Practicality: Nikon 24-70mm vs. 70-200mm

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Josh220, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I would like to hear from those of you who have either the Nikon 24-70mm or the 70-200mm. If you have both that's even better.

    I currently have a 12-24mm f/4, 18-200mm, and I just purchased a 35mm f/1.8 from Amazon. I would eventually like to have both lenses to cover the 12-200mm focal range (including my wide), however I would rather not spend $4k on glass in a single month.

    I am currently leaning more towards getting the 70-200 first, but would like to hear from those of you who have either lens, which do you use most often and think is more practical? I love to shoot landscape and wildlife, so it almost seems like a no-brainer to get the 70-200. Either way I need to get some sharper/faster glass in my arsenal.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Newcastle Shooter

    Newcastle Shooter TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Hey Josh!

    I have the 70-200mm 2.8 - and love it. I also had the same debate with myself. I also have a 12-24 and a 50mm 1.4 and as i needed the extra high speed reach it was easy for me to say 70-200mm. Its very rarely off f2.8 as i shoot weddings and events mostly and the low light requires it.

    I love my 50mm 1.4 and for the moment i just use me legs a bit more :) but intend to get the 24-70 maybe - not urgent at the moment.

    Cheers.
     
  3. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    do the 50 1.4 and 70-200. Than you'll have your super wide, 12-24, your fast normal, 35 1.8, fast short tele, 50 1.4, and the telephoto 70-200. Seems pretty ideal to me.
     
  4. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Thanks guys.

    I'm not sure if I will ever spend the $$ on the 50mm since I just got the 35mm; should be here tomorrow or Friday. The 35mm is much crisper than the 50mm 1.8 and the 1.4 is pretty pricey. Enough so that I would just put that money towards the 24-70 when I wanted the next lens.

    I think I will be getting the 70-200 next; hopefully in the next month or two (if I can wait that long).

    But then another dilemma arises... Do I get the old VR I or the new VR II? :D
     
  5. D-B-J

    D-B-J Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,027
    Likes Received:
    2,171
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'd go with the older vrI. I havent seen anywhere that the new version will allow you to slow down your shutter speeds (more than the four stops associated with the vrI). It would make sense to get the "older" model, because it will be cheaper, and it is still a flawless lens.
     
  6. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    They are only $300 apart in price unless I purchased a used one. I have serious issues with buying used lenses. Something about it doesn't sit well with me. Like they have been violated... I almost purchased one yesterday, even sent the payment via PayPal. When he was supposed to be shipping it, he got a last minute PM from someone willing to pay his original asking price ($15 more than what we agreed on) so he refunded my money without another word and sold it to him instead. All in all I am glad he was a total ass-hat who went back on the agreement we had, and I am just glad I got my money back without it being a hassle. When someone goes back on their word, it says a lot about a man, or lack thereof.

    It was the 35mm 1.8; I ordered it on Amazon late last night. :)

    If I am already $2k deep, what's another $300? I would just like to hear more personal experiences with the new VRII. I have raided YouTube and every thread that came up in searches on here. Still hard to find any solid info or comparisons between the two.
     
  7. D-B-J

    D-B-J Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,027
    Likes Received:
    2,171
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    ^^yeah iknow, its hard to find a direct comparison between the two. And the extra 300 dollars is an extra sb600 :)
     
  8. SpeedTrap

    SpeedTrap TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I shoot with both of them, but I have to say that the 2-70 is what is on my camera 75% of the time.
    I love them both and they both have there place, but I would take the 24-70 over the 70-200 only if I knew my next lens after it would be the 70-200.
     
  9. TJ K

    TJ K No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sunny South Florida
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Well the vrII has its fair share of problems. It is a lot shorter in focal length than the VRI was and also is having problems of the paint chipping off in the front filter threads. Most people prefer their VRI over the newer model.
     
  10. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I've got a 18-200 and a 35mm, but I have nothing fast for a zoom. The 18-200 is a great lens, but it's not something I could use for wildlife. To me, I think I have the mid range better covered than the telephoto. That being said, you still believe the 24-70 would be a better choice?

    I will be going to Hawaii this Summer so whichever lens I choose will be coming along with me there as well.

    Perhaps the only solution is to just order them both... :lol:
     
  11. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I read up on the focal length. The VrI was able to achieve 180-190 but the new VRII can only achieve 140-165 at close distances.

    However, I have also read that the difference in image sharpness by far makes up for this fallback.
     
  12. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,796
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Here is a thorough review that features a side-by-side comparison with images from the version I and the newer model 70-200/2.8 lens, showing the difference in image magnification at different focal lengths and distances. 70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

24-70mm vs 70-200mm

,
24-70mm vs 70-200mm nikon
,

24-70mm or 70-200mm

,
70mm vs 200mm
,
nikon 24 70mm vs 70 200mm
,
nikon 24-70 lens review thom hogan
,

nikon 24-70 review thom

,
nikon 24-70 review thom hogan
,

nikon 24-70mm vs 70-200mm

,
nikon 24-70mm vs nikon 70-200mm