I can't afford $1,000+ lenses « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

I can't afford $1,000+ lenses

(36 posts) (10 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 12

Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

tcole1983 said:
Maybe...I might have gone with another camera maker instead. I think the comparable Sony camera I looked at was able to use all the old lenses. Although I know just like anything else you have to pay to play. I guess it doesn't matter because I will save my money still to get the lenses I want or at least some of them.

I was unaware, honestly, Sony even played in the same ballparks as Nikon.

The used (and new) market for Nikon lenses and accessories is (at least) an order of magnitude larger than that for Sony DSLRs. It is one of the main reasons Sony must price their products more aggressively.

IMHO one needs to decide at some point (preferably before buying a body) just what world they want to inhabit. Is the narrower scope of possibilities offered by the Sony (or other second-tier) system more than adequate for your needs? If so you'll likely get more technical-bang for the buck. Or are you willing to pay a little more to play on the big field (Nikon, Canon) where you run a better chance of getting all your potential needs addressed?

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

Three other things to keep in mind:

1. Third-party lenses. Would I like a Nikkor 12-24 when the time comes? Yes. I'm more likely, on the balance, to get one of the two comparable Tokina wides. Each focal length has third party equivalents that range from nearly equal to godawful, so there's some research involved, but also a considerable savings sometimes.

2. Rentals. If there's something you'd like to try out (macro photography, for instance) without plunking down the cash on expensive gear, rent it out. If it's something you see yourself needing or wanting to do a lot of, consider buying. But if it's something you may only use once in a great while, or where you can get acceptable results in post (PC lenses and fisheyes both come to mind), why spend top dollar buying?

3. Alternatives: Will you get the same results from an extension tube, a filter, a close-up filter or a teleconverter that you will from a dedicated lens? Generally speaking, no. But here again, if it's something that's just to experiment or get a feel for whether you'd like to take something to a higher level, it can be a much cheaper way to go about it.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Sony cameras can use some of the older Minolta AF lenses. Sony bought Minolta and changed the name of their mount to the Alpha mount. Well actually Alpha was always the Minolta name in Japan but in the US it was called the Maxxum. Sony just unified everything as the Alpha mount when they took over Minolta. So the Sony lens and accessory selection is pretty big too.

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Drab said:
I was unaware, honestly, Sony even played in the same ballparks as Nikon.

The used (and new) market for Nikon lenses and accessories is (at least) an order of magnitude larger than that for Sony DSLRs. It is one of the main reasons Sony must price their products more aggressively.

IMHO one needs to decide at some point (preferably before buying a body) just what world they want to inhabit. Is the narrower scope of possibilities offered by the Sony (or other second-tier) system more than adequate for your needs? If so you'll likely get more technical-bang for the buck. Or are you willing to pay a little more to play on the big field (Nikon, Canon) where you run a better chance of getting all your potential needs addressed?

As far as I have seen all Nikon's use sony sensors. And as Niko said...I think a good majority of the old Minolta lenses are compatible. I actually really liked the alpha camera that I tried when i was looking.

...but back on topic I have been thinking about it and maybe if Nikon offered a faster lens without the build quality of the pro lenses? Cut down on some of the costs and make a more affordable fast lens...kind of like the 35 1.8.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

The D3/D3S/D700 are not Sony sensors. Those sensor are made by another company. Supposedly the D3100 isn't a Sony but I'm not convinced of that yet because technically the D3X isn't a Sony sensor either even though it starts life at Sony.

As for the cost of their most recent lenses, the materials these lenses are made with, the coatings and such, have risen in cost too. So a "cheap" FX lens would probably compromise in areas such as being all plastic and not having all of the same special coatings as the more expensive glass.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

Without even getting into your confusion over whether Nikon uses Sony sensors or not, source of sensors has nothing to do with my statement.

The "Sony World" is not the same ballgame as the "Nikon / Canon World".

They are completely different markets (despite Sony's vague attempts) and you are paying for (and receiving) the differences.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

I don't like Sony DSLRs but they do make some great and expensive lenses too. Lenses like the Zeiss f1.8 135mm.

Minolta WAS a big time player and a worthy competitor to Nikon and canon. So don't underestimate Sony. They haven't really gone after the "pro" market yet. They've only tested the waters with the a900.

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Drab said:
Without even getting into your confusion over whether Nikon uses Sony sensors or not, source of sensors has nothing to do with my statement.

The "Sony World" is not the same ballgame as the "Nikon / Canon World".

They are completely different markets (despite Sony's vague attempts) and you are paying for (and receiving) the differences.

I can't tell if you are joking or not. Have you picked one up lately? It was a strong competitor for me when I was looking. Had my friend not talked me into the Nikon I probably would have got a sony. They have the $2500, 24.6 MP A900 and lenses that cost just as much as any other brand. Like Niko said they don't have as much in the professional level, but I wouldn't count them as below Canon or Nikon.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

tcole1983 said:
I can't tell if you are joking or not. Have you picked one up lately? It was a strong competitor for me when I was looking. Had my friend not talked me into the Nikon I probably would have got a sony. They have the $2500, 24.6 MP A900 and lenses that cost just as much as any other brand. Like Niko said they don't have as much in the professional level, but I wouldn't count them as below Canon or Nikon.

No, I'm serious.

I didn't dis their quality, nor features. I didn't say they were "below" Nikon or Canon - in fact I said you'd likely get more bang for your buck with Sony.

They're a smaller-player, and regardless of how up-and-coming they might be, the first-party market for them is smaller, and the third-party one significantly so.
Can you get shoe-mount Pocket Wizards / Radio Poppers for them? Much less TTL ones?
How's the third-party support for their raw format? Not great.

I could go on and on. The point is the universe Sony DSLR's inhabit is a smaller, and therefore more limiting one, than that of Canon or Nikon. Would this affect you? I have no idea, it clearly wouldn't affect many people. I stand by my belief they are in a whole other "ballgame" than Nikon or Canon - if you want bang-for-the-buck go Sony. If you want to rest assured that whatever comes down the pike - be it hardware or software - will be made compatible with your system, go with one of the big two.

Posted 2 years ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Drab said:
No, I'm serious.

I didn't dis their quality, nor features. I didn't say they were "below" Nikon or Canon - in fact I said you'd likely get more bang for your buck with Sony.

They're a smaller-player, and regardless of how up-and-coming they might be, the first-party market for them is smaller, and the third-party one significantly so.
Can you get shoe-mount Pocket Wizards / Radio Poppers for them? Much less TTL ones?
How's the third-party support for their raw format? Not great.

I could go on and on. The point is the universe Sony DSLR's inhabit is a smaller, and therefore more limiting one, than that of Canon or Nikon. Would this affect you? I have no idea, it clearly wouldn't affect many people. I stand by my belief they are in a whole other "ballgame" than Nikon or Canon - if you want bang-for-the-buck go Sony. If you want to rest assured that whatever comes down the pike - be it hardware or software - will be made compatible with your system, go with one of the big two.

;) I bought a Nikon didn't I?

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

tcole1983 said:
;) I bought a Nikon didn't I?

Haha, yeah I'm not quite sure what the "argument" is about either? :^)

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

I can't afford $1,000+ lenses

Reply