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

[Josh220]

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!

 

[Newcastle Shooter]

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.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

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.

 

[Josh220]

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-B-J]

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.

 

[Josh220]

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.

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.

 

[D-B-J]

^^yeah iknow, its hard to find a direct comparison between the two. And the extra 300 dollars is an extra sb600

 

[SpeedTrap]

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.

 

[TJ K]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Josh220]

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.

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...

 

[Josh220]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Derrel]

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

 

[Josh220]

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

Exactly what I wanted to see.

Looks like on a FX it's worth the difference, but on a DX the difference is slim except for the achieved focal length.

If they still have them on stock when I make the purchase, I may just get the VRI and save the few hundred, unless anyone disagrees with this decision for use on a D300?

Thank you!

 

[sleist]

I have the 70-200 VR1 on a D90 (same sensor as your D300).

Love the lens (VR1 is fine unless you plan on moving to FX soon), but I'm not sure it would be my first choice if I shot mainly landscapes. Wildlife is OK, but you might be frustrated by the reach. Suppose it depends on the wildlife.

 

[Josh220]

I have the 70-200 VR1 on a D90 (same sensor as your D300).

Love the lens (VR1 is fine unless you plan on moving to FX soon), but I'm not sure it would be my first choice if I shot mainly landscapes. Wildlife is OK, but you might be frustrated by the reach. Suppose it depends on the wildlife.

I plan on using a teleconverter with it. No plans to spend $7k on a 200-400mm yet.

I may go to a D700 (or it's replacement) some day, but probably not in the very near future.