Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8
  
 
techster82
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


When I was shooting a D7000 my go to lens was the 17-55mm. I just purchased a D600 and feel extremely comfortable (well, better) shooting it with the 24-70mm. Its a fantastic lens, very sharp and I don't find it any more uncomfortable to carry than the 17-55.

If the 17-55mm fit your shooting style, get the 24-70mm and don't look back.



Nov 14, 2012 at 03:56 AM
lankyelectric
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


I love mine for the children. Those little people are on the move constantly and a zoom will be good to have. Buy one if you don't like it sell it and get most of your money back. Borrow one or rent one.


Chad



Nov 14, 2012 at 04:13 AM
Dwight3
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


The 24-70 is a really great lens. I used mine on my D3 probably about 60% of the time (70-200 accounted for about 30%).

Until I got a 28-300.

The 28-300 is almost as sharp as the 24-70 and 70-200 and it's a bit slower (f/3.5-5.6). For work in good light the speed doesn't seem to be a real limitation. The sharpness might be if you're doing commercial work, but for personal use I find it to be quite adequate. I still use the 24-70 for indoor work but with the better ISO performance of modern cameras that's probably not still necessary. The 28-300 is a good all-round lens for casual use, photos of friends and family, vacations, documentation, etc. It's on my camera probably 80% of the time now (I do some macro work with the 105 mm micro and still use the 24-70-200 for indoor events).

On the wide angle end, 28 is not quite as wide as 24, but then I have a 14-24 which rarely gets used. When 28mm (or 24mm) is not wide enough I can stitch.



Nov 14, 2012 at 01:32 PM
MichaelUribe
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


Yes, if your serious about having a Nikon, you should have the F2.8 trinity.
14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm F2.8.

I just covered a public speaking engagement tonight and the 24-70 was 90 % of the shots, the others were of the podium using the 70-200mm.

I then swapped out the 24-70 with the 14-24 and shot the entire meeting room showing the participants. Without all three, I would have missed either of these shots.



Nov 16, 2012 at 02:05 AM
DTOB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


MichaelUribe wrote:
Yes, if your serious about having a Nikon, you should have the F2.8 trinity.
14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm F2.8.

I just covered a public speaking engagement tonight and the 24-70 was 90 % of the shots, the others were of the podium using the 70-200mm.

I then swapped out the 24-70 with the 14-24 and shot the entire meeting room showing the participants. Without all three, I would have missed either of these shots.


With different lenses, you just get different shots. You don't necessarily miss anything.

I am shooting an event tomorrow with my Fuji X100, a 50mm Sigma and a 70-200 Tamron. I'll have my 35 1.4G in the bag in case my X100 can't cope. Maybe I'll throw in my Nikkor 28/2 AIS for good measure.

I am "serious about having a Nikon" in that I seriously have a Nikon, and I am sure I'll never own the holy trinity. Way too many primes I'd rather have.



Nov 16, 2012 at 02:20 AM
Steven Park
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


Dwight3 wrote:
The 24-70 is a really great lens. I used mine on my D3 probably about 60% of the time (70-200 accounted for about 30%).

Until I got a 28-300.

The 28-300 is almost as sharp as the 24-70 and 70-200 and it's a bit slower (f/3.5-5.6). For work in good light the speed doesn't seem to be a real limitation. The sharpness might be if you're doing commercial work, but for personal use I find it to be quite adequate. I still use the 24-70 for indoor work but with the better ISO performance of modern cameras that's probably not still necessary.
...Show more

+1

I have both 24-70 & 28-300. While both are fine lenses, I tend to use 28-300 more often ever since I bought 28-300.



Nov 16, 2012 at 07:27 AM
ecidi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


If you got the cash, why settle for less. Get the 24-70, This lens is fantastically sharp. I also own the 14-24 and the 70-200 VRll but it is the 24-70 that I take with me on vacations most of the time.


Nov 16, 2012 at 07:39 AM
elbeasto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


If you're prepared to pay for the 24-70, I'd go for it.
I bought one recently that I use with a D700, not the new D600 but still my Blog post might be of some help that I did about it.



Nov 29, 2012 at 12:56 AM
runamuck
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


Get the Tamron 28-75 and save 17 ounces every time you lift the camera to your eye.


Nov 30, 2012 at 01:58 AM
fishfilm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


MichaelUribe wrote:
Yes, if your serious about having a Nikon, you should have the F2.8 trinity.
14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm F2.8.

I just covered a public speaking engagement tonight and the 24-70 was 90 % of the shots, the others were of the podium using the 70-200mm.

I then swapped out the 24-70 with the 14-24 and shot the entire meeting room showing the participants. Without all three, I would have missed either of these shots.


