Nikon's 24-70mm or 70-200mm First?

BoxPhotographer · Dec 30, 2009

Hello, I'm looking to buy Nikon's 24-70mm or 70-200mm, I have very equal uses for both of them but I'm going to buy one of them first. The other one will probably be bought 8-12 months later.

I'm shooting portraits, events, dance, stage productions, some sports, and stuff thats happening locally. With the 24-70 I'll be able to do group shots, but with the 70-200 I wont. Although with the 24-70, I wont be able to get candid shots as easily and it doesn't have very good reach for the stage and sports.

Such a headache. :grumpy:

**EDIT**
And I also have to consider the new or old version of the 70-200mm.

PhotoXopher · Dec 30, 2009

Only you can answer this question I'm afraid.

Phranquey · Dec 30, 2009

Both are good pieces of glass. If you are sure that you will be buying both, then go with the most expensive one first...then you won't have to wait as long to save up for the second one... :lol:

willli · Dec 30, 2009

If I was you think what kind of photos you do more and then make the choice if you shoot more portraits, sports, dancing Etc. I will get the 70-200 VRII lens if it otherwise then get the 24-70 both are amazing

AverageJoe · Dec 30, 2009

I was in the same situation (on the Canon side) I went with the 24-70 first. That focal range is considered the best all around for weddings, and if you think about it there are a variety of lengths in a wedding you'd need. But ever since I've got the 24-70 I've really started to think about how nice it would be to have the 70-200. Maybe it's just the consumerish nation we live in?

TJ K · Dec 30, 2009

How can we tell you what you need? If you have equal uses then just flip a coin and boom and then in 8 months have the other. Don't leave out the 14-24 though.
TJ

ranmyaku · Dec 31, 2009

I was in a similar situation as well about a year or so ago. I knew I would be going to Japan for 3 months to take pictures so I went with the 24-70 first, since it was a more 'general purpose' lens. I now have the 70-200 as well (vr1). For my shooting, the only reason I would have needed the 70-200 was for candid street shots in some places. You can do that with the 24-70, you just have to be close.

I don't think you will be disappointed with either one you pick; however, i think no matter what you pick you will be thinking...man I wish i had the ______ for this shot..

I just bought a used 70-200 vr1 recently. I couldn't be happier. It is nearly as sharp as the 24-70. The only way to tell the difference really (with my two lenses) is to pixel peep and do 100 or 200 percent crops.

brianT · Jan 1, 2010

A couple weeks ago I was making the same decision as the OP. I recently bought the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VRII because it was on sale and the lens is more useful to me right now than the 24-70 f/2.8. So I'll be getting the 24-70 later this year.

So obviously it depends on your needs.

As for the 70-200 f/2.8? Well it's my first pro lens and it's awesome. I highly recommend it and I'm convinced I will only buy higher quality lenses.

Eco · Jan 1, 2010

BoxPhotographer said:
I'm shooting portraits, events, dance, stage productions, some sports, and stuff thats happening locally. With the 24-70 I'll be able to do group shots, but with the 70-200 I wont. Although with the 24-70, I wont be able to get candid shots as easily and it doesn't have very good reach for the stage and sports.

Such a headache.

**EDIT**
And I also have to consider the new or old version of the 70-200mm.

It looks like the 70-200 will handle the bulk of your shots. You can still do group shots and they will be nice and comfortable with you 30 yards away.

Joves · Jan 1, 2010

Well I can say for me it would be the 70-200 as I do alot of long shot work. For me if the wide end isnt working on a shot then I would use my feet to get it. As where what I mostly shoot wont let me get in close enough to use the shorter lens. So if you shoot more long and cant get in closer then go long. If you are able to move in closer to get the shot go short.