Broken Lens
sweet caroline
Registered Users Posts: 1,589 Major grins
My dear child put my D300 away in the bag, forgot to zip it, and then placed the bag on a counter top. Yes, it tumbled over, spilling the camera out. The lens was ripped off the body by the impatct, the circuitry torn apart, but no broken glass. The camera checks out fine, but the local repair shop thinks the repair on the lens would costly.
Now I have to decide whether it would be worthwhile to try to get it repaired (Nikkor 18-135 ED AF-S 3.5-5.6). And if I buy a lens instead, do I replace it, or put the money toward the lens I really want?
Caroline
Now I have to decide whether it would be worthwhile to try to get it repaired (Nikkor 18-135 ED AF-S 3.5-5.6). And if I buy a lens instead, do I replace it, or put the money toward the lens I really want?
Caroline
0
Comments
Oh, so sorry to read this..your child must be heartbroken! and you doubly so!!
Based on the prices I see over at KEH, I'd suspect the repair would out-$ the cost of another lens.
Sounds like reassessment time for you. Deciding if there is another lens that would suit your budget and render better performance as well~
an unenviable position to be certain.
good luck~
I may invest in the 24-70 2.8 lens that I rent for weddings. It's more than I want to spend now, but if it's one I intend to eventually have in my collection, I feel like I may as well cancel my upcoming rental, skip the repair, and start paying for this one. The other option I could see is getting an 85 prime. I have the 50mm, and I just bought a very cheap zoom used for the kids to use.
Caroline
At our first port, San Thomas U.S. V. I., I headed for the first camera shop I saw just off the ship. They had a Sigma 55-200mm lens sitting on the shelf (only one) for under 150 bucks. I tried it on the camera and it seemed to work fine. So I figured even though it didn't have the paperwork in it to registar it...if all I could get is the rest of my two week cruise with it I would be doing ok with that price.
It still works....and does as well as the nikon did. Although it has a metal bracket on it (which makes for a solid attatchement) and its slightly heavier than the nikon but I feel I got a good deal.
Thing is...I bought camera and equiptment insurance and they told me that had the lens gotten stolen, lost or damaged during transport by airline personel somehow...I would have been reimbursed for the cost of the original lens...but they don't cover MY clumbsiness.
So lesson learned....next time on a cruise and I break equiptment...throw it overboard and report it lost.
As for the lenses, it sounds like you're well on your way making lemonade!
I bought the 85 1.4 with my D300 purchase last year and sold it soon afterward (I should have simply returned it probably). It just seemed too long for the crop cam. Of course now I am reconsidering because of the FX I got.
Yet, the Sigma 105 macro I recently got looks to be a potentially wonderful portrait lens as well. The 24-70 that receives raves I would think is too long for the crop, but then you've used it, and I have not. I will say the old 35-70 2.8f Nikkor that I own does a splendid job on the crop cam., and is a wonderful mid range zoom on the FX and of course it is worlds cheaper.
Isn't it pathetic how so much of our world asks or temps us to manipulate.
I never missed have a wider lens when I used the 24-70. Since I do people, I try to keep it at at least 50mm most of the time. I'm also trying to keep in mind that I want to start collecting glass that I'll be happy to own when I go FX.
I appreciate the sympathy and the advice. I'm still trying to decide what to do.
Caroline
As you well know plenty of people love that 24-70 lens, and if you're at fifty on a crop..... then you know what an FX is going to do. You're shooting basically at what I like to shoot at and thats about 80mm or so. So do think about that. I will say that I have found the longer zooms to be easy to work with out of doors, so far: 80-200mm f2.8; this shooting kids, families and such~
cheers,
I recently purchased the Tokina ATX DX Pro 50-135 f2.8 and I have been well pleased with the performance. I wanted to get the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8. But budget did not permit it at the time. Which is good because I am now saving up for the latest version Nikon has out. Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX is a great lens to but sounds like you do not want to go that wide.
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/
Hello sweet caroline,
Hey ,I feel sorry for the costly lens as it is broken now. My suggestion is buy a new lens which is better options to give in repair. It costs more in repair then to buy new lens which fits good in camera. Don't break your heart ,all is well. Now take care of your new lens and store it in safe place.I hope my suggestion works well for you.
Thanks
I've got such a policy. It doesn't cover "mysterious dissapearances" so if you do drop it off a boat, no dice. But it does cover things like when I totaled my SB-600 at a photoshoot by stepping on it.
For you Caroline, I'd ask, do you currently rent the 85 1.4? If you do, then maybe consider buying it. But since you do rent the 24-70, and last time I looked those rentals were not that cheap, I'd highly consider buying the 24-70, if finances allow. I think that the sooner you buy it, the sooner it would pay for itself when you are shooting weddings. Plus you'd have it for other things that might give you some money, but that you wouldn't rent the lens for.
The 85 might be nice, and Iknow that its a big hit with concerts and wedding people, but if you don't rent it now, I'm guessing you get by pretty well without it.
A friend of mine recently broke the front element off his 50mm and tried shooting while handholding the front element in place. The photos are great. very lens babyish.
Check out his gallery...
http://avfx.smugmug.com/Other/Misc/3985335_qD27w#643350457_GwtED