Dilema - your thoughts please

[Hamish Gill]

I love my camera collection... I love using all of them for different reasons ... But I am starting to need a lot of kit for work!

I need a wide angle lens ... I'm thinking the nikon 16-35 f/4
I also need a new flash, mine is falling apart
I also desparatly need a second full frame nikon ...
I also have a x100 on order I need to pay for

So I'm thinking of selling
My voiglander r2a
15mm Voigtlander lens
21mm voigtlander lens
28mm Voigtlander lens
35mm Voigtlander lens
75mm Voigtlander lens
Epson rd1
Nikon 20mm 2.8
Some other nikon film cameras in various conditions
Other random bits and bobs...

It's going to be painful, and actually won't raise enough cash, but with a little one on the way, it's the only way I can get the stuff I need for work!

What are your thoughts?

 

[Pete Askew]

Always tricky parting with gear Hamish. Can you not keep using the 20 f 1/2.8 for WA. I find WA zooms a bit neither here nor there. Commercial camera had a S/H D3 the other day.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Gonna go for a 700 I think ...
20mm isn't wide enough for some work that has just knocked at the door!
I don't shoot that wide much at all, certainly not in especially low light, so thought the 16-35 would cover all of my needs!

I have a 17mm tamron sp I'm going to trial run this weekend, but I'm not sure it will be versitile enough for the work in question!

 

[Pete Askew]

Could you hire a 14-24 for the job?

 

[Hamish Gill]

Nah, thought about that, it's likely to be regularish work with last minute bookings ...
Dam it, I hate selling stuff I like!

 

[Pete Askew]

Commercial Cameras has a Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D for £249. Would that be wide enough?

For what it's worth - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1835.htm

 

[Thomas brookes]

I like the sound of a 20mm

 

[Pete Askew]

The 20 f 1:2.8 is a really nice lens Tom. This model is the first real wide angle lens I ever bought (and one of the first lenses I actually bought new). I still have mine and still occasionally use it.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Yes, it might Pete ... I haven't really explored the idea of something older ...
The problem is, without going into to many details .. The chap who usually does the work has and uses a 14-24... I think I nee to get as close to that as possible really...
I'll know more after the weekend ...

 

[Hamish Gill]

I like the sound of a 20mm

Id be looking for maybe £300 Tom, and to be honest, it would provide you with barely any advantage on your camera...
You lens goes wider and at the wide end is only 2/3rds of a stop slower ...
That same £300 could get you a 10-20mm lens that would give you ultra wide capability and a lot of flexibility ... Or your could even get a 35mm 1.8 which I feel is the first logical step into the world of af primes ... IMHO of course!

 

[Pete Askew]

Nice sales job Hamish!! Wasn't it your lens you were trying to sell?!!

 

[Pete Askew]

I agree though. I'd go for the faster 35 myself.

 

[Paul Lange]

Hamish, Can I be very sensible and boring and suggest that you cancel the X1000, presuming you don't actually need it for work and then maybe buy it later, or even it's successor.

Or I could be unsensible and suggest that you have 2 kidneys and could sell one on the black market.

 

[Mark Grant]

I think you would regret selling some of your old stuff.

Being sensible as Paul suggests, delay the X1000 until you have the cash and buy the lens you need for the new work now and you need a second body, a Pro cant really work without a backup body.

 

[Thomas brookes]

I think that's a wise choice, it's a want not a need!!!!!

 

[Larry Bolch]

With the D3, a D700 is the logical choice for backup. It was my choice over the D3, and I have not regretted it for a second. I have the 14-24mm f/2.8 and have mixed feelings about it. It is incredibly good and I love the 14mm focal length. It is also huge and heavy, and if Nikon were to come up with an f/4.0-5.6 version of it, I would trade in a moment. The 16-35mm f/4.0 did not exist when I bought the 14-24mm.

