So much for lenses holding value...
Discussion
That is indeed a lens that seems to buck the trend for holding its value. I think several factors go against it, the design is getting on a bit and it was very expensive to start with. Plus pro build DX only glass is a limited market.
If it makes you feel any better I bought a broken one recently for £200 thinking this was a bargain. But it then cost over £300 to get it repaired, so in view of the current values this didn't work out at all.
Still a nicer lens to use compared to the canon 17-55 which I also loved but was let down by the build quality. It is a shame the Nikon softens slightly at the long end compared to the excellent resolution wide open in the rest of the range, but this is generally not noticeable unless you pixel peak test charts.
Best of luck selling it.
If it makes you feel any better I bought a broken one recently for £200 thinking this was a bargain. But it then cost over £300 to get it repaired, so in view of the current values this didn't work out at all.
Still a nicer lens to use compared to the canon 17-55 which I also loved but was let down by the build quality. It is a shame the Nikon softens slightly at the long end compared to the excellent resolution wide open in the rest of the range, but this is generally not noticeable unless you pixel peak test charts.
Best of luck selling it.
I got it for weddings but now the investment has been made and it's paid for itself many times, I'm happy to keep it as a general purpose lens.
I looked about when I saw that the D500 came with a 16-80mm lens, but it's only f4 at the long end. And £600 is too much for for holidsy snaps. I'm back to being an amateur!
I looked about when I saw that the D500 came with a 16-80mm lens, but it's only f4 at the long end. And £600 is too much for for holidsy snaps. I'm back to being an amateur!
It was hideously overpriced at the time. even canons 17-55f2.8IS zoom was a lot cheaper let alone the competent 3rd party options.
Coupled with the release of nikon full frame pro bodies who wants to be the pro shooting crop sensor cameras when nikon themselves ignored that market for years? Plus pro crop bodies are kind of limited to things like sports and wildlife now.
Coupled with the release of nikon full frame pro bodies who wants to be the pro shooting crop sensor cameras when nikon themselves ignored that market for years? Plus pro crop bodies are kind of limited to things like sports and wildlife now.
jayemm89 said:
I think everyone always saw crop sensors as a stop-gap, and some still do, hence the caution when buying APS/DX glass.
I think I'm right in saying that when digital SLRs started, there was no 'full frame' aka 35mm because the cost was prohibitive.It's interesting to reflect that when '35mm' was invented it was seen as a toy format, and real men used full frame - 10"x8"
DX makes your lenses go 50% further (IMHO more important than than the relative wide-angle disdvantage), and the noise advantage that FX had - 'big pixels' - seems to have been effectively extinguished by advances in technology.
I suspect that many people who move to FX do so because 'It's better innit'. Personally I don't wish to have a 300mm f2.8 round my neck all day!
jayemm89 said:
Full frame DSLRs have existed in general circulation since the early 00s - Kodak in fact made quite a few.
This one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_Pro_14nNot really 'general circulation' though.
Crop sensor models started the mass uptake of DSLRs - the price had to be <£999 to get sales.
I bought a D70 in 2004 (£999!) and took it to NZ in 2005/6. It was noticeable that whilst DSLRs were starting to take over in the UK, in NZ the cameras I saw were almost all film. So I guess 2006 was the real swing from SLR to DSLR - and they were crop sensor models.
I bought a D70 in 2004 (£999!) and took it to NZ in 2005/6. It was noticeable that whilst DSLRs were starting to take over in the UK, in NZ the cameras I saw were almost all film. So I guess 2006 was the real swing from SLR to DSLR - and they were crop sensor models.
The amateur and prosumer market was certainly swayed by the better-priced crop sensor models.
In the very early days, I believe it was journalists who went to digital first - the speed of processing offered by digital cameras greatly outweighed their many other drawbacks.
Full frame cameras were also of great appeal to people who had been traditionally using medium format. Wedding and portrait photographers, etc.... For those guys the high cost of investment was quickly offset by the much lower running costs.
In the very early days, I believe it was journalists who went to digital first - the speed of processing offered by digital cameras greatly outweighed their many other drawbacks.
Full frame cameras were also of great appeal to people who had been traditionally using medium format. Wedding and portrait photographers, etc.... For those guys the high cost of investment was quickly offset by the much lower running costs.
jayemm89 said:
In the very early days, I believe it was journalists who went to digital first - the speed of processing offered by digital cameras greatly outweighed their many other drawbacks.
Yes, 4Mp IIRC - but ample for a newspaper.jayemm89 said:
Full frame cameras were also of great appeal to people who had been traditionally using medium format. Wedding and portrait photographers, etc.... For those guys the high cost of investment was quickly offset by the much lower running costs.
It's true that if your kit makes money you can afford to invest - but early DSLRs had very poor resolution compared to MF film. That said, an entire generation of wedding togs became extinct as the digital revolution took over.My feeling is that FX wins over DX every single time unless weight is a serious issue.
I base this on two schools of thought:
1 - FX 'goes wider'. A sweeping statement but if it's not in the shot, it never will be. You can crop FX but you sure as hell can add stuff that wasn't there. I think the concept that DX gives you a 'free' longer lens couldn't be more wrong.
2 - Value. I concur with the 80-200mm comment above. FX glass holds its value better. I don't currently own a lens that I bought new, I own well chosen lenses that would sell today for the same price that I bought them at. In fact, my Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF-D would sell for more than I paid, as would my 50mm f1.4 AF-S
I base this on two schools of thought:
1 - FX 'goes wider'. A sweeping statement but if it's not in the shot, it never will be. You can crop FX but you sure as hell can add stuff that wasn't there. I think the concept that DX gives you a 'free' longer lens couldn't be more wrong.
2 - Value. I concur with the 80-200mm comment above. FX glass holds its value better. I don't currently own a lens that I bought new, I own well chosen lenses that would sell today for the same price that I bought them at. In fact, my Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF-D would sell for more than I paid, as would my 50mm f1.4 AF-S
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff