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

[Josh220]

I have both the VR2 70-200 and 24-70 on a D90 (used to have a D200, but couldn't resist a better sensor for the loss of some minor things) . . .

-70-200 VR2 is on my D90 almost 85% of the time when I am shooting couples or outdoor events; it's sharp wide open, enables nice distance from my subject so they are comfortable, and the VR is noticeably improving my keepers on the long end.
-24-70 is for more indoor shooting, weddings, etc.; I tend to use it as often unless i Have my SB900 on, as without VR in low light situations, I would be cranking up the ISO and losing DR.

If I were you, and you're tight on $$, go for the 70-200 esp if you're into wildlife photography.

Good info, but I already have the 24-70. I purchased it last month.

Just trying to decide if I should fork out the money for the 70-200 now.

 

[Josh220]

Update:

I rented the 70-200 VR2 for a week (due to my girlfriends graduation) and it is one hell of a lens. However, I cannot justify the $2400 for it right now, it just wasn't THAT amazing and it is heavy as hell. Even with a teleconverter and a cropped sensor, it doesn't have a huge amount of reach.

On that note, I am finding the 24-70 to be a little restricting on my D300, and have begun considering an upgrade to a D700 so I can open up my FOV to a more convenient range, as well as get a better wide angle (which is currently my favorite range). I am looking at either the 14-24 or the 17-35. (I know the 14-24 is part of the holy trinity but the lack of filters is a huge disadvantage).

I have noticed their sudden backorder though, and I am beginning to wonder if the supplies have been cut in anticipation of an upgrade? The last thing I want is to find a D700, then have a new model released shortly after.