Hi. I am about ready to trade in my Nikon 12-24 DX wide angle lens for $400 at Adorama (USA) and purchase a Nikon 16-35 FX for $1,256. As I recall, that is about what I paid new for the 12-24 DX. I tried Craigslist/Denver market only with no luck.
Is that a dumb thing to do? Will the 16-35 FX be that much better on the D800e for Fall shooting than the 12-24 in DX mode? All of my other lenses are FX.
If the money is not a big issue, and if you do much wide angle work, this is a worthwhile trade. The 16-35 is a very good lens. It is, however, a lot bigger than the little 12-24, so if you do not do wide angle very much the physical size of the lens could be a factor. I like the VR on the 16-35 -- very helpful for some of the work I do.
Since I do a lot of wide angle work, the 16-35 made a lot of sense for me. I've been quite satisfied with mine. Sorry to hear about the poor market for the 12-24 -- I've been planning to try to sell mine...
A couple of years back I went through a similar exercise. I replaced my excellent Tokina 12-24/4 with the Nikon 14-24/2.8. I was able to get about 50% of its original purchase price for the Tokina. There is no question regarding the superiority if the Nikon 14-24 over the Tokina, though it is every bit as good as the Nikon 12-24. I believe there is presently not much of a market for expensive DX lenses.
Do any other US companies take trade-in's other than Adorama? Not a fan ...
I want the 16-35 because I primarily shoot landscapes and I can easily go through my favorite Flickr landscape sites and pick out the 16-35 shots from the rest.
I did see eBay 12-24 lenses in the US in the $600 range. Please don't take this as a sneaky attempt to post an ad ... just making a point on the market ... but I have mine in 100% perfect condition on Craigslist for $500 with no buyers.
>Do any other US companies take trade-in's other than Adorama? > Not a fan ... > >I want the 16-35 because I primarily shoot landscapes and I >can easily go through my favorite Flickr landscape sites and >pick out the 16-35 shots from the rest. > >I did see eBay 12-24 lenses in the US in the $600 range. >Please don't take this as a sneaky attempt to post an ad ... >just making a point on the market ... but I have mine in 100% >perfect condition on Craigslist for $500 with no buyers.
Give KEH a call and see what they will do for you.
Rick S U.S.Army (Ret) Blessings come from many directions. Make sure you look around. Prov 3:5, God Bless.
If you are doing landscapes you should definitely have the 16-35. Using the DX lens gives away half the D800 pixels. The D800 is an astonishing landscape camera and it would be a shame not to use it to its fullest.
I looked at the 18-35mm lens and the reviews are good. This is my last wide angle lens so I am going for the 16-35mm so there is no chance of regrets ... I wrote an article a couple of years ago for a local paper on how I got into photography. In that I wrote: Coming from no experience or knowledge of photography whatsoever, I decided to buy the best equipment I could afford so that the only excuse for a bad photo was "operator error". I went from zero to a D300, sold that last year and now have the D800e ... love it.
It actually sounds like a decent deal. I mean you tried selling locally and it didn't work, so I'd go for it. The 16-35 is a bit of a sleeper lens that is really very good as are all the new f/4 FX zooms.
I usually sell my used equipment on Amazon and it appears that used 12-24 are going for about $600.00. I have always sold all of my listings. Worth looking into.
I also looked into the 16-35 but ended up getting the 18-35. It is not quite up to the quality of the 16-35 but close. The main thing is that it is light as a feather. Obviously plastic but for me, I love carrying something light.
I'm not surprised at the limited market for DX lenses. I recently did a trade in with one of KEH's remote location buying days, and got quite a good price overall, but the offer for my 17-55 DX was risible, worked out at about $400. I asked the buyer, why my 70-200 VRI was worth $984 cash, $1080 store credit, so around 75 percent of retail, yet my 17-55 was worth only 40 percent of that, so only about 50 percent of retail. Basically, his answer was that he has a ton of them on hand.
Given the overwrought behemoths that pass for mid-range zoom technology on FX, and given the fact that I use a mid-range zoom very differently from wide-angle and telephoto — events and general purpose photography that requires workflow and super-consistent performance rather than ultra-high resolution — I decided it made more sense to keep what is my go-to lens in a quick situation and use it on the D800 for want of a better DX body, but then use FX for wide and telephoto work.
If Nikon ever brings out a high-end DX camera again, I'm sure those DX resales will change. For now, I'm just going to go on using a mid-range zoom that's built like a tank and has a huge range and doesn't weigh all that much.
I have the 16-35mm f4 which has a dual role. On my D800 it's obviously a superb super wide angle, on my D7100 it's a very usable 24-54mm. I sold the 14-24mm f2.8 as I wanted to have the ability to use filters.
Not perhaps a direct issue, but let me give a warning if you use, or want to use rectangular graduated ND filters. Unless one uses Lee and I don't, but use Cokin "Z" and when used the 16-35mm on the D800 at wider than 19mm the Cokin holder can be seen on the edges. Obviously this is more of a problem with the Cokin "P" range. The Cokin "X" range are fine, but very expensive and equal the price of Lee ND filters.
It's just a thought, but as I replaced my "P" set with the "Z" set, I was disappointed that the issue arose. On a DX camera of course a "P", "Z" or "X" can be used without any invasion into the lens area using FX lenses.