I Recently sold my D200 and the nikon 17-55 2.8 to fund the purchase of a new D600. I bought the d600 and I am now in the market for a lens similar to the nikon 17-55 2.8, I really liked that lens. Would my best option be the 24-70 2.8? Any other suggestions?
This subject came up last week, and it turns out my opinion isn’t the popular one. It all depends on your photographic tastes and needs, and what you’re willing to carry. If the range from 24-70 is more enjoyable or useful to you than the wide or telephoto end, then the 24-70 is your lens. If you have other interests, it may not be.
I was big fan of the 17-55 DX on my D200 and D300, but that’s when the wide angle zoom in my shoulder bag was a 12-24 DX or a 10.5 DX. Today, my wide angle lens is a 14-24 and because it’s much heavier than the 12-24 DX, the thought of carrying a long, heavy 24-70 as well—in addition to a telephoto lens—simply isn’t appealing. I’m not a photojournalist or wedding photographer for whom a mid-range zoom is especially useful, so instead of a 24-70, I carry a featherweight 50mm f/1.8 and exploit the luxury of zooming with my feet since I’m not obligated to take photographs at a moment’s notice.
To add to Frank's comment -- It really depends on what kind of photography you will be doing, and your budget of course.
The 24-70 is an awesome lens, I do not discount that for a minute, as I love mine for shooting general subjects - its probably my most used lens for sure. But it does add quite a bit of heft to the camera. Lately - I have been putting together a kit of primes to carry with me, and I will leave the heavy zooms at home when I am just shooting around the city - nothing too serious. So I started off with the 28mm f/1.8G AFS lens, and then picked up the 50mm f/1.8G AFS on the weekend, and next I will add the 85mm f/1.8G AFS to my collection.
But when its all guns a blazing and serious PJ type of shooting -- I have the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 VR1 at my disposal.
So if you ask me.... get what works for you! Go to the store - try it out, see how much it weighs, and ask yourself if this is a lens you see working for you. the 24-120 would be another good choice too as mentioned.
If you've got the money you can't go wrong with 24-70 f/2.8. But I get great results with the old 24-85 AF-S (non-VR) that costs a fraction of the "pro zoom."
I liked the idea of the 24-70 2.8, but it weighs a tonne and was a pain to carry so I sold it. A slower zoom like the 24-85 is a lot lighter and works well in good light. If I need a large aperture for shallow DOF or low light, I prefer a prime such as the 50 1.8, which gives me a faster aperture anyway.
Currently I have a collection of fast primes: Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8 ,Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D, and the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D. I like all of them but I sometimes don't have the time to switch lens.
I'm not a pro-shooter, just a hobbyist that likes to take photos of family, landscapes, sports, people, I've done one wedding and a soon to be son that is coming in January.
I started years ago with D70, moved to the D200 and now I wanted to go full-frame so I went to the D600. I liked the quality of 17-50 and I loved the 2.8 of it. I have some cash in the camera fund and I want to make sure I make the right choice.
Personally I couldn't get into my 24-70. IQ was fantastic of course, but I prefer to shoot at one focal length at a time. It sat on a shelf for most of its time with me, so I got rid of it.
The 24-70 is a great lens but for a lot less money you can get a 28-300.
The only time they come off our D600 and D800 is in very low light or special circumstances.
wshoc840 wrote:
Currently I have a collection of fast primes: Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8 ,Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D, and the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D. I like all of them but I sometimes don't have the time to switch lens.
I'm not a pro-shooter, just a hobbyist that likes to take photos of family, landscapes, sports, people, I've done one wedding and a soon to be son that is coming in January.
I started years ago with D70, moved to the D200 and now I wanted to go full-frame so I went to the D600. I liked the quality of 17-50 and I loved the 2.8 of it. I have some cash in the camera fund and I want to make sure I make the right choice. ...Show more →
Hi, I am also not a pro-shooter, just a serious hobby. I shoot full frame D3 and love the primes (35, 50, 85, 180, 300) since they are so sharp... and I have the 17-35. I just added the 24-70 as on vacation, flying I had to pick lens to take and then switch of course. So far I am just loving the 24-70.. razor sharp as expected.. and the next trip, that is all I need as it is going to be a lot of people shots and the 24 will be wide enough for some landscapes.
wshoc840 wrote:
I Recently sold my D200 and the nikon 17-55 2.8 to fund the purchase of a new D600. I bought the d600 and I am now in the market for a lens similar to the nikon 17-55 2.8, I really liked that lens. Would my best option be the 24-70 2.8? Any other suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
Bill
without knowing your style and genre that you normally shoot, it's so darn hard to give you an answer.
mshi wrote:
without knowing your style and genre that you normally shoot, it's so darn hard to give you an answer.
Currently I have a collection of fast primes: Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8 ,Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D, and the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D. I like all of them but I sometimes don't have the time to switch lens.
I'm not a pro-shooter, just a hobbyist that likes to take photos of family, landscapes, sports, people, I've done one wedding and a soon to be son that is coming in January.
I started years ago with D70, moved to the D200 and now I wanted to go full-frame so I went to the D600. I liked the quality of 17-50 and I loved the 2.8 of it. I have some cash in the camera fund and I want to make sure I make the right choice.
IMO if you buy used pro glass, you can't go far wrong - can usually sell later if you have regrets or need of funds with little or no loss, sometimes even gain. This is where buying the Nikon over 3rd party lenses makes sense to me.
I have the 24-70 and it's very sharp, would like to try the 24-120 VR though - on full frame, 70mm is on the short end of my portrait preference. As a general walkaround and grab a quick portrait lens, the lighter VR with more range might be a winner.
I have the 24-70 on one FX body and a 70-200 on the other. When shooting events the 24-70 gets used 99% of the time. For portraits its the 70-200 100%. the 24-70 is a great lens and compared to the 70-200 its light enough to carry everywhere.
i can't speak to the 24-120, but i have the 24-70 and it is the lens i keep on my camera for most things...it is a really fantastic lens in all respects.
Bill, if you really liked the 17-55 then I think the 24-70 is the natural fit for you. In terms of weight I wouldn't worry about it: The D200 + 17-55 is only 2.5 ounces lighter than the D600 + 24-70. (The D200 is actually heavier than the D600.)
