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

[manaheim]

I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 (quite a bit cheaper than the 70-200, but an excellent lens)

The 24-70 is my primary lens and it's on my camera almost constantly. I only use the 80-200 for special situations.

That said, it probably depends on what you shoot most. If you tend to shoot things further away you're probably going to want the 70-200 more.

 

[cnutco]

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.

I have really enjoyed my 70 - 200. This plan of yours sounds just like mine. Do you shot sports? The main reason I went with the 70 -200 first is to shoot pics of my daughter playing sports. I had the first portrait type of shots yesterday and I used the 70 - 200. It worked just fine but I really had a few shots that I wanted the 24 -70 or wider.

I will post up some pics later for color C&C from those calibrated monitor people.

You will not regret getting that or the other lens.

 

[Josh220]

I don't shoot any sports yet. The only thing the 70-200 would be used for is wildlife for the most part.

As I talk to you guys I begin to lean more and more towards the 24-70 first, then to get the 70-200 in a month or two.

It seems like a much better walk-around lens to keep on the camera most of the time.

 

[Josh220]

I had almost forgotten, right before our trip to Hawaii I will be attending my girlfriends graduation ceremony, which will probably require the 70-200 with a teleconverter. The seating is pretty far back from where they walk across.

 

[manaheim]

I had almost forgotten, right before our trip to Hawaii I will be attending my girlfriends graduation ceremony, which will probably require the 70-200 with a teleconverter. The seating is pretty far back from where they walk across.

I do ok with the 80-200 at my daughter's dance recitals without the teleconverter and we're probably 75' away from the stage. No close-ups at that range, mind you...

 

[Josh220]

I had almost forgotten, right before our trip to Hawaii I will be attending my girlfriends graduation ceremony, which will probably require the 70-200 with a teleconverter. The seating is pretty far back from where they walk across.

I do ok with the 80-200 at my daughter's dance recitals without the teleconverter and we're probably 75' away from the stage. No close-ups at that range, mind you...

I'm thinking further away than that. When I graduated there we did it in a small outdoor amphitheater which we referred to as the "bowl" (due to it's shape). There are probably close to or over a thousand people in her graduating class so they will fill up quite a few rows in front, then everyone fills in behind that. Unless I get there 3 or 4 hours early, I doubt I will be extremely close.

The teleconverter goes hand in hand with the 70-200 for me, so if I break down and get the lens, I can come to terms with a few hundred more.

It just makes it so hard to prioritize which lens I need more over the next few months. Every time I find something to tip the scales in one direction, I end up with something that evens them back out again.

I know... poor me, right?

 

[Josh220]

I just placed my order through B&H for the 24-70. Excuse me while I go throw up.

Hope it's worth it!

70-200 VRII will be next along with a teleconverter. Then I will see if the D700 replacement is due to be released. If not, I will get a macro to hold me over until then. Looking at the 105mm f/2.8.

 

[kundalini]

When I'm at an event or shooting somewhere that I'm not sure what focal length will be needed, I like to double-fist it with the 24-70mm on the D700 with the Black Rapid strap & have the 70-200mm on the D300 with mono support. I have the VRI version of the 70-200mm and don't have any reason to upgrade to the VRII.

You won't go wrong with either lens, but I get much more daily use out of the 24-70mm. Although I wouldn't take anything for the 70-200mm (well... I do have a price in mind....), it is a bit of a boat anchor and does tend to draw attention.

BTW, the 105mm f/2.8 is an awesome piece of glass. :thumbsup:


DISCLAIMER FOR THE ASTUTE OBSERVER:
You're absolutely correct. That's not the 70-200mm on the monopod. It's a 300mm f/4 and a 1.7TC attached.

 

[Josh220]

Lens pr0n:

 

[brianT]

Nice lens. This is the exact lens I want. I was in the same predicament as you last year (deciding between the 24-70 or 70-200). I bought the 70-200mm VRII first. But I think overall the 24-70 would generally be more useful.

I'm accustomed to using my 18-105 lens on my D90. That lens has a pretty good range. So I fear that when upgrading to the 24-70 on a D90, I'll lose too much wide FOV.

Because you're using a D300 let us know how the FOV range of the 24-70 'feels' on a 1.5 sensor.

 

[Josh220]

I started a review thread for the 24-70:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-reviews/201380-nikon-24-70mm-f-2-8-lens.html

Here's a better shot of it (more pics in link above).

 

[Josh220]

Is anyone shooting the 70-200 on a FX body? Does it have enough reach on it?

I would like to get the new D700 (D700s, D700x, D800) when it comes out since it will likely be this year. What I am wondering is if I should sell the D300 at that point, or if I should keep it for when I need that added reach without dropping to 6MP or whatever the D700 drops to in DX mode. The 24-70 will definitely shine on the FX body but I am unsure about the 70-200.

 

[brianT]

Is anyone shooting the 70-200 on a FX body? Does it have enough reach on it?

I would like to get the new D700 (D700s, D700x, D800) when it comes out since it will likely be this year. What I am wondering is if I should sell the D300 at that point, or if I should keep it for when I need that added reach without dropping to 6MP or whatever the D700 drops to in DX mode. The 24-70 will definitely shine on the FX body but I am unsure about the 70-200.

I guess I have the same plan as you, except in different lens order. That is, I plan on getting the updated D700 or whatever they call it. Plus I'm getting the 24-70 f/2.8.

My 70-200mm on my D90 works well, but regarding reach well I guess it depends on what you need it for. Even with the crop sensor the 70-200mm is not enough magnification for birds. I haven't used it on an FX camera, but I suspect it will be nearly useless for birds and wildlife. Would be perfect for portraits and as a general walk-around lens I think.

Seems a lot of people buy teleconverters for the 70-200mm. However, the loss of image quality and stops of light are big penalties with teleconverters. I was thinking about getting one for my 70-200mm, but once I upgrade to FX format I think even a teleconverter won't be enough. Therefore, I'm going to get a high magnification prime lens, which I think will provide better image quality and faster focus.

On FX the 70-200mm will be good for everything except wide shots.

I'll probably sell my D90 body to help fund the purchase of the new camera body. Even though it would be useful to have two bodies (one of them 1.5X DX) I'm the kind of person that would rarely use it if I have a better camera, like a D700. Photography is a hobby only for me, so I don't really need to walk around with two cameras like the pros.

I'm hoping the new D700 has a higher Megapixel count. Maybe they'll sell a 24 MP version

 

[Josh220]

Well... I am starting to consider the 70-200 now. I know it hasn't been that long since I got the 24-70 and haven't even fully broken it in properly due to class/work. My trip to Hawaii at the end of June is a factor; gotta get those geckos!

It's hard for me to justify a $2300 lens which will lead to a $400 teleconverter at my age, when so many people I know are struggling to make rent. I feel selfish... I absolutely refuse to get the 70-300 or 80-200 though.

I am also planning on picking up a Nikon 105mm Macro which I will have to fit into the purchase plans.

 

[shivaswrath]

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.