doing and the £300 saving will help.

I'm planning on getting the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR unless anyone else is kind enough to save me some more cash :)

Martin, thanks again for the tip. If I get a chence to pass any work your way I'll let you know

Nice one, you won't regret it I'm sure.  Now for my next trick...if you can live without the VR for a £400 saving get the 80-200 f2.8.  This is brilliant.  I don't have time to find you one at the moment, but try Microglobe.co.uk as they had them new for £599 when I got mine.  WHExpress have them for £649.  There are a few versions available, I have the AF D ED version.  Some have push-pull focus rings I think, again Jonathan or OB should be able to help with this more than I can. 

Mifsuds have a secondhand one for £349 Here.

I think the pull/push versions are F4.5's.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Check out www.photozone.de you might find it helps in your choice....

---

Beefy