Camera Labs

i'm so afraid to spend the money!!!!
14-24 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8

All Nikkor Glass
totals just over 6000 US Dollars

Should I? I have the extra money....does anyone feel like this when they are about to drop 6 grand on three items?
I am gonna upgrade to a full frame in a year or so..but i want some nice fast lenses.....
i wont need anything else after this....lens wise..
could use some pocketwizards and alien bees. hehe

help me put my worries to rest guys!

_________________
Nikon D300 | Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 DX VR | 50mm f1.8D | Lowepro Slingshot | flickr

no, don't spend those money away for those "overpriced" "heavy" lenses.

Instead:

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM $900
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM $700 or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for non time critical work.
for ultra wide get several prime lenses for example 20mm or 24mm Aprox $1000

Saving to get other stuff: $3400 = translate to Nikon D700, pocket wizards and other lighting stuffs.

wow..



You never know, you might change your mind! he he he

_________________
RadiantLite - Cameras and Lenses Comparison Reviews, buying guide, photo taking techniques and other tips
My Portfolio - Some photos from my work

I would consider the Sigmas and then use the extra money for a lovely Nikon D700 like Enche suggests.

You dumping money before it gets confiscated to pay for other people's mortgages and bailing out banks?

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

If you have those 3 lenses you wont need anything ellse, you sorta have top of the line things all the way from 14-200mm at f2.8

If i would have had the 6 grand, i would have gotten those lenses, but that just me. The 70-200mm sigma can be some what soft when compared to the nikon version, idk about the rest of them..

_________________
My Picasa

My Flickr

If I had that kind of money, I'd probably just get the wide angle and the telephoto, get the new 50mm f/1.4G to cover the gap and upgrade to full frame. If a body upgrade was out of the question, I'd simply drop the wide angle: 14-24mm probably isn't worth its price if you won't be able to use its extreme wide angle capabilities, and that's not possible on DX.

_________________
"Shoot RAW, ask questions later"
My Flickr Photostream. C&C Welcome!
Nikon D80 | AF-S Nikkor DX 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED | AF Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8D | AF Nikkor 70-210 mm f/4

Sharpness can be modified by cranking up aperture, post processing like sharpening and also cranking up picture style/picture control stuff. I find the Sigma telephoto zoom sharpness is very satisfactory.

The lens has slightly different characteristic than the Nikon's, like it produce slightly warmer color. It has very good smooth bokeh. I think it is a very good lens especially for portraiture. In full frame camera, it does not suffer from vignetting like the Nikon 70-200mm (although many people argue that it does not matter).

The main difference of the two is it does not have Vibration Reduction.

The new 24-70mm HSM is amazing: check out the samples here:

http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=602310

I think Sigma strategy is focused on creating smooth bokeh instead of extreme sharpness, but this time they nail both.

Here are some recent shots i took in basketball match using Sigma 70-200mm.

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj74 ... C_5734.jpg
at f4

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj74 ... 5784-1.jpg
at f2.8

camera: Nikon D700

_________________
RadiantLite - Cameras and Lenses Comparison Reviews, buying guide, photo taking techniques and other tips
My Portfolio - Some photos from my work

My only hesitation is about the 70-200mm f/2.8.
The lens is great for your D300, but I´ve read that it has two main bugs for FX.
Vignette and corner sharpness.

The other two, 14-24mm and 24-70mm, are probably the best two lenses available for their respective range, but at a high price point.
I only wish I had the money for those two...

_________________
/Alexander
Nikon D300 - 16-85 VR

The Sigmas 24-70mm & 70-200mm,both F/2.8 are awesome lenses for te price. And don't worry about vignetting,a single option in Photoshop can fix that very easily. Anyway,expect the same quality in details as the Nikon.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

I just know that If i get the Nikkor glass i'll be set for a good while. I'm not saying anything against sigma lenses i've seen how sharp they are. I am still torn as to what to get. i know that if i get sigmas i have more extra spending money to get other goodies. but all i wanted was the lenses and maybe a year from now a FF body. No need to rush on the full frame just yet. I was also considering an epson 1400 printer if i went with sigmas. but yet again, i can be saving 3000 dollars by going with sigma..
..this has all been helpful. i love the examples..its always great to come here before i go and purchase to see some real review..thanks a billion mates.

_________________
Nikon D300 | Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 DX VR | 50mm f1.8D | Lowepro Slingshot | flickr

For wide angle, if that is what you like and is your thing, there really isn't anything comparable to the 14-24 2.8. It's in a league of it's own, even Nikon primes don't touch it.

For the 24-70, all I've heard are amazing things about the Nikon version but it is probably worth trying out a Sigma version if you want to save some cash.

For the 70-200, I would wait on it. Everyone expects Nikon to renew this lens with better performance for full-frame. It performs like a champ on APS-C sensors but suffers more than it should in the corners in full-frame. Still an excellent lens, but the consensus is that Nikon can and will do better.

Or, get the 14-24 for wide angle, get a 50mm 1.4 for medium length, maybe a 85 mm 1.8 for portrait and then spend the big bucks on a 300mm 2.8 VR. Ohh baby! I wish I had that dough to spend!

_________________
Hardware: Nikon D80, Sigma 10-20mm, Nikon 18-55 mm VR, 55-200 mm VR, 105mm f/2.8D Micro, 35mm f/1.8G, SB-600, Manfrotto/Bogen 190CXPRO3 + 468MGRC2
Software: Aperture, Photomatix, GIMP

My Flickr Page

you're missing a macro!

_________________
WHO I AM BLOG, WHAT I DO BLOG
Facebook
*most of my photos nowadays come with a blog post. Please take some time and stop by

and it will be super sharp Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro

how about standard prime?

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM!

lol.. I'm all about Sigma these days

_________________
RadiantLite - Cameras and Lenses Comparison Reviews, buying guide, photo taking techniques and other tips
My Portfolio - Some photos from my work

he'll probably go with a 60mm or 105mm nikkor

_________________
WHO I AM BLOG, WHAT I DO BLOG
Facebook
*most of my photos nowadays come with a blog post. Please take some time and stop by

get the 24-70 and 70-200. You won't get the same ammount of use out of the UWA IMHO, up to you though. The resale value of sigma glass isn't the same as Nikkor glass, so as I say, its up to you.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro

If I were you and had that amount of money, I think that I´d wait for the new 70-200mm lens, or maybe buy the current one at a lower price when the new one arrrives...

I wouldn´t buy the 14-24, because I´m no wide-angle fan, rather, I´d buy the 24-70, and then a PC-E tilt-and-shift lens with the money I´d save from not buying the 14-24.

Good luck with your decision! (I wish I could be in the same situation)

_________________
Nikon D90 (Primary), Nikon D40 (Backup)
AF-S DX 35mm f/1,8
AF-S 60mm f/2,8 micro
AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR
2 x Speedlight SB-600