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

[D-B-J]

wow. the difference on the corners of the old and the new are pretty big... thanks derrel!

 

[Josh220]

wow. the difference on the corners of the old and the new are pretty big... thanks derrel!

Only for FX bodies. DX bodies have a slight difference, but not much.

 

[itznfb]

I have the 70-200 vr1. VR on the 70-200 is 3 stop, not 4 stop as someone said earlier. I recently purchased a 24-70mm and a D3s. I have yet to use the 24-70mm outside of playing around with it when I got it. Also I have no issue with the 70-200 vr1 on the D3s. Definitely wouldn't trade it for the vr2.

 

[Josh220]

I have the 70-200 vr1. VR on the 70-200 is 3 stop, not 4 stop as someone said earlier. I recently purchased a 24-70mm and a D3s. I have yet to use the 24-70mm outside of playing around with it when I got it. Also I have no issue with the 70-200 vr1 on the D3s. Definitely wouldn't trade it for the vr2.

I would definitely not upgrade if I already had the VRI but since I am buying new and the difference is only $300 the decision is a bit harder.

I may still get the VRII just in case I ever do go to a FX body and because it's the newer improved model. Since most of its use will be for wildlife and day-to-day use, the fact that it has a slightly shorter focal length at short distances doesn't mean much. I can take a step or two closer if I am taking portraits. For objects further away the focal length is nearly the same (196 vs. 192 I believe).

I am going to swing by my local store and see how it looks/feels in person. It's been a while since I handled a VR-I but it will still give me a better idea.

 

[Ryvax]

I'd say go with the VR2. It's a lens you'll probably have for 10 years + if you take care of it and you'll probably regret it not going for the 2 when you move up to FX. I just picked up the 24 to 70 a few weeks ago for my D90 and I love it. teh 70 to 200 is the next on my list.

 

[cnutco]

Go ahead and get the VRII! It is pretty hard to find tyhe VRI. Like he^ said, you will have this lens for many years and if you ever plan to go FX one day like I do then you wil be ready.

I have talked to many people about the two lenses like you are doing now and I decided to get the 70 - 200 first over the 24 - 70. The main reason I was wanting to get the 70 - 200 is for my daughter's sports and a lot of people have told me that they use the 70 - 200 90% when taking portraits. So there you go.

After I sell my 18 - 200, I will get the 24 - 70.

You are right... dropping 4K at one time for two lenses if rough.

 

[Josh220]

B&H still sells both so it's easy enough to attain, but I have decided to get the new one. Might as well. Now I just have to muster up the courage to click place order on that bad boy and decide if I should get the 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter with it.

I hadn't even thought about selling my 18-200 to get either lens. Maybe when I get the 24-70 I will consider doing that but I may just keep it. The price of the 24-70 is much easier to accept.

 

[RONDAL]

on the question of 24-70 vs 70-200 it dpeends what you are shooting, but my 24-70 is on my camera 80% of the time. the 70-200 is a chore to lug around, and you really do lose out on short distance stuff with it. the 24-70 is like a walka round lens on steroids.

as for whether VR1 or VR2. The issues witht he Vr2 would make me stay away from it. plus the VR1 was a workhorse and still is for MANY pros regardless of the softness in the corners issue.

you can still find the VR1 new ( i did) for about $500 cheaper than the VR2

 

[Josh220]

on the question of 24-70 vs 70-200 it dpeends what you are shooting, but my 24-70 is on my camera 80% of the time. the 70-200 is a chore to lug around, and you really do lose out on short distance stuff with it. the 24-70 is like a walka round lens on steroids.

as for whether VR1 or VR2. The issues witht he Vr2 would make me stay away from it. plus the VR1 was a workhorse and still is for MANY pros regardless of the softness in the corners issue.

you can still find the VR1 new ( i did) for about $500 cheaper than the VR2

So far the best I found was $350 cheaper. I think if it's something that I am going to invest in and plan to have for 5-10 years I may as well get the newer model. Many VRI owners are not upgrading to the VRII. If I have the VRII I may not need to upgrade to their next model in 5 or so years.

