[Dave]

You cynical man Graham .

Some people have no idea of the worth of their goods, or as in this case, can't be bothered to sell them correctly.......& we love everyone of them

[Rob Barron]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

Nice story, Rob. Did the guy know what he was doing? I mean had he bought the stuff himself, or was he just fencing, oh, sorry, I mean disposing of it from an inheritence or on someone's behalf?

It was definitely his own lens and TCs but I have to say his whole attitude was just 'I couldn't be bothered to post them separately, put pictures of them on the listing and all that stuff.' I must admit I was quite surprised given the difference a few minutes of effort would have made to his bank balance!

However, when I visited his home to pick them up in London, I could see why a few hundred quid to him was really neither here nor there. If I tell you his postcode was SW19, that might give you a clue. It is otherwise known as: Wimbledon! Neither his nor any of the houses within a mile of him looked like they would ever exchange hands for less than £750K to a million plus!

When i realised that, I felt quite happy to hand over my £511 and walk away with equipment list valued at £1750! I needed it more than he did, that's for sure

Cheers,
Rob

[Rob Barron]

Sometime very soon, I am gonna do a lens comparison for you along similar lines to this. I thought I'd do two with Canon lenses, one comparing the pics from a 50mm f1.8 with those on a 28-70mm f2.8 L. These lenses are vastly separated price-wise with the nifty fifty costing me £63 and the street price on the (now) 24-70mm being around the £800 mark.

I will also do a comparison between 300mm L series prime and the 100-400mm L series set at 300mm. Two expensive lenses but comparing within L series so the only diffeence will be one being a zoom and the other a prime.

I might if I get time also do one of the 100mm f2.8 USM macro against the 100-400mm L at 100mm end. Should again prove quite interesting.

Don't hold your breath, this will take me a week or so but I've got to get some rep points built up to start challenging the Rep Supremo Gary <g>

Watch this space.
Rob

[Rob Barron]

Just been reminded of my promise here which I had forgotten all about to I'll get this done very soon and make a new thread.

Cheers,
Rob

[Dave]

Hey it's only been 3 months

[silver]

the 50 1.8 is around 80 quid in the UK Warehouse Express - Photographic Equipment, Digital Cameras, Lenses and Accessories

testing lenses really need to use a tripod - or at least it would help,. not that the results would perhaps be any different but the VR on the 18-200 should give it a slight relative advantage

regards the 28 1.4, though no doubt a really nice lens another choice is the 30 1.4 sigma - not the same quality but more reasonably priced

Sil

[VikingPhotography]

Originally Posted by silver

regards the 28 1.4, though no doubt a really nice lens another choice is the 30 1.4 sigma - not the same quality but more reasonably priced

Sil

Yeah, I knew about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at the time of purchase and I knew that it would be some £1400 cheaper... but everything that I'd heard about the Sigma pointed towards the fact that it was very difficult to get a good copy of the lens.

D2X cameras have a reputation for showing up the slightest flaw in a lens copy and I didn't particulalry want to risk wasting time returning multiple Sigmas until I got a good one. For my type of shooting I need to be immediately confident that my kit will deliver the goods.

I had no such qualms about buying the Nikon 28mm - even at that price. I'm patiently awaiting the day when Nikon release a full-frame dSLR... just so I can bolt this baby on it and enjoy the benefits of wide-angle, obscenely low light handheld photography

[silver]

mebbe this year - we shall see

Sil

[Dave]

Created seperate thread on the excellent topic of Nikon & potential full frame here :- http://www.pixalo.com/community/gene...ame-10891.html

[summitphotographics]

Lol this post has dragged on so long I don't even know where to begin or who to direct a reply toward.

The answer to your question lies in your budget. The fact that it's 1000 may indicate that you want to maximize the capabilities of your lens - get the biggest bang for your buck. And again, seeing that your budget is 1000, I am assuming that you do not plan to grace your photos in between the covers of sports illustrated, nor do you plan on blowing up prints to 24x36. In this case, the best lens for you is the 18-200 VR. It has exceptional optical quality, versatility like no other, and a reasonable price tag. We purchased a new one of these for each of our employees earlier this year (to use on their supplementary/secondary bodies) and, already, it is replacing other lenses worth $1000 more with a quarter of the range. You can always save the extra $100 down the road to gobble up the 50mm 1.4, which is a standard in my bag, if you feel it necessary.

As for the 17-55mm, unless you win the lotto, leave this one for bigger budgets. I bought one when I first began working for the AP, and have used it on maybe 4-5 occasions. The best place for more info on this kind of thing is kenrockwell.com. There is a reason he's made a living (and quite a good one at that) advising people on topics just like this.

As one other poster mentioned, spend MORE ON THE LENS, LESS ON THE BODY!

[Dave]

bump, in case anyone else wants to add to this thread