Hi, long time listener, first time caller. Got into photography a year ago and a friend turned me on to this great site! Hoping for some opinions/advice on a decision. I shoot a wide variety of scenery, people and action. I have a D700, 16-35 VR, 50 1.8 and 70-200 VRII. I hate changing lenses. Was considering selling the 16-35 and 50 and getting a 24-70. Would just use one or the other for different situations and have 24-200 covered. Here's my pros and cons and would appreciate you adding any to help me decide. Thanks.
Pros:
Only have two high quality lenses.
Less switching. Less dust exposure.
Wide angle to tele range.
Cons:
Cost, would probably have to spend close to a grand to make the switch.
Weight, no more lightweights. Might deter me from using as much but I would still have the X100.
Give up VR and low light option.
Give up the 16-24 range.
Couple other factors I'm unsure of. I have to dial the 16-35 up to around 20 to get rid of distortion. Is the situation the same with the 24-70? If I had to do the same I would effectively be adding 'Give up wide angle' to the list of cons and think that would be a show stopper alone.
I have an SB600 I rarely use. Would I need to be using that for indoor photos on the 24-70? Suppose for what I could get for the 50 I could just keep it. I'm not great with it though. Blur is a problem. Need to improve my hand holding technique.
Well, it's my newest equipment so haven't used it too much, but did like the 20mm view and photos from the coast and Gorge. Suppose another option is to get a D7000 for the cost of the upgrade and just leave the 70-200 parked on it making it more like 100-300. Thanks.
Thanks. Certainly don't need every millimeter covered and my current setup is nice. Seemed more covenient as you said as well as the 24-70 sounding as amazing as the 70-200.
Lost my 16-35 on a job, kid of glad I did. Picked up the 24-70 2.8 and it's an amazing piece of glass. I was not happy with distortion on 16-35. I was using it for interiors (better to use the 24 PC-E for that type of work). So go for the 24-70 2.8 you won't be sorry. As for the low light, you have a D700, jack up your iso, don't be afraid.
Must admit, the thought of having just two of among the finest lenses Nikon makes, that will capture everything I like to photo is tempting.
BTW, if I do this what's a reasonable used price for the 16-35 (about $1,200 new) and 50 ($130 new) which are like new, perfect with very little use? And is FM B&S as good a place as any to sell them?
I wouldn't do it. I find f/2.8 midrange zooms to be cumbersome and dull, except for events and journalism. I've rented the 24-70 for a couple of paid gigs shooting events, and it's invaluable for that -- but I find it a fairly poor choice much of the rest of the time. The 16-35 is actually better at 24mm, and obviously covers the wide end better.
Other people feel differently about the matter, though.
Thanks, the one thing I was concerned about was if I had to bump up to 30mm on the 24-70 for scenic/landscape which would defeat the benefit of FF and WA.
The million dollar question for me. I don't use any post processing software, just try and take as good of jpeg's as possible for simply enjoying and printing when I get any worthwhile. All the reports are correct about the 16-35 having stong distortion at 16mm, but significantly improving at 20mm. If the 24-70 at 24 is in a similar situation, then I've made my decision to stay put.
The 24-70 does not have as much distortion at 24mm as the 16-35 has at 16 -- but it does have more than the 16-35 at 24mm.
Honestly, if you're just getting started and only shooting jpegs, it's probably not a big deal one way or another, since you're not likely pushing either lens to its limits. You might consider other options -- such as a slower (but lighter and more easily carried) 24-xx lens for casual use that could be a supplement to, rather than replacement of, your 16-35. The 24-120/4 VR is highly regarded, and might serve you well. There are also some decent third party mid-range zooms. If you use one of these for a while and decide you like it, you can let the 16-35 go with minimal hassle.
The 24-120 is also probably a better choice than either the 16-35 or the 24-70 if you're looking to head out with just a single lens mounted on your camera. It covers a lot of territory pretty well.
The 24-70 is a great tool, without a doubt -- but it's big, heavy, and expensive. Those are not limiting factors for a lens that gets regular professional use, but it sure isn't a lens I want to carry around casually.
Regardless, try to spend some time shooting with just the 50mm -- you'll probably find your learning curve accelerating more quickly working with its constraints (and excellent image quality).
Thanks. My main goal was to just have 2 lenses of the best quality money can buy that will cover all of my photo interests. That 24-70 has been hard to get out of my head after reading the glowing reviews. If it's truly on par with the 70-200, man...pure heaven :-)
What I want to know is how bad is the distortion really. The lens certainly seems to have more than say a 14-24, but accepts filters (which the 14-24 does not). I have seen a lot of photographers work (on 500px for example) who are doing excellent landscape with with 16-35. Hell, one of my personal favorites (Joe Rossbach) uses the 16-35.
I genuinely think you may be obsessing unless you need to use the lens for close up landscapes *or* you have a problem with it others don't.
I've owned the 16-35 since it came out, and I have very rarely cared about distortion corrections -- all wider than 18mm, and the automatic corrections in the Lightroom profile handled it just fine. For me, it's a non-issue.
It's very easy to chase a platonic ideal of a lens in a way that doesn't really exist. Every lens has strengths and weaknesses, and I suspect that the 24-70 won't really satisfy Kell's search for the ideal lens lineup, either. No lens can do that -- and if you're not even using the tools available to maximize what you can get out of the lenses you have (shooting RAW, editing as necessary), chances are this is a theoretical problem, and not a practical one.
I say this as someone with intimate personal experience of this condition.
Pros:
Only have two high quality lenses - why is two lenses a pro? If you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail
Less switching. Less dust exposure - complete non-issue with dust shakeoff. My last camera was a D90. Did not have to clean the sensor once in the 3+ years I owned it.
Wide angle to tele range - depending on your perspective, 24mm is not terribly wide.
Cons:
Cost, would probably have to spend close to a grand to make the switch - small price to pay if this is what you need and use (assuming that you can afford it).
Weight, no more lightweights - Might deter me from using as much but I would still have the X100. To me this is and ergonomics are THE #1 and #2 issues. I have both a 70-200 and 70-300 and rarely use the former, despite the fact that every time I pick it up I love the character of the images. Heck, I considered switching to Canon solely for the 5D2 + 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 combo. About 3 lbs lighter than anything of comparable image quality you can get on Nikon.
Give up VR and low light option - This is what tripods are for, depending on your subject matter.
Give up the 16-24 range - That would be a complete showstopper for me. I don't care about the middle range.
Only you can answer which one is more important for you. I am working on two kits:
Relatively light-weight hiking: D800 + 20/2.8 + 50/1.8 + 85/1.8 + 180/2.8 (or 16-35/4 instead of 20/2.8)
<5 mile roundtrip: D800 + 16-35/4 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/2.8-II
I also have a 24-85/3.5-4.5 lying around the house that I will probably rarely use. It is light enough and cheap enough that I am OK tying up some money in it even if I practically never use it.
Now if my dealer actually gets around to shipping me the D800 I ordered at 12:10am on the release day I would be set. I am told "before May" but given the fact that nobody seems to be shipping anything I am not holding my breath.
Thanks everyone, for the much needed perspcetive. I avoided impulsiveness as a result. I'll just stay put and learn to to get the most out of what I have. Great forum!
