Nikon 24-120VR and 28 1.4

[Mike_B]

I just went nuts and bought the 70-200VR, the TC-14eII teleconverter, and the 17-55DX. In combination with my 12-24DX, this is pretty much going to be my kit. Not so much that my bad back can't carry it all, hopefully, on a good day, as my rehab progresses.

Anyway, I got the 70-200VR a couple of weeks ago, and, when I got the opportunity to actually order an in-stock 17-55DX, the only way I could justify it was by deciding to part with my 24-120VR and 28 f/1.4. Yes, there are really good arguments for my keeping those two lenses as well, but, right now, I can't afford to keep it all. And I really wanted the darned 17-55.

So, I just figured I'd mention it here before listing them on eBay. The 24-120VR seems to be a really nice copy, and I hate to part with it, but I can't justify keeping it along with my new purchases. As you guys may recall, I bought it just a couple of months ago, and the slow progress of my back's rehab has meant that it's only gotten sparing use. Regardless, it's indistinguishable from new even to someone as anal about these things as myself.

As for the 28 1.4, it's also totally indistinguishable from new. It's an older, pre-digital lens design, so it's not quite as digital-friendly as new designs, but, as long as you use it as it's intended, the lens is exceptional. If, however, you decide to torture it and shoot it at f/1.4 in bright sunlight with lots of contrast, you'll see some CA, just like with the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. Not the proper way to use the lens, but, since I was dumb enough to try it, I figured I'd mention it. The lens is impeccable if you use it wide open in appropriately low-light conditions, and it's amazingly sharp even at 1.4 and 2.0. Igor posted some comparisons a while back between it and the Sigma. The comparisons are striking, the Nikon lens is so much sharper wide-open. But, then, it should be for the price.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so I'll try to cut it short. I bought brand new Hoya SMC filters for each of these lenses as well, and also have the elusive HK-4 hood for the 28 1.4. (It's the hood for the 35-70 f/3.5 AI-S lens, but, when Ron Resnick mentioned that it worked far better on the 28 1.4 than the fairly useless hood that's made for it, the HK-4 became even more scare. I think it's almost impossible to find now.)

I'm sure these lenses will sell well on eBay, but I just thought I'd see if anyone was interested first. I haven't even come up with a price as I just ordered the 17-55DX and hadn't even thought about selling them beforehand. But I knew I probably had a tiny window to order the 17-55 before it was gone, so I jumped at it.

If anyone's interested, let's just talk and try to work out something mutually agreeable. Bear in mind, though, that I'll sell the 28 1.4 for a lot less than the price of a new one, with the price on the 24-120VR being a more modest savings.

Mike

[Igor]

Mike, one day you'll miss them (especially 28/1.4) :) But I do understand your motives.
Post some 17-55 shots, I'd like to see this beast in action :)

[Mike_B]

Hi Igor,

Yes, and I would miss the 28 1.4 even more if I had a FF F-Mount camera. Have you gotten around to using this lens with your SLR/n yet? Good results?

Mike

[Igor]

Only a few test shots (pretty nice!). You know this lens needs specific conditions to show its strength, haven't had such yet.

[S_Leeper]

To help guide your pricing B&H has a 9 at $1050.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productList&A=buyUsed&Q=36923
It doesn't have the filter, nor the hood.

Good luck with your sale.

p.s. At f 2.4 hyperfocal is only about 22 yards, at f 4.0 13 yards...

[Mike_B]

Darn. I justified ordering the 17-55 DX by promising myself that I'd get rid of the 24-120 and 28 1.4 to pay for it rather than invest any more in photo gear at the moment. (Gad, I'd spent around $7,500 in the past 3 or so months before even ordering the 17-55.) Now, it's time to put the lenses on eBay, and I'm getting cold feet. Lol, it's a lot harder to part with them than I though. They are both nice lenses that certainly won't see as much use now that I'll have the 17-55, but they still have their specific uses. It's not like I'll go broke if I don't sell them, and I could always sell them then if I do, lol, but, still, I promised myself. Do I break my promise? Was it just a ploy to dupe myself into spending an extra $1400. (Oh God, what will happen when the D2x is released?) Well, at least I currently don't have a significant other to justify this to, so my promise-breaking will only involve me (which, of course, has it's down-side as well). I think maybe I have a photo-gear addiction problem, AKA Igor's Syndrome. Oh my.

