Please chime in -- 24-200Z and sell which lenses? (Page 2): Appreciate you considering selling some of your little used lenses. My advice is about 'timing'. Because of Covid-19, high...

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

jbk224 wrote:

Now that Ricci has posted his technical comparison... (show quote)

Appreciate you considering selling some of your little used lenses.

My advice is about 'timing'. Because of Covid-19, high unemployment and high uncertainty, this market for used (anything) is down dramatically. If you are a buyer, you can find some great bargains. If you are a seller, selling now is an act of desperation to get at least some of the cash value.

I'd recommend waiting until some time after this election. Or after the Covid crisis has greatly decreased and the economy looks better than now.

I have bought recently. I saved $1250 to $1800 on a Nikon PF lens, from a large camera retailer. I take care of my equipment, but I use it. And I expect to be able to use this newest lens for the next several years before selling it for at least what I paid, if not earn some cash profit.

User ID

Paul Diamond wrote:

Appreciate you considering selling some of your li... (show quote)

Since the thread is about lens choices I very much agree.

Applying the same idea to camera bodies bumps you into the Rock and a Hard Place principle. Bodies depreciate much faster than lenses due to body tech evolving much faster. On a quiet night if you listen closely you can clearly hear your cameras depreciating. If you have quite a number of them it’s almost loud.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

User ID wrote:

In planning on a Z “when the dust settles” ... I k... (show quote)

Your use of the 28-300 kind of matches my use. However, using on the Z has not been an issue at all. Zero degradation with the FTZ.
The 24-200 definitely works for me for this reach. That is why I would definitely sell the 28-300.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Eric Bornstein wrote:

Isn’t the new Z lens f/4 70 - 200? I have the f f/4 70 to 200 plus z lenses 14-30 and 24-70 both f/4 throughout the focal length range. My query is ‘is the Z lens better than the F lens? And worth The cost differential of likely CD $1,000.

No, the new Z lens is 24-200. A little over $1,000 with hood (not included).

I have the F mount FX 70-300. I recall it was about $600.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Paul Diamond wrote:

Appreciate you considering selling some of your little used lenses.

My advice is about 'timing'. Because of Covid-19, high unemployment and high uncertainty, this market for used (anything) is down dramatically.

You’d have a different view if you were trying for a used RV!

Anyhow, Nikon usually puts lenses on sale in the spring. It may not include the 24-200 though because it is a hot item and might still be come spring. Till then I can continue to use 24-70 and 70-300. No trips by air likely till spring anyway.

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

jbk224 wrote:

Now that Ricci has posted his technical comparison... (show quote)

I currently own the 14-30 lens and the 28-300. Totally agree the 14-30 is a keeper and a beautiful lens. I am also thinking of selling the 28-300 and get the 24-200 Z lens. Then I will be in lens heaven and all my needs will be fulfilled, no more Z adaptor.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

rkaminer wrote:

I currently own the 14-30 lens and the 28-300. Totally agree the 14-30 is a keeper and a beautiful lens. I am also thinking of selling the 28-300 and get the 24-200 Z lens. Then I will be in lens heaven and all my needs will be fulfilled, no more Z adaptor.

Well I'll still be using the adapter for my 16-35 and 200-500. But much less often. And I usually use the D5600 for the 200-500.

Iabrams3985

User ID wrote:

In planning on a Z “when the dust settles” ... I k... (show quote)

Iabrams3985

Curious about your lack of trust in DSLR’s for what you do. Where do DSLR’s let you down? I’m trying to think of a situation where a DSLR couldn’t fulfill the mission. Granted a mirrorless camera would be lighter and more compact. However, for image quality, controls, AF, and lens availability, aren’t the two camera types equivalent?

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Iabrams3985 wrote:

Curious about your lack of trust in DSLR’s for what you do. Where do DSLR’s let you down? I’m trying to think of a situation where a DSLR couldn’t fulfill the mission. Granted a mirrorless camera would be lighter and more compact. However, for image quality, controls, AF, and lens availability, aren’t the two camera types equivalent?

Not sure who this is directed towards; so my 2c.
I had a D810 and loved the camera. But it became a 'burden' to take and when the Z's came out, this seemed the perfect 'upgrade' to improve my quality of life without adversely affecting the change from the D810 to the Z6. And, if I had a D850, I would have been hard pressed to move over, but would have probably wanted the Z7.
I am a happy camper.

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

IDguy wrote:

Well I'll still be using the adapter for my 16-35 and 200-500. But much less often. And I usually use the D5600 for the 200-500.

I really like the 16-35 with my D810, but needed a little wider for my interior work. The 14-30 is perfect (right now); and I was able to get a fair price for the 16-35.

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

Iabrams3985 wrote:

Curious about your lack of trust in DSLR’s for what you do. Where do DSLR’s let you down? I’m trying to think of a situation where a DSLR couldn’t fulfill the mission. Granted a mirrorless camera would be lighter and more compact. However, for image quality, controls, AF, and lens availability, aren’t the two camera types equivalent?

I also don't know who this was addressed to,but let me answer it; I had a D7000 and almost bought an 800 series body until i saw the Z6. I love this body (the camera body) and because of the compatibility with the lenses I own, it was a simple decision. I sold my 70-200 f2.8 and now am ready to have dedicated Z lenses and get rid of the adaptor , so there goes the 28-300.