Nikon 24070mm vs 70-300mm lens

[robindesigns]

Can anyone share their opinions on either of these two lenses and which one would be better for portrait photography?

 

[shivaswrath]

i would venture to say a prime would be best for protrait photography. . .while I have only used the 70-300 and have nothing but good things to say, it's a bit slow when compared to the 24-70 f/2.8.

Both are excellent lenses, but your reach would obviously be a lot better on the 70-300mm VR2.

Sorry robin for no concrete direction, but I think you are sort of comparing apples and oranges here with these two lenses and would probably be best equipped with a cheap 50mm or since you have a D700, maybe a 85mm prime.

 

[JerryPH]

If you are referencing the Nikkor 24-70 F/2.8 G ED vs the Nikkor 70-300 F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, you are comparing a cadillac to a volkswagen... a $1600 lens to a $450 lens.

Not only that, but you are comparing a FX lens to a DX lens... not even in the same class, but that aside, which do YOU think will give the better final results?

 

[dEARlEADER]

If you are referencing the Nikkor 24-70 F/2.8 G ED vs the Nikkor 70-300 F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, you are comparing a cadillac to a volkswagen... a $1600 lens to a $450 lens.

Not only that, but you are comparing a FX lens to a DX lens... not even in the same class, but that aside, which do YOU think will give the better final results?

eh? the 70-300 Nikkor is FX ya?

 

[JerryPH]

eh? the 70-300 Nikkor is FX ya?

Nope the 24-70 *is*.
Come to think of it... NikonUSA gives the impression that the 70-300 is also. It doesn't mention it being for a crop sensor (DX) anywhere in the specs... I thought it was. My bad. It's still slow and of way lower quality than the 24-70, VR or not.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The 70-300VR is definatly an FX lens. There are no descriptions about it being DX, and i've used it on a D700 with awesome results.

For portraits, You should look into a nice 50mm and a good 85mm.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

As Jerry said, the two lenses have completely different prices, and therefore completely different quality. But then again, Cadillacs are plasticky, their handling is APPALING, and they look too boxy . But anyway, it's like comparing a Volkswagen to a TVR .

Not only that, but they are completely different focal lengths, just like the VW and the TVR are different classes of cars. One is designed for wildlife photographs and one is designed as a walk-about, fast lens. Sure, both of them do portrait, but neither of them are designed for it. If you want to get into portrait work, I'd probably recommend a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, or the 1.4 version.

Basically, there is no best lens for anything. If there was, then every other lens manufacturer on the face of this planet would be out of business. Try out both lenses, take photos of the guy in the camera store, compare them when you get home. But in the end, it's you who will be paying, so it's you who should be absolutely sure that you get what you want.

For example, I'm buying a macro lens soon. A month ago, I was reading reviews on 7 different lenses and now I've narrowed it down to 4. I haven't even tried out any yet, but I'm taking my time so I know EXACTLY what I want, and exactly how I'm going to get it.

 

[Do'Urden's Eyes]

I know a lot of canon users use the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS (Nikon 70-200 VR) for portraits. or even a 135mm prime

 

[Kegger]

I use the heck out of my 70-200 2.8 for portraits.

 

[Prophet]

As Jerry said, the two lenses have completely different prices, and therefore completely different quality. But then again, Cadillacs are plasticky, their handling is APPALING, and they look too boxy . But anyway, it's like comparing a Volkswagen to a TVR .

Not only that, but they are completely different focal lengths, just like the VW and the TVR are different classes of cars.

You've been listening to Jeremy Clarkson for far to long...... While I'll agree with your metaphore, can't say you are entirely correct with your statement on the TVR.

-JD-