Value of second-hand glass

viper_biker

viper_biker

Suspended / Banned
Messages
550
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
Now that I'm starting to take my photography a bit more serious and I'm slowly upgrading to better glass to compliment my D300, I was wandering if it's worth keeping a hold of the current lenses I have, or should I sell them to fund something else. When I bought the D300 I also got the 18-70 AF-S DX and 70-300 VR Nikkor lenses. I treated myself to the f1.8 50mm on Christmas Eve (which I'm loving) and I'm soon to get a Sigma 70-200 (the Nikkor glass is too expensive for me)

I mostly have the 18-70 on the camera and I find it a really go everyday lens and I normally keep the 70-300 for the main reason I got into photography, motorsport (mainly bikes) The 18-70 cost me £220 and the 70-300 was £350. So, the Sigma will fill the slot of the 70-300 quite nicely along with a 1.4X t/c, but should I look to sell the other 2 lenses and fund a quicker/sharper everyday lens? Would I get much back for them or is it better just to keep the 18-70 and sell the 70-300 for a mono or tri-pod and head? I do also need a bigger carry bag and maybe an extra battery of 2 and possibly a few more CF cards. Obviously the lens wouldn't fund all that, but it would help towards it anyway.

All of my kit is practically new (only bought in Sept) and together there is less than 3,000 actuations on the body, only some with the 50 and the rest with the other lenses. They were bought in late September iirc without looking for the reciept. Would there be much of a return, or should I just hold onto them if I decide on a second body?
 
The 70-300 will just be doubling up with the Sigma if you buy one, but unless you plan on getting something like a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 then keep ahold of the 18-70 for now as a walkabout.

You'll probably be looking at losing £100+ if you decide to sell your 70-300, but there's not really much point in having two lenses with such similar focal lengths and I can't think of a situation where you'd need a 70-200 and a 70-300 at the same time,so you may just have to bite the bullet and sell it for what you can and invest the money in something that compliments the rest of your collection...
 
I'm confused here, on two counts.

Firstly you say your main interest is motorsport, yet you're contemplating selling your 70-300VR which you bought for that. I don't have any experience of the Sigma 70-200, but I would be amazed if it's better than the 70-300VR when it's used with a TC. Usuing a TC makes a lens less sharp and slower to focus. Plus it doesn't have VR. And you're not going to want to faff around putting the TC on and off all day. So unless you'd be happy restricting yourself to 200mm, and you think f/2.8 is more use than VR, then this seems a retrograde step to me.

Secondly you ask whether you should swap your 18-70 walkabout lens for something quicker/sharper. Only you can answer that, surely. If you are encountering situations where you feel the lens is limiting you, then an upgrade might be worthwhile. But I can't see any point in upgrading just because some other lens is better on paper, if you don't need the improvements and wouldn't see them in your photos.
 
From what i hear of the 18-70 lens it's a cracker (i don't have one so cannot comment). I recently picked up a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 on here that i have been very happy with and this is on my camera most of the time at the moment. However as i've never had the 18-70 i cannot compare them b ut i'd suggest you would have to pay a lot more to replace it with something significantly better....

I'd like to encourage you to sell the 70-300VR to me :D But only you can decide that!!
 
Don't be in a rush to "upgrade" any of your kit!

Your existing kit seems like a wonderful combination of very sharp glass and an outstanding body. Anyone would be happy with that.

The 18-70 DX is noted for being super sharp and a real bargain at the price. The option, if you want to go for faster glass would be the Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 which is a cracking lens and reasonably priced; but again, what you have is outstanding, so unless you need the faster lens why sell what you have?

As for the 70-300VR, it too is a fantastic lens and may outperform the Sigma. Once you add a TC (you would need a 1.7 TC to get the same range ... which I am not too sure Sigma make) to the Sigma it becomes slow and not as sharp as it was without. It also stops down to become slower. Will it be any better :shrug: ... may I also add that it's down to your skill with the gear and how you use the combination of your abilities and the gear you have.

I used to have the slower G model of the Nikon 70-300 lens (retailing for less than £100) which got me some of the best F1 shots I ever could get. Even the Sigma 70-200, which I had, nor the Nikon 70-200VR which I also had could give me the same results. Not because they are incapable .. far from it. It's down to how you can use what kit you have.

What you have is excellent, in my opinion, and I wouldn't rush to "upgrade" any time soon.
 
For motorsport (not something I shoot), I'd be tempted to forget the Sigma 70-200 idea, sell the 70-300 VR, and replace it with a Sigma 100-300 f/4. You can add a TC to that for 420mm. So you'll get a nice range, avoiding the 70-300 VR / Sigma 70-200 overlap.

The 18-70 DX is a very nice lens. The Tamron 17-50 is superb, and really about the only upgrade you can make. I really like the 17-50 but the 18-70 is no slouch either.
 
Wise advice as always. I can't say that I've found the 18-70 lacking in any area that I've used it in, wether its about the house or in a dimly lit crowded room. On one hand, people comment that I have 'buget' lenses on a camera that should really have 'more expensive' glass, and that is possibly what most annoyed me. The reason I started with the 70-300 was that I wasn't able to afford the Sigma (let alone the 70-200 VR) but now that I'm in the position to buy on, I thought it would have been a worth-while addition. I'm going to presume then that the next step forwards then would be the 70-200 VR?

Thankfully, tracks over here aren't that restrictive and 200mm would be plenty enough reach (see the shot below) and for road races, well, you can almost stand on the road if you dare. The only advantage of the extra 100mm is to get a shot that'll need less cropping (see pic 2 below)

As for the 18-70, I am very happy with it, so much so that it would take a lot of lens (which will obviously be a lot of money) to want for me to change. I think having just bought the 50 and as my lowest aperture numbered lens it's kinda spoit me a bit, but not to the point I want to go and spend £2k on new glass. So, I guess the answer then is, keep the 70-300 and the 18-70, pocket the cash from the lens and go get my bike re-sprayed LOL

Poor light, in the rain, 200mm,1/250, f5.3, ISO 400

DSC_1672.jpg


Nice sunshine, 125mm, 1/250, f8, ISO 640

6cb75b80.jpg
 
I used to have the 18-70mm and the 70-300VR and now have the 70-200 Sigma.
I also have the 17-55 f2.8 and the nikon 300mm prime, both are extremely expensive and very very good indeed, btw my camera is the D300.
My opinion is that the 18-70 will give the 17-55 a run for its money when stopped down, but the 17-55 is pin sharp edge to edge wide open with good colour contrast, the subject jumps out of the picture on a good shot. If you need the extra low light capability the wider lens is great, only you can decide if it's value for your money.
The sigma 70-200mm is a very good lens but not in the same league as my two nikons, to get great shots it needs to be stopped down 1 or 2 stops and I do miss the VR. The 70-300 is IMO as good as the sigma at 200mm and with the advantage of VR it is debatable whether I should have changed. The 70-300 is a touch soft at 300mm, even when stopped down but great at 200mm probably up to around 250mmish. You may want to consider the 80-200mm F2.8 nikon most aren't AF-S and non have VR but for motor sport it may be OK. The 120-300mm Sigma has a good reputation but it aint cheap.

Whilst your D300 wil undoubtedly benefit from better glass I'm not sure that the Sigma F2.8 is enough of an improvement, if at all, over the 70-300mm. IMO if you need F2.8, and I do, the good nikon glass is the safe buy, but it is expensive.
Kev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top