The default f2.8 zoom answer not always be the best- or is it?

[Dao]

I think it all comes down to personal choice. I have a Canon 70-200mm f/4 and also a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (both are non-IS / OS). I like the Canon better in most cases simply because of the weight. I seldom need to shoot in low light environment with long telephoto lens, so lighter weight is better for me.

For other times with shorter focal length lens, if flash is allow, I may shoot with f/4 to f/8. However, my standard DX zoom lens perform better with 1 to 2 stops down from max aperture, so getting a f/2.8 is better for me and the lens is not heavy at all. As for the ultrawide angle DX lens, I usually shoot with f/5.6 to f/11 anyway (may use tripod), so fast lens is not needed for me. So I rather save some money on that. (I used to own a 14mm f/2.8 FX prime lens but seldom shoot at f/2.8)

So I really believe there are no right or wrong answer, it all based on personal shooting style and the type of photos a person going after.

 

[TrolleySwag]

That's why I got the 24 105 f4. But now i can afford more, so I'm looking at a 70 200 2.8. I hated it at first, but now I've seem what it can do I'm liking it a bit more. I'll replace it soon though.

If you are replacing it I assume you are going for a faster f2.8, so in you're case it may have been the better option to start with.

The budget wasn't there then. I was missing a lot of do to a medical issue, now I've learned to manage it better. $1100 is a big swing.

 

[hamlet]

I wanna go f1.4 just because i can, not that i want to.

 

[Solarflare]

[...] If for example a fullframe owner wants a midrange zoom and will use it for general photography and portraits and has 1000 dollars, you can be sure some version of a (often quite large and heavy) 24-70 f2.8 will be high on the list. [...]

Well ... dont ask me, I dont really get the point of a normal zoom.

[...] This is probably an excellent choice, but, would an equally excellent choice be a zoom that cost half the price, has a slightly smaller aperture, but allows the person to also purchase a good speedlight and tripod. [...]

To my best knowledge, a f4.0 normal zoom doesnt even exist for Nikon.

 

[jaomul]

[...] If for example a fullframe owner wants a midrange zoom and will use it for general photography and portraits and has 1000 dollars, you can be sure some version of a (often quite large and heavy) 24-70 f2.8 will be high on the list. [...]

Well ... dont ask me, I dont really get the point of a normal zoom.

[...] This is probably an excellent choice, but, would an equally excellent choice be a zoom that cost half the price, has a slightly smaller aperture, but allows the person to also purchase a good speedlight and tripod. [...]

To my best knowledge, a f4.0 normal zoom doesnt even exist for Nikon.

I was using these only for example. The equivalent in slower zooms would be maybe the 24-85mm f3.5/4.5 vr or the 24-120 f4. I think both these choices may sometimes make sense over the 24-70f2.8, but you know what they say about opinions

 

[astroNikon]

In the right situation I recommend other models such as
Nikon 24-85/2.8-4.0
and other AF-D models when the appropriate body is there to make the recommendation.
80-200/2.8, etc.

saves a lot of weight and keeps that weight in your wallet instead.
The 24-70 is just too physically big for me. The 24-85 is much more compact.
I like f/2.8s due to the object isolation even over f/4 especially for sports.

But I totally agree when a newbie with a d3000 wants to upgrade from their 18-55 / 55-200 cheapo lenses, says there is no budget (when they are clueless how expensive and large lenses can get) and is recommended the trinity of lenses as other lenses image quality are junk by comparison. Then a large debate ensues over the quality of lenses.