Nikon 24-70 2.8 or 50 1.8 & 85 1.8?

[poke]

I've been debating whether I should sell my 24-70 and pick up two primes to replace it. The reason for selling it is because I don't find myself using it as much as I used to, so it just sits in its case and it's too heavy to carry everywhere. I shoot with a d7000. Anyone make this switch?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

It is one heavy $#%^ but i still carry and use mine

 

[pixmedic]

there's a few people here that are VERY partial to prime lenses. (im actually starting to prefer primes myself)
It really depends on what you need out of your lenses. there's really nothing you can do with a zoom that you cant do with some primes. it comes down to how convenient you need your gear to be, and if you NEED to be under f/2.8 or not. If you really aren't using your 24-70, and you don't feel you need wider than 50mm (unless you already have wider primes or a wider zoom) then a 50mm and 85mm is a pretty good combination. if you want to go just a little wider, you can go with a 35mm and 85mm.

its a tough call to make. its hard to determine whether someone other than yourself should use a zoom or primes. we have both. 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 as well as nikkor primes 35, 50 (1.4 and 1.8) 85, and 180. different situations call for different lenses. only you can really determine whether you should go with one over the other. especially when it comes down to selling one type to fund another.

 

[haha101]

sell it to me, ill buy it

 

[poke]

It is one heavy $#%^ but i still carry and use mine

Yeah, I just want something that I can take anywhere and not realize its there. I mainly use it for more important events.

there's a few people here that are VERY partial to prime lenses. (im actually starting to prefer primes myself)
It really depends on what you need out of your lenses. there's really nothing you can do with a zoom that you cant do with some primes. it comes down to how convenient you need your gear to be, and if you NEED to be under f/2.8 or not. If you really aren't using your 24-70, and you don't feel you need wider than 50mm (unless you already have wider primes or a wider zoom) then a 50mm and 85mm is a pretty good combination. if you want to go just a little wider, you can go with a 35mm and 85mm.

its a tough call to make. its hard to determine whether someone other than yourself should use a zoom or primes. we have both. 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 as well as nikkor primes 35, 50 (1.4 and 1.8) 85, and 180. different situations call for different lenses. only you can really determine whether you should go with one over the other. especially when it comes down to selling one type to fund another.

I tried out a friends 50 1.8g and I liked it a lot. It's small, light weight and I could use it for anything. The 85 would come in for indoor sports like basketball, volleyball, etc. if I needed the extra reach. I don't want anything above a 2.8 which is why I figured primes would be good since they're so small and great to use.

 

[ghache]

From personal experience, i would keep the 24-70.

I had one, along with a 70-200 and sold them both to buy primes. i ended buying a 24, 50, 85 and kept the left over money and bought another body.

Sometimes i just wish i would have kept the 24-70. i am shopping for another one right now. I am thinking on getting the tamron 24-70 VC.

If you shoot kid portraits or any portrait in unusual locations., fashion, events or any other thing the required you to move around, the 24-70 is the ultimate tool.

I will always keep those 3 primes lens because because they are my all time favorite. Once calibrated to your body, these little lens are top notch and no zoom lens equals them IMO. but sometimes, practically, a 24-70 is going to make your life alot easier.

 

[poke]

sell it to me, ill buy it

Send me a pm and we can work something out

 

[nmoody]

You are basically debating the two main mentalities of accumulating and using lenses.

First mentality and common with those who have been in the game a long time before zooms had decent IQ:
Purchase a handful of primes which have excellent quality and light weight but you need to either physically move to get the shot or change a lens potentially causing you to miss things. (Speculation is very dependent on the type of photography)

The second:
Buy only a couple of lenses that cover the ranges you need. You will sacrifice some quality (some say its negligible) but have a significantly easier time getting the shot.

As long as you invest in decent lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 this is what I think is the best option, but can totally understand the other mentality and it is still a great option. There is no wrong way of doing this.

 

[Patrice]

I've been debating whether I should sell my 24-70 and pick up two primes to replace it. The reason for selling it is because I don't find myself using it as much as I used to, so it just sits in its case and it's too heavy to carry everywhere. I shoot with a d7000. Anyone make this switch?

A lens that does not get used is not much use, so if you are thinking of selling it then just do it. You could get a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 to cover the range and have money left over.

 

[rickmarquez]

I just upgraded from a DX camera to an FX frame and I'm still on the fence about having a mid-tele lens in my kit for the new camera. I have the 17-55 ƒ/2.8 for my backup body which sits in my bag most of the time. I've thought about selling that and putting the cash towards a 24-70. However, for the last 4 months I've been getting along just fine with a 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, and 70-200mm set of lenses for my FX body.

 

[poke]

A lens that does not get used is not much use, so if you are thinking of selling it then just do it. You could get a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 to cover the range and have money left over.

I'd just need a 50 and the 85, maybe a 35.

I just upgraded from a DX camera to an FX frame and I'm still on the fence about having a mid-tele lens in my kit for the new camera. I have the 17-55 ƒ/2.8 for my backup body which sits in my bag most of the time. I've thought about selling that and putting the cash towards a 24-70. However, for the last 4 months I've been getting along just fine with a 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, and 70-200mm set of lenses for my FX body.

How do you like the primes compared to the 17-55?

 

[Mully]

Old primes are great...if you can live with manual. The glass can be very sharp and prices are good. On Nikons just remove the old meter clutch and you are good to go.

 

[Ballistics]

I'll trade you my 24mm prime, and 50mm prime for your 24-70mm

 

[poke]

I'll trade you my 24mm prime, and 50mm prime for your 24-70mm

I don't want a 24mm but if you want to work something out for the 50mm + cash then just shoot me a pm

 

[HerkFE]

The big thing here is if you are shooting outdoors in a dusty environment and need the focal length but can't risk switching lenses. If you are doing mostly controlled shooting and not much on the fly photography where you adjust your focal length then you will be happy with primes. The first time you need to swap your 50 for your 85 and don't have a dust free environment to do so you will likely wish you had your 24-70mm.