I am still rigorously researching both models, as well as the 24-70. The plan is to get the 70-200 first since I have a 35mm coming tomorrow, but the 24-70 may be much more useful for my upcoming trip to Hawaii.

Buying both seems to be the best option

Do you find that the 24-70 is not long enough or wide enough, or does it work pretty well overall? I have a 18-200 so I like having a good walk-around lens that I can always count on. I may sell it when I get the 24-70.

 

[Ryvax]

Well, on my D90 my 24 to 70 is a 35 to 105. It's a pretty good range for everything exept animals or far away things like planes and such. You might miss the extra 100mm you get from your 18 to 200 untill you realize that you can usually just walk closer, lol. I find the lens amazing tho. I love how the lens hood actually locks. You won't be dissapointed.

 

[Josh220]

Well, on my D90 my 24 to 70 is a 35 to 105. It's a pretty good range for everything exept animals or far away things like planes and such. You might miss the extra 100mm you get from your 18 to 200 untill you realize that you can usually just walk closer, lol. I find the lens amazing tho. I love how the lens hood actually locks. You won't be dissapointed.

Thanks,
I don't think I will miss the reach since I will have the 70-200 with a 1.7 teleconverter.

How is it's sharpness?

I will probably get the 70-200 first because I have wanted it for a few years, just never got around to seriously consider purchasing one. But I fear that I will have the 24-70 within a month afterwards to have it for my trip to Hawaii.

Especially when I have a lens I can sell to help justify the expense to myself :mrgreen:

 

[RONDAL]

i couldnt decide which one i wanted more so i bought both withina week as well.....

you're gonna miss the versatility of the 18-200 no question. you will also miss the weight of it if you are travelling. i still believe there is still not a better travel lens than the 18-200mm.

the IQ of the 24-70 is unreal. it is so bloody sharp its amazing. you will find you will use your 50mm f1.8, and 35mm f1.8 a lot less as those are usually the sharpest lenses in peoples bags starting out, but the 24-70 is almost as sharp, if not as sharp.

The tele is nice, just be aware if you are putting this on a D90 and below (any plastic body nikon) the 70-200mm is a HEAVY, and the body isn't as strong as the d300/d700 bodies. I have read stories on here of lenses pulling the connector ring out of the body itself due tot he weight. The tele just makes the problem worse as its more weight and more length on the joint.

 

[Josh220]

i couldnt decide which one i wanted more so i bought both withina week as well.....

you're gonna miss the versatility of the 18-200 no question. you will also miss the weight of it if you are travelling. i still believe there is still not a better travel lens than the 18-200mm.

the IQ of the 24-70 is unreal. it is so bloody sharp its amazing. you will find you will use your 50mm f1.8, and 35mm f1.8 a lot less as those are usually the sharpest lenses in peoples bags starting out, but the 24-70 is almost as sharp, if not as sharp.

The tele is nice, just be aware if you are putting this on a D90 and below (any plastic body nikon) the 70-200mm is a HEAVY, and the body isn't as strong as the d300/d700 bodies. I have read stories on here of lenses pulling the connector ring out of the body itself due tot he weight. The tele just makes the problem worse as its more weight and more length on the joint.

Great info.

I have a gripped D300 to offset the weight, so I'll be ok :mrgreen:

 

[Josh220]

I need to plan out if I will be purchasing both lenses before my Hawaii trip. If I purchase both, it really does not matter. But if I only get one between now and June, I am beginning to wonder if the 24-70mm would be better to take along on the trip. I leave June 31st.

For my normal shooting, the 70-200 would be more beneficial to get first based on the rest of my gear, but Hawaii will be something I want to capture as best as I can. I haven't been there in a few years and I don't know when I will go back because my girlfriend and I have a long lost of places to visit.

 

[Josh220]

I played around with both for a little bit today at Samy's Camera and I am still at a loss for which to get. I think the 24-70 would be much better for my trip to Hawaii as a walk-around lens but wouldn't be very helpful for any wildlife. I really want to get some shots of the gecko's there. On the other hand the 70-200 would be no fun to carry for very long distances.

After handling them both in person I am leaning towards the 24-70 first, then getting the 70-200 later, possibly still before the trip. I still have 2 1/2 months until we leave to decide.