Mike

[Igor]

Thanks Mike, I'm flattered, a Syndrome called after me! :)

[S_Leeper]

I know the feeling about spending lots of money & parting with quality lenses... very hard to do if you don't use.

Maybe you can go 1/2 way (1/4 way moneywise) & sell the 24-120vr now & give yourself some more time with the 28 f1.4 as its value will probably not diminish over the next year or five.

[robinp]

I'd say hang on to the 24-120, useful if you need to travel light & take just one lens. Let the 28mm go, you won't regret it.

Cheers, Robin

[Mike_B]

Sam: You're right about the 28 1.4. It's value on the used market will probably not shift for quite a while. In fact that's one of the decent things about buying excessive amounts of fine lenses. If you go overboard, the resale value is usually quite a bit higher than lots of other things. I could certainly just keep the 2 lenses for a while and see for real if they get used much or not now that I have the 17-55. They would still be worth essentially the same in a few months, after I had a better idea of whether they were still getting use or not.

On the other hand, I'm not in the same financial situation as I was before my accident and injuries. Common sense told me not to spend any more on photo gear right now, so I justified getting the 17-55 to myself by telling myself I'd sell off some other stuff.

Robin: Yes, the 24-120 can come in pretty handy, particularly in any situation where you just want to bring along a camera and one lens. On the other hand, now that I've spend the money for the kit I have, I'd better justify that by schlepping all that weight around and getting some good use out of those lenses.

Of course, another factor is how much more useful the 28 1.4 will be if I go FF again someday. My ambivalence about the lens would totally change if it returned to being a true 28mm 1.4 lens again. But, on yet another hand, I did just make a considerable commitment to APS-sized sensors by buying the 12-24 DX and the 17-55 DX. Also, if I can afford and/or justify the expenditure, I have little doubt that the D2x will be in my camera bag in the future, and will end up being my primary camera for quite some time (I would hope). In which case, it would be really nice if Nikon really committed to the format and released a 16mm 1.4 DX lens. I'd go into hock for that puppy!

Mike

[jhawk1000]

Sounds like Mike is having as hard a time with his lenses as I am having deciding on tires for the Porsche.

:)

Mel

[polarmom]

This is now almost October. do you still wish to sell this lens. If you do I will buy it if you have a reasonable price for it. am in Western Mass so sending would be inexpensive. :monalisa: polarmom

[Mike_B]

Hi polarmom. I sent you a PM about the 24-120 VR. If you didn't happen to notice that you have a PM from me (I know I forget to check), please go check it out.

Mike

P.S. - I see you're new here, so, in case you don't know about the Private Message feature, it's a link in the upper right hand side of the screen. Just click on the Private Message link, and you'll see my message.

[Sleeping Bear]

Hey Mike, did sell that 24-120 yet?

[Mike_B]

Hi Ron,

Yes, I still have the 24-120 VR. After a lot of indecision, I decided that I'd just keep all of my lenses for a while and see what got use and what didn't. There's been a lot of internet talk about there being good and bad copies of this lens, and, since I seemed to have gotten a rather nice one (if there is indeed any truth in the sample-variation rumors), I decided to give it some time. Basically, I didn't want to make an impulsive decision, sell the lens, regret it, then replace it with an inferior copy.

Anyway, I've owned the 17-55 DX and 70-200 VR for a while now, and the truth is that I grab either one of those lovely lenses whenever I want to walk around with only one lens. Yes, they're heavier and more conspicuous, but the weight doesn't seem to bother me, and, in this day of tiny digicams, I think any DSLR is pretty conspicuous to most people. So, it looks like I could get along without the 24-120 VR and probably wouldn't run right out to replace it or anything.

Plus, the S3 is looking less interesting to me, and the D2x is looking really good, so it wouldn't hurt for me to get a little cash together and stash it aside to help with the D2x. So, if you'd like the 24-120 VR, I'd be willing to let it go.

Actually, I had it sold some time ago but, as I said, I decided to wait and see if I'd continue to use it. We'd agreed on $450, and I'd offered to throw in a 72mm Hoya Skylight filter for that price. Seem fair? I figured it was fair since the lens often sells for a bit more on eBay without a filter thrown in. And, given my anal retentive nature, the lens is, of course, as mint as when I took it out of the box. Not a sales pitch, just info.

Mike