Lens dilemma - what would you do?

ProG77

ProG77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
637
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello fellow togs,

I’ve a bit of a dilemma. I currently have a Nikon Z6 with the following lenses:
- Z 24-70 f4 (waiting to replace with Z24-120 f4)
- Nikon 200-500 f5.6
- Tamron 70-200 f2.8
- Nikon 85mm f1.8

My dilemma is, once I get my Z24-120 f4, it will become my ‘go to’ lens and I really like the 200-500 for reach for when I do wildlife (and sports in the summer) - but it’s not as sharp or fast as the Tammy 70-200 2.8. Do I keep the Tammy 70-200 or trade it in when I get the Z24-120? I know the Tammy is a 2.8 and a great lens, but I’m not sure that I’ll miss the reach between 120-200 and justify keeping it when I could use the funds towards the Z24-120.

So, what would you do if you were in my position?? Help me with my 1st world problem here ☺️
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
ProG77 said:
Hello fellow togs,

I’ve a bit of a dilemma. I currently have a Nikon Z6 with the following lenses:
- Z 24-70 f4 (waiting to replace with Z24-120 f4)
- Nikon 200-500 f5.6
- Tamron 70-200 f2.8
- Nikon 85mm f1.8

My dilemma is, once I get my Z24-120 f4, it will become my ‘go to’ lens and I really like the 200-500 for reach for when I do wildlife (and sports in the summer) - but it’s not as sharp or fast as the Tammy 70-200 2.8. Do I keep the Tammy 70-200 or trade it in when I get the Z24-120? I know the Tammy is a 2.8 and a great lens, but I’m not sure that I’ll miss the reach between 120-200 and justify keeping it when I could use the funds towards the Z24-120.

So, what would you do if you were in my position?? Help me with my 1st world problem here ☺️
Thank you.
Click to expand...
I don't wish to sound blunt but - you didn't just start photographing Thursday, how could you possibly not know if you'd miss the reach between 120-200mm?
 
Last edited:
It sounds to me like the 85mm is the redundant lens, unless you are into studio-style portraits.
 
TBH, 120 -200 is a gap I could live with if I had to. BUT, if you can afford to keep the 70-200, I would do so for a while just to see how much it got used before making a decision.
 
Winslowe said:
I don't wish to sound blunt but - you didn't just start photographing Thursday, how could you possibly not know if you'd miss the reach between 120-200mm?
Click to expand...
“I don’t wish to sound blunt but…I will any way”. Appreciate you adding absolutely no value to my question but thank you for your comment. You have a good day.
 
lindsay said:
It sounds to me like the 85mm is the redundant lens, unless you are into studio-style portraits.
Click to expand...
Agree. I bought it specifically for a portrait shoot and hardly touch it other than for that purpose.
 
Mike.P said:
Unless you really need the money keep the Tamron. 24-120mm and ,70-200mm is a useful combination for day to day photography I would say.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Heart says keep it, wallet says sell it Might hang on to it for a while….
 
Nod said:
TBH, 120 -200 is a gap I could live with if I had to. BUT, if you can afford to keep the 70-200, I would do so for a while just to see how much it got used before making a decision.
Click to expand...
Wise advice. Thank you
 
ProG77 said:
Thank you. Heart says keep it, wallet says sell it Might hang on to it for a while….
Click to expand...

Might depend on what wife says!!!
 
Is the new Z lens a 24-70 or 24- 120 as you say 24-70 initially then refer to it as 24-120?
If it's a 24-120 I don't think you need to keep the 70-200 but if it's a 24-70 then I'd say keep the 70-200
 
ProG77 said:
“I don’t wish to sound blunt but…I will any way”. Appreciate you adding absolutely no value to my question but thank you for your comment. You have a good day.
Click to expand...
No disrespect intended - just trying to encourage you to think for yourself.
 
ProG77 said:
Hello fellow togs,

I’ve a bit of a dilemma. I currently have a Nikon Z6 with the following lenses:
- Z 24-70 f4 (waiting to replace with Z24-120 f4)
- Nikon 200-500 f5.6
- Tamron 70-200 f2.8
- Nikon 85mm f1.8

My dilemma is, once I get my Z24-120 f4, it will become my ‘go to’ lens and I really like the 200-500 for reach for when I do wildlife (and sports in the summer) - but it’s not as sharp or fast as the Tammy 70-200 2.8. Do I keep the Tammy 70-200 or trade it in when I get the Z24-120? I know the Tammy is a 2.8 and a great lens, but I’m not sure that I’ll miss the reach between 120-200 and justify keeping it when I could use the funds towards the Z24-120.

So, what would you do if you were in my position?? Help me with my 1st world problem here ☺️
Thank you.
Click to expand...
70-200mm f2.8's are my favourite lenses and go to for sports therefore I wouldn't go without, plus it's lighter than the 200-500mm and so nicer if you want to keep weight down. That being said only you know how much you use each lens (y)
 
I would not buy a lens unless I could not manage with out it.
I would not sell any lens that I find useful, even if only once a year.
The fewer unnecessary lenses the better.
I would never buy a lens Just in case.

I do not understand why people buy and lug about lenses that they never use.
Or worse still, buy and sell the same lens time and time again.

My grand father built a beautiful house with private woodlands and gardens on the side of a golf course In Surrey in the early 1900's Eventually he sold it, but bought it back only a few years later in the early fifties. The loss on it was mind boggling.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I would not buy a lens unless I could not manage with out it.
Click to expand...
You could go down a deep rabbit hole with this. I could technically managed without 100mm macro using close focus of other lenses but results would be much worse, just barely acceptable. But acceptable. Or Sigma 35mm I have 2x lenses that have 35mm. Yet none resolve as well on 5Ds. So just stick to your 2nd point; it makes it much clearer.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You could go down a deep rabbit hole with this. I could technically managed without 100mm macro using close focus of other lenses but results would be much worse, just barely acceptable. But acceptable. Or Sigma 35mm I have 2x lenses that have 35mm. Yet none resolve as well on 5Ds. So just stick to your 2nd point; it makes it much clearer.
Click to expand...
I will stick with it, manage to me does not mean just scraping by, it means doing a good job and up to the necessary standard. But perhaps with a little more effort or restrictions. I use an ancient 50mmm macro ,Pentax, on my Fuji X. No auto any thing but does just fine image wise.
I manage perfectly well for the few times I need it each year.
 
If I may add my pennie’s worth…and I believe some have said it already in some way above…

Don’t sell anything. Pack it and store it properly. You will thank yourself a few years from now when you come back to that specific bit of gear you don’t have to buy again…often at a much greater price. Unless you go to bed hungry…but I don’t think THAT is a first world problem

Wish I gave myself this advice a decade or 3 back…
 
antonroland said:
If I may add my pennie’s worth…and I believe some have said it already in some way above…

Don’t sell anything. Pack it and store it properly. You will thank yourself a few years from now when you come back to that specific bit of gear you don’t have to buy again…often at a much greater price. Unless you go to bed hungry…but I don’t think THAT is a first world problem

Wish I gave myself this advice a decade or 3 back…
Click to expand...
That's good advice (if you can afford to), if I'd only done that years ago when I sold my Bronica kit for a pittance at the beginning of the digital era. It's cost me far more to replace it all in the last couple of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top