Yep, this is the work group. With a the 2x doubler (whatever it is called.) Although you can crop the heck out of D800 files and still have a great shot if you account for it in the original exposure with enough ISO and shutter speed.

BUT... These are PJ lenses, for when you have to move fast, can't spend a lot of time in PP to edit and so on. If I'm doing portraits it's either the 50 or the 85 and it might be on the camera the whole time. So it depends on your need for speed. You pay a huge premium for the flexibility of the pro zooms.



Nov 30, 2012 at 05:38 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



James R
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


runamuck wrote:
Get the Tamron 28-75 and save 17 ounces every time you lift the camera to your eye.


Now that would disrupt my workout routine. I'd need to take up running or drinking from a magnum bottle.



Nov 30, 2012 at 07:34 AM
ash4390
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


I absolutely love my 24-70. Its stupid sharp on my D3s or D800


Nov 30, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Wickedfn4u
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


Not sure nobody has mentioned the 28-70 2.8. I have this one and love it. Not sure price difference but would have to guess it is a less expensive option close to same range and fast.


Nov 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM
DontShoot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


My main go-to combination was D300 and 17-55. When I switched to the D700, I "naturally" got the 24-70. However, as I kept shooting with it, I realized that it didn't feel similar to the 17-55 at all. The FL range was weird and the lens felt wrong. I decided to sell the 24-70 and switched to the 16-35 and everything felt natural again! If you love wide angle compositions, I think that the best replacement for the 17-55 on FX would be the 16-35/4 or 17-35/2.8. These lenses just felt "right" coming from the 17-55.


Nov 30, 2012 at 06:52 PM
LA_Sportsman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


As mentioned frequently, you have to decide based on what you shoot. 90% of my photography is in national parks. Weight doesn't bother me for the most part as to total weight. I'm used to lugging the gear. As to weight of the 24-70 specicially, it's light when I switch from the 70-200.

I need the simplicity. I have several lenses sitting around that often don't make the trip. The 24-70 is 60-70% of my shooting with the 70-200 covering the rest. I still keep my 18-200 in the bag for when 24 isn't wide enough but a pending upgrade to FF will cover that. Eventually I will get the 14-24 and finish the trinity.

Zooming with feet is frequently mentioned. That us seldom an option for me in the parks from being on the edge of a cliff, protected terrain, or simply negotiating crowds. I understand how it might work for others.



Nov 30, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Waki
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


I had a 24-70 and never quite came to terms with it. I just didn't like the way it felt in use. IQ was good. I sold it and bought a really well preserved 28-70 Beast. I still have that one and I love it. I'm told in all sorts of articles that it's less sharp but my D800 likes it and so does my D700. No complaints from those that have been in front of it. It works and feels good.
I like the look and contrast though of D lenses. I use several of them especially portraits. The exception is the 70-200 VRII. Great lens. I still have the VRI version too, I let my son use it on DX.

I'm prepping for a major glass purchase after the first of the year. I keep wondering if the 24-70 should get another whirl. It has been a long time since I shot with one. The 24 1.4 is a definite, as is the 35 1.4 and I use a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 now so I just don't see the why to add it. I think the Beast will cover any zoom needs as they arise.



Dec 01, 2012 at 02:03 PM
escaladieu
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


RRRoger wrote:
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.


And its a surprisingly good lens



Dec 05, 2012 at 05:55 PM
brewercm
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


runamuck wrote:
Get the Tamron 28-75 and save 17 ounces every time you lift the camera to your eye.


+1 From me on this lens. Very close to the Nikon at a fraction of the cost if the build quality isn't an issue. I've used mine on my D90, D700, D7000, and D600 and its my goto lens. I haven't tried the new VC version of the 24-70 yet so haves no comment on it. I'm looking to get the Nikon 24-120 f4 vr to go along with it and my Nikon 70-200 2.8 vr.



Dec 08, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Chris Noyes
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


The Nikon 24-70 is on my camera 70% of the time, and it's ALWAYS in my bag when not on my camera. It's simply an incredible lens . . . wonderful colors and contrast, minimal distortion, fast focus . . . the superlatives go on and on. Thank goodness for the rugged build quality because it's taken more than its fair share of abuse, but it keeps on turning out one keeper image after another. This is, without a doubt, my favorite lens in my collection because of it's versatility. I have many lenses that have produced special images capturing important moments in my life over the past few years, but none more than the 24-70.

If I could only have one lens, this is the one.



Dec 08, 2012 at 10:40 PM
zippylock
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · Do I need the 24-70 2.8


i love my 24-70 2.8...

Its my got to lens right now and just as sharp as any of the primes i have used, with the added fact of having some zoom range



Dec 09, 2012 at 02:52 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password