The Ancient Question... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/24/2007 12:06:32 PM · #1

To buy Glass or Camera. I feel like there have been a billion posts about this, but i didn't see any off the bat when i searched, so here we go.

I know the answer is glass, but here is my dilemma: Used D200 or used Nikkor AF-s 17-55 f/2.8 DX? What makes this decision hard is the D200 would be a pretty substantial upgrade from my D70s, but I currently don't have the range that the lens would do me for. I am starting to do more and more portraits for people, so i'm just not sure which one will have the largest impact on my photos in the short term. Eventually i will upgrade the one i don't buy now, I'm just not sure which order to make my purchase in.

I have read great things about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but I really like the feel and build of the Nikkor. Any advice or personal experience would be appreciated.

Thanks!

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

10/24/2007 12:10:14 PM · #2

The secret Ancient Wisdom is "buy both".

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

10/24/2007 12:40:15 PM · #3

Originally posted by routerguy666:

The secret Ancient Wisdom is "buy both".

If only I had the funds! I've considered getting the lens now and waiting for the D300 coming out to get a D200 at a lower price, or waiting 6-9 months for the camera and get a D300 after the excitement dies down a little.

bassbone

Nikon Z8

10/24/2007 12:43:27 PM · #4

I would really get the glass first. I just invested in a 60mm micro and the quality of my images took an amazing jump in quality. Get the Glass.

Did I say it yet - GET THE GLASS!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/24/2007 12:53:12 PM · #5

my random portrait lens selection wisdom.

Buy a medium telephoto prime. Save money, better quality, shallower depth of field, less fiddling with the camera, happier subjects, better portraits.

Message edited by author 2007-10-24 12:53:32.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/24/2007 01:48:43 PM · #6

Originally posted by Gordon:

Buy a medium telephoto prime. Save money, better quality, shallower depth of field, less fiddling with the camera, happier subjects, better portraits.

I have Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8D ED lens that I have used primarily for portraits. It is an excellent performer and covers the range that any medium tele prime would cover. The only lust i have is for the AF 85 f/1.4 and the AF 105 f/2 DC, neither of which are practical given my situation. What i'm looking for in the 17-55 is the option for more scenic and environmental, full-body and candid portraits for when i start to do more commercial and wedding stuff. Do i have the right thinking in using the 17-55 this way? Thanks

fotomann_forever

10/24/2007 03:19:58 PM · #7

Originally posted by Gordon:

my random portrait lens selection wisdom.

Buy a medium telephoto prime. Save money, better quality, shallower depth of field, less fiddling with the camera, happier subjects, better portraits.

I'm with Gordon on that. If you'll notice I don't have a zoom in my collection.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

10/24/2007 03:38:28 PM · #8

I think the timeline looks like this:

Camera with glass
glass
camera
glass
glass
computer (upgrade)
glass
glass
camera
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass

JopperTom

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/24/2007 03:43:49 PM · #9

Wait until the D300 drives the price down a little...so buy glass now and in a couple of months people will be selling D200s to buy D300s. Then you will get a bargain. That is my strategy. It hurts because I really really want to upgrade my D1X right now!

fotomann_forever

10/24/2007 04:02:13 PM · #10

Nothing sweeter than settling down with a nice piece of glass.

rider

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

10/24/2007 04:11:14 PM · #11

GLASS

10/24/2007 05:18:39 PM · #12

Ok... So right in line with what everyone has told me (in addition to myself), i believe i will opt for the lens. I have seen it on eBay for $900-$1000 (for a US version), which is $200-$300 cheaper than B&H has it. Is it worth the $250ish for a new one that i know is perfect and that comes with the 5 year Nikon warrantee, or should i put that $250ish toward a camera? I'm leaning towards the new lens just because i feel like it will last me a long time, and i like having the knowledge that i'm getting a new lens that has the Nikon warrantee, but $250ish is a good sum of money toward a future purchase. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks!

**Edited for grammar**

Message edited by author 2007-10-24 17:20:29.