D90 with 24-70/2.8?

[InToTheRain]

Anyone here using D90 with 24-70/2.8?

Im now using D90 with Sigma10-20, N35/1.8 and N18-200

wanna to upgrade lens first per below two options, budget s$1000

1) Sell all my lens, buy 17-55/2.8 + 105/2.8vr or 180/2.8D as I may not shoot macro a lot

2) Keep Sigma 10-20 only and sell the other two, use the money for 24-70/2.8 as portrait, and 10-20 will be backup for WA shoot

I am not that addicted with Tele shooting and not sure if willing to change D90 to D700 so soon, any advice on this?

Tks

[AbangR]

do you need f2.8??

if it's a must, sell 18-200 and top up for 17-55 (used?) and maybe 55-200mm if you need the tele end.
no point spending too much money on 24-70 if you're not thinking of upgrading to FF anytime soon.
BTW, I have used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 in the past. It worths every cent you pay.

[luna_sea83]

If you are able to afford then get the 24-70 for its built quality, if you just need the range can just take a look at Tamron 28-75 2.8

[kitkai]

I got my 24-70 on impulse buying... Never regretted the decision as the IQ is very good...
Now, when I'm looking to buy new lens, I will never consider DX lenses. True, it may be a waste of money to buy FX lens on DX cam, but you will never know when you will upgrade ur body to FX. Imagine when you are buying dx lens, and the next FX body is so attractive and affordable, your lens will be holding you back on the change...

[JeffryZ]

If you have the money I guess so. For about the price of that one lens, I picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (used to have the Sigma 10- 20mm myself) and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AND a Tokina 50- 135mm f/2.8- three fast and sharp lenses with not that much worse image quality than you will get in the one lens (not all at once- had to spread out my purchases). But that is my budget and wants. They are also not as large and heavy to carry around. I would not mind having a 24-70 f/2.8 but feel I got more for my money this way. As I say, just what worked for me.

[wenbin0215]

Originally Posted by JeffryZ If you have the money I guess so. For about the price of that one lens, I picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (used to have the Sigma 10- 20mm myself) and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AND a Tokina 50- 135mm f/2.8- three fast and sharp lenses with not that much worse image quality than you will get in the one lens (not all at once- had to spread out my purchases). But that is my budget and wants. They are also not as large and heavy to carry around. I would not mind having a 24-70 f/2.8 but feel I got more for my money this way. As I say, just what worked for me.

well said..

it all work out to our individual's shooting preferences..

brand wise is not very important if the picture quality turn out about the same..

[kitkai]

Originally Posted by JeffryZ If you have the money I guess so. For about the price of that one lens, I picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (used to have the Sigma 10- 20mm myself) and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AND a Tokina 50- 135mm f/2.8- three fast and sharp lenses with not that much worse image quality than you will get in the one lens (not all at once- had to spread out my purchases). But that is my budget and wants. They are also not as large and heavy to carry around. I would not mind having a 24-70 f/2.8 but feel I got more for my money this way. As I say, just what worked for me.

I'm not saying anything about which brand to buy, so choose whichever brand you like... I'm just talking about DX vs FX lens... Just to share what I feel. Cos personally, if I embark on buying all DX lens because of cost reason, I'm very sure I won't switch my body to FX, as I don't want to sell all my DX lenses and go through with the experience of saving up one by one...

[kitkai]

Also to add. If you buy all FX lens now, and when u switch body. If there is a need to replace any lens, at least you can do it one by one.
If you buy all DX lens now, and u switch body. If you feel that you can replace the whole set one shot, the go ahead with DX now.
Anyway, I think I'm going OT liao..

[InToTheRain]

Tks for all the valuable advices, appreciated

My thinking is 24-70 better IQ than 17-55 and WA I can hv 10-20 to support

Will the 24-70 bokeh better than 17-55 as 70mm towards 55mm?

[AbangR]

Originally Posted by kitkai Also to add. If you buy all FX lens now, and when u switch body. If there is a need to replace any lens, at least you can do it one by one. If you buy all DX lens now, and u switch body. If you feel that you can replace the whole set one shot, the go ahead with DX now. Anyway, I think I'm going OT liao..

I don't think FX lens ranges fit the DX very well.
28mm and above on a DX body is just not wide enough for a single lens setup.
17-18mm starting point is better on a DX body for most people.

