Nikon lens question - again.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Nikon lens question - again.
I'm sorry to be so repetitive, but there is a used lens for sale that seems an affordable halfway measure. It's the Wide angle 24-120 f/3.5-5.6D IF AF Mfr # 1975
It will be some time before one can get the new 18-200 that everyone is so keen on. could this be a good stop gap? there's a pun there somewhere.
It has a lot of glass, inasmuch that it has a filter size of 72 Angle is 84-20
At just over 3" diam, it's a fairly chunky piece of kit to carry around, but I have no way of knowing its used value. (Asking is $300)
Anyone know if this is a good midrange product and how old it might be.?
R
It will be some time before one can get the new 18-200 that everyone is so keen on. could this be a good stop gap? there's a pun there somewhere.
It has a lot of glass, inasmuch that it has a filter size of 72 Angle is 84-20
At just over 3" diam, it's a fairly chunky piece of kit to carry around, but I have no way of knowing its used value. (Asking is $300)
Anyone know if this is a good midrange product and how old it might be.?
R
Is it this one? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120af.htm
I don't know this lens myself but you can find a lot of info on Nikon stuff at Ken Rockwell's site.
I don't know this lens myself but you can find a lot of info on Nikon stuff at Ken Rockwell's site.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: England
Age: 39
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would save the money?
Hey, i looked at this lens a few months back, it was been sold by a charity, they wanted £120 for it, i took it as it was cheap and seemed to offer what i wanted. But the lens is slow, slow focus, poor at low light, not very sharp, distortions. So i sent it to ebay and managed to get more or less my money back. People say old Nikon lenses are better, i disagree unless they are old Manual Nikon lenses.
I went for the Sigma 28-105 / F2.8-4 and found it to be better, i paid £150 which is $300, but i am sure you could find it for $250 or less.
I went for the Sigma 28-105 / F2.8-4 and found it to be better, i paid £150 which is $300, but i am sure you could find it for $250 or less.
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try the Sigma 18-125 or 18-200. Cheap, sharp, good colour and you can flog it once the 18-200VR Nikon becomes available. I have one on open ended loan from the dealer, until my own Nikon appears in the post - but I am not optimistic. People are now saying August - and they paid up front, like me.
Conan
Conan
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies. Sorry for the delay, 'hadn't noticed that the thread had come live again.
Yes, that's the one. Have Bookmarked it for later.
Well, it seems that the B&H one is gone anyway...just as well it seems. there was one in Austin, at $190, on Craigslist but I'll probably let that slide.
I have just got the Canon XT here on loan to compare to the D50. Probably post on the other forum if it's still live, so as not to use too much bandwidth on the computer section.
Yes, that's the one. Have Bookmarked it for later.
Well, it seems that the B&H one is gone anyway...just as well it seems. there was one in Austin, at $190, on Craigslist but I'll probably let that slide.
I have just got the Canon XT here on loan to compare to the D50. Probably post on the other forum if it's still live, so as not to use too much bandwidth on the computer section.