As a working photojournalist, I wanted a camera with me at all times and it had to be small, but capable of publication quality work. Then as now, I did not want to lug a heavy camera system everywhere after the working day was done. Over the years I had a variety of compact rangefinder cameras, but my favorite was a Konica S3. F/1.8 35mm lens built in. The X100 is that camera, but also a 2011 camera in every way. Unless it is a scheduled shoot where I need the quality and versatility of the D700, the X100 is in a belt-pouch when I walk out the door. At ISO3200 it nearly rivals the D700 for quality. I still shoot like a photojournalist with almost every shot being a people-shot. It is everything I had anticipated and I am pleased with it from both a content and image quality point of view.

That said, until the cash shows up, could you make do with the Epson? I did consider it when it was new, but really did not feel motivated to put that much money into it. The X100 is retro in design, but in every way a contemporary camera, while the Epson just seemed a little too retro for me. However if I already owned it, I am sure I could make good use of it in the role the X100 plays.

No advice on flash. I spent decades as a beast of burden lugging far too much lighting equipment—mostly a case of Vivitar 283 units and stands. Shooting for myself now, at the most I use a little flash fill on occasion. If I were still shooting in the marketplace, I would probably equip with either SB-700 or 900 units to take advantage of Nikon's system. The D700 does have built in flash, which the D3 lacks, and it does a good job of fill. I have never even tried it as the primary light source.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I could have happily made do with the Epson but the sensor is dead!
Besides, the x100 is on order now ...

As for flash, on the note of not limiting my self I think the 900 is the right choice ...

It is infact reading your comments that has made me think the 16-35 is a better option for me over the 14-24 ... I just don't shoot that wide that often! ... But I'm going to see how I get on with my tamron 17mm sp tomorrow! I don't suppose you have any experience of that lens do you larry? I havent used it much on the D3 at all!
I should get pretty decent results shouldn't I????

 

[Hamish Gill]

I think you would regret selling some of your old stuff.

Being sensible as Paul suggests, delay the X1000 until you have the cash and buy the lens you need for the new work now and you need a second body, a Pro cant really work without a backup body.

The thing is, I just don't use the older stuff much, I used the panny a lot, but the Fuji just ticks so many boxes on paper!
I'm following my heart and mind on this one ... The rest are just following my mind! Does that make sence?

 

[Larry Bolch]

I could have happily made do with the Epson but the sensor is dead!

True, that can be a distinct limitation.

Besides, the x100 is on order now ...

And it is a lovely camera.

As for flash, on the note of not limiting my self I think the 900 is the right choice ...

I see no reason to argue.

It is infact reading your comments that has made me think the 16-35 is a better option for me over the 14-24 ... I just don't shoot that wide that often! ... But I'm going to see how I get on with my tamron 17mm sp tomorrow! I don't suppose you have any experience of that lens do you larry? I havent used it much on the D3 at all!
I should get pretty decent results shouldn't I????

It may well do the job—worth testing to find out. The fact that it is a prime may work in its favor. However, I have read reviews of the 14-24mm saying that it matches or exceeds the quality of the lenses it replaces.

Third party lenses for the most part seem to be quite good optically, but often in mounts inferior to those used by camera makers. For a rarely used lens, they make great sense. At one period in my life, I was doing a considerable amount of photography for the recording industry—including around a dozen concert shoots a year. I bought a fast Series I Vivitar 200mm and a jeweler's screwdriver set. Decades later, I can not tighten it any more, so it is pretty floppy, but it certainly earned it keep many times over. It is very sharp.

 

[Hamish Gill]

A chap came in the shop with a vivitar 200mm f/3 (I think) odd looking almost conical looking thing .. Stuck on no less than 2 2x tc's and some sort of mount adapter with an optic in it... I'm guessing he wasnt getting the best out of it!

This is my tamron http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/51B.html

Adaptall ii, so if the mount fails, I'll just get another, the adaptall mount it's self is very solid looking, even if the adaptall/nikon part feels a bit rickety!

To be honest, I'm not sure why I haven't used it much ... I suppose it's just a case of me not really finding much use for wide lenses as I said ... Looking forward to giving it a spin in a "pro" role now!!