17-55mm vs 24-70mm IQ should be pretty similar from looking at samples on the internet.
Or maybe I'm just not picky enough.

My advise is to buy "used" DX lenses now if you are thinking of upgrading to FF.
What's the motivation to upgrade to FF anyway?
Do you really need ISO6400 and above?

[mangboso]

Can somebody give direct answer, which is better for D90 (aside from self preference)

17-55mm 2.8
or
24-70mm 2.8 (what are the issue of having FX lens into my D90)
money is not an issue

like TS i have lens for wide angle (N12-24) and looking for my 3rd lens which i can use for portrature and street shots.

thanks

[jaRv1s]

Originally Posted by kitkai I got my 24-70 on impulse buying... Never regretted the decision as the IQ is very good... Now, when I'm looking to buy new lens, I will never consider DX lenses. True, it may be a waste of money to buy FX lens on DX cam, but you will never know when you will upgrade ur body to FX. Imagine when you are buying dx lens, and the next FX body is so attractive and affordable, your lens will be holding you back on the change...

i don't think this is applicable to Nikon... the newer FX camera adjust its resolution itself to match the DX lenses... the only catch is not to buy third party DX lenses (there are some exceptions e.g. Tokina 11-16mm that could be used losing 11-13mm)...

i personally think that it's just what you need... you need it then buy it... nothing is always right nor always wrong... e.g. in my shooting style, i don't need a 24-70mm now but i can't say that others don't need it...

[kitkai]

Originally Posted by mangboso Can somebody give direct answer, which is better for D90 (aside from self preference) 17-55mm 2.8 or 24-70mm 2.8 (what are the issue of having FX lens into my D90) money is not an issue like TS i have lens for wide angle (N12-24) and looking for my 3rd lens which i can use for portrature and street shots. thanks

I can't say for 17-55mm, as I don't own that.
24-70 is a little bit on the heavy side i guess. When taking photos, I have no issues with the weight, but when taking video, I noticed my camera will start to point downwards after awhile, cutting the head of my baby boy. Have to keep reminding myself to shift upwards.

Quality wise, I have a photo which I zoomed in > 50%. (No money for 70-200 yet) If I didn't tell my friend, he can't tell the difference. Can't say the same for 80-400mm.

No issues with FX lenses on DX, as you are only utilising the center portion of the glasses... Some will say its a waste of good money, since you are not using the full glass. Disclaimer, I'm not pro, just my 2 cents

[Hydesg]

i am using the d90 and the 24-70mm and if u use the d90 with a battery grip, the camera handles very well.
it focuses fast and produces very nice images.







no regrets, waiting to buy a 70-200mm soon.

[kitkai]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon70...7603995310304/
Scroll to the comment by ArthurJS
In short, because 17-55 isn't nano coated, it does not perform as well as 24-70 with regards to flare

[masrudyn]

I'm also considering this lens. My other option is the 17-35mm /2.8.

My purpose is for portraits and travelling (landscapes). Which one would you guys recommend? Also, how is 24-70/2.8 for landscapes?

[dazism]

this thread is poisonuos.
make me feel like ditch out my 17-55mm for a 24-70mm. -_-"...

[Emerpus]

Originally Posted by mangboso Can somebody give direct answer, which is better for D90 (aside from self preference) 17-55mm 2.8 or 24-70mm 2.8 (what are the issue of having FX lens into my D90) money is not an issue like TS i have lens for wide angle (N12-24) and looking for my 3rd lens which i can use for portrature and street shots. thanks

IQ wise I would say 24-70 is better. Sharper from center to edge as the softer edge of the lens falls outside the cropped sensor. You suffer on the wide angle but gain on the tele-end. So if you often shoot at the tele-end, then 24-70 is better. Weight wise, feel a little front heavy when mounted on a D90 unless you have the batt grip attached.

17-55 while not as good as the 24-70 is still a very good lens and covers what the 24-70 would on the fx body. Still a little front heavy but managable.

For portraiture shoots, I vote for n85 f1.8. Value for money and very good perfomance.

Just my 2 cents

[mangboso]

Alamak this thread keep on killing me
now, i cant control myself looking for 24-70mm lens

[luntut]

24-70.....

hmmmmmmmmmm...

but i most probably will not get it, unless i get myself another D90 and mount a 12-24 onto it.. since i am losing the wide end of it all...

i rather have slightly "not so good" shots with my 17-55, den miss out certain wide shots with a 24-70...