Lenses - Which Ones To Upgrade?
Discussion
Just carried out a quick "audit" of my lens usage over the last five months:
85 -------> 31.4%
20 -------> 19.6%
70-300 ----> 15.7%
180 -------> 8.8%
45 -------> 7.8%
55 -------> 4.9%
14 -------> 3.9%
10.5 -------> 2.9%
500 -------> 2.9%
28-70 -----> 2.0%
Which, in itself, has been an interesting exercise to check if I ever use stuff I buy!
It's no more scientific than looking in Lightroom at how much I've used each one!
I'm trying to work out which of these (all but the 14mm and the 28-70 are Nikkors, btw) I should concentrate upon in terms of potential disposal and saving up for my next step up.
The issue I now have is how can I work out what will be the best value-for-money upgrade. I have moved up to a D2x and the quality of some of these lenses really shows up now - the 14mm and 500mm are both disappointing, but I don't use them much - the 55mm is an old Micro lens and it's pretty damn good.
But how can I work out what the biggest step up per buck will be?
For example a 105mm Micro VR is an expensive kit, but I believe could be fantastic: would it be as much of a quality step from my £60 secondhand 55mm bargain per buck than say a secondhand 80-200 f2.8 to cover at least some of the 70-300 range and the 180? Would a 17-35 be any better quality wise than my old, old 20mm and then go further by giving me a useful range??
In Quality/Use/Handling/Build terms I'd currently rate them as (out of five) about:
Three Star:
85 f1.8D (maybe three and a half)
20 f2.8D
180 f2.8 (non-D)
45 f2.8 AI-P
55 f2.8 AI Micro
Two Star:
70-300 (ED) f4-5.6
10.5 F2.8
28-70 (Tokina) f2.8
One Star:
14 (Sigma) f2.8
500 f8 Cat
Anybody looking, or looked, at similar dilemma? Anybody have thoughts?
85 -------> 31.4%
20 -------> 19.6%
70-300 ----> 15.7%
180 -------> 8.8%
45 -------> 7.8%
55 -------> 4.9%
14 -------> 3.9%
10.5 -------> 2.9%
500 -------> 2.9%
28-70 -----> 2.0%
Which, in itself, has been an interesting exercise to check if I ever use stuff I buy!
It's no more scientific than looking in Lightroom at how much I've used each one!
I'm trying to work out which of these (all but the 14mm and the 28-70 are Nikkors, btw) I should concentrate upon in terms of potential disposal and saving up for my next step up.
The issue I now have is how can I work out what will be the best value-for-money upgrade. I have moved up to a D2x and the quality of some of these lenses really shows up now - the 14mm and 500mm are both disappointing, but I don't use them much - the 55mm is an old Micro lens and it's pretty damn good.
But how can I work out what the biggest step up per buck will be?
For example a 105mm Micro VR is an expensive kit, but I believe could be fantastic: would it be as much of a quality step from my £60 secondhand 55mm bargain per buck than say a secondhand 80-200 f2.8 to cover at least some of the 70-300 range and the 180? Would a 17-35 be any better quality wise than my old, old 20mm and then go further by giving me a useful range??
In Quality/Use/Handling/Build terms I'd currently rate them as (out of five) about:
Three Star:
85 f1.8D (maybe three and a half)
20 f2.8D
180 f2.8 (non-D)
45 f2.8 AI-P
55 f2.8 AI Micro
Two Star:
70-300 (ED) f4-5.6
10.5 F2.8
28-70 (Tokina) f2.8
One Star:
14 (Sigma) f2.8
500 f8 Cat
Anybody looking, or looked, at similar dilemma? Anybody have thoughts?
I'll probably end up sticking with what I've got and just getting to improve my technique, being the tight git that I am...
I'll try to be a little more constructive than RD.
You're analysing it like an accountant. Try analysing it like a photographer. You've used your camera a lot in the last few months in all sorts of situations. What do you feel is the weakest link - the lenses, the body, or you? What did you try to do that you couldn't, and if so, what was the reason? If it's kit, a few £ either way isn't going to make much difference to you.
As for macro, the Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 is affordable, excellent quality and also a good portrait lens. But you have to identify if you are champing at the bit, or just bored.
You're analysing it like an accountant. Try analysing it like a photographer. You've used your camera a lot in the last few months in all sorts of situations. What do you feel is the weakest link - the lenses, the body, or you? What did you try to do that you couldn't, and if so, what was the reason? If it's kit, a few £ either way isn't going to make much difference to you.
As for macro, the Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 is affordable, excellent quality and also a good portrait lens. But you have to identify if you are champing at the bit, or just bored.
If you feeling the need for flexibility around the 20mm mark and worry about the quality of the Sigma 14mm, how about the 12-24 AFS DX Nikkor. It's a DX format lens so will match your D2x perfectly.
Alternatively you're using the 85mm quite a lot, a 70-200 AFS VR could help to replace that and your 70-300. It's certainly sharp enough for portrait style work.
Chris
Alternatively you're using the 85mm quite a lot, a 70-200 AFS VR could help to replace that and your 70-300. It's certainly sharp enough for portrait style work.
Chris
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff