24-70 f2.8?

dmatsui · Feb 27, 2010

Initially i was more or less set on purchasing the nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 lens. After reading different opinions and reviews however i have gathered that the focal length is not desireble on a dx format camera. They mention that 24mm is not wide enough and 70mm is not quite close enough for telephoto. After reading this several times in different places i am confused what i should purchase. Should i opt for several primes instead? If so which ones?
I plan on upgrading to an FX camera somewhere in the space of 5 years (probably sooner) Which is why i am trying to purchase lenses that will be compatible with FX bodies so i wont have to repurchase lenses in a few years.

I use a nikon d80.
18-55mm (3.5-5.6 (i think))
55-200mm (3.5-6.3(again not sure. but its the older version without vr))
Sigma 10-20
105 f/2.8 VR

Iron Flatline · Feb 27, 2010

18-55 x 1.5 = 24-77...

24x70 is a good focal length on a full frame, that's why those lenses have been popular since the film days. They made a version for cropped lenses when they created that 18-50ish range (with a little more reach).

If you like the field of view, then get one with a good build quality and glass as part of a scalable lens tool kit in the future.

The 24-70 on a cropped sensor is not that wide, that's true.

dmatsui · Feb 27, 2010

the problem i have is that with an 18-55mm lens wont be an ideal focal length after upgrading to fullframe. I dont even know of any fx 18-55mm lenses. Essentially the problem i would have with purchasing the 18-55 for dx is that i would have to sell it.
That being said i suppose i'm going to have these sorts of problems untill i upgrade.

bigtwinky · Feb 27, 2010

You listed a Sigma 10-20 in there, so there is your wide angle coverage when you need it.

10-20, 24,70, ...

Sure, the 24-70 is a little limiting for a crop camera, but if you plan on upgrade in a few years, then the 24-70 will be a decent choice. When on a full frame, a typical "holy trinity" of zoom lenses is the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200

Other option is a 17-50ish and then a 70-200.

IgsEMT · Feb 27, 2010

I'm with twinky on lens combination...
Primes: I'm not a big fan of them. Yes, they are sharp and crispy, yadda yadda yadda, but after film days, I'm in heaven with zoom lenses. Even when I have to swap out zoom lenses I hate it b/c #1 it is time and #2 there's a chance of getting some crap on the sensor. So unless shooting with few bodies, I don't recommend primes.

kundalini · Feb 27, 2010

Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Mike_E · Feb 27, 2010

By a used Nikon 17-55mm and then sell it when it's time to step up to the 24-70mm. It's unlikely that you will lose much money as they hold their value very well so long as the condition remains the same.

If Nikon comes out with a VR version of the 17-55mm it may discount the non-VR version but hey, you will still get to use a great lens for as long as you have it and still won't lose that much.

Sw1tchFX · Feb 28, 2010

i say just get the 35mm f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.4. as your normal. The 10-20 is the wide, the 105 is the tele, and the two other primes will be super fast, and super sharp as your normal.

JimmyO · Feb 28, 2010

Sw1tchFX said:
i say just get the 35mm f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.4. as your normal. The 10-20 is the wide, the 105 is the tele, and the two other primes will be super fast, and super sharp as your normal.

yup

I was seriously considering a pro mid range zoom like the 17-55mm But thats just not all that importand of a range for me. Ended up going with the 35mm 1.8 which is great. And 1.8 is sooo much faster then 2.8.

dmatsui · Feb 28, 2010

its seems that there are really two options

1.) Primes (Pro: Faster - Con: Will have to switch lenses)
2.) 24-70 (Pro: versatile, not as much lense changing needed - Con:Not as fast, non ideal range)
3.) 18-55 DX lens (Pro: more appropriate range for DX - Con: will have to sell when upgrading to FX)

Ideally i would buy a D700 right off the bat coupled with a 24-70. Whilst financially it is an option i would prefer not to blow all my money right on one purchase, i like having a bit of money in reserve. Initially i was planning on buying the 70-200, 14-24 and 24-70 before upgrading to FX. Which is why i am not sure about buying primes. (or rather the constant changing of lenses is what is holding me back as i dont think i will be using more than one body. By the time i upgrade i think my D80 will be just about spent up)

It wont be until around may when i make my purchase but right now i am stuck between buying primes or the more versatile 24-70 zoom.
Perhaps instead i should wait for that and go for the 70-200mm? (it is still on my list and neither focal range is more important than the other currently.)

Sw1tchFX · Mar 1, 2010

changing lenses is not a bad thing, that's one reason why people get SLR's.

fokker · Mar 2, 2010

Think of it this way, if you buy the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 you'll still have to do less lens switching than if you're using primes, and then when you do eventually go FF you have your ideal lenses.

dmatsui · Mar 2, 2010

@Fokker essentially your quite right i suppose the only thing that irks me is waiting till that point. Cant say i'll ever go wrong with the 24-70 of course
Sw1tchFX you makes a good point. The only thing i'm concerned with then is missing a moment when switching primes, with a zoom lens you dont have that problem.
I suppose this then really is a debate between prime lenses and zooms.

flea77 · Mar 2, 2010

I bought a 24-70 2.8 for my D80 primarily to shoot people, could not possibly be happier. For portraits etc it has been the perfect lens for my shooting style. Of course primes would be sharper/faster/better, if you are looking for the flexibility of a zoom and shoot people, I say go for it.

Allan