Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

  1. #1

    Default Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?

  2. #2
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,901

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by rye09 View Post
    Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
    that is depends on each individuals, if ones don't mind the weight and cost, and he/she will find the lens is justifiable to have it on a DX body.

    so the answer is lie on you, why do rent this lens to try it out?
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  3. #3

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    in addition, it's not wide enough on a DX camera (compare to 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and 17-55 f2.8) but it has better image quality than the 17-55 f2.8.

  4. #4
    Member GReddyZC76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    singapore, northeast
    Posts
    590

    Default

    same dilemma. Had been looking ard nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, was quoted 2450 by iPhoto(lords) & 2534 by CP. Grey sets us about 2.2k+ & 2.4k+. Whilst iPhoto quoted 2250 for nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. Judging from the price alone, imho, personally, way too pricey for a dx len. Above all, read comments prime len is way much cheaper and , how often one fully make full use of the zoom on 17-55 or 24-70. Well, It perfectly make sense to me

    Dilemma.....
    [D800|AFS2470F2.8G|AFS70200F2.8G|AFS1635F4G|AFS28F1 .8G|AF85F1.8D|AFDC105F2D|SB700|SB900]

  5. #5
    Member jas1984's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Singapore / Little Red Dot
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Can consider the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM and Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF

    Nikon D5000 - 18-55mm l 55-200mm l 35mm f1.8g l Grip
    My FlickR l Google+

  6. #6

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by GReddyZC76 View Post
    same dilemma. Had been looking ard nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, was quoted 2450 by iPhoto(lords) & 2534 by CP. Grey sets us about 2.2k+ & 2.4k+. Whilst iPhoto quoted 2250 for nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. Judging from the price alone, imho, personally, way too pricey for a dx len. Above all, read comments prime len is way much cheaper and , how often one fully make full use of the zoom on 17-55 or 24-70. Well, It perfectly make sense to me

    Dilemma.....
    gold ring primes can also be very expensive too, eg. 24 f1.4g. but generally primes are cheap, eg. 35 f1.8g, 50 1.8d.

    if ur shooting locations have plenty of space to roam about, then u dun really need a zoom.

  7. #7

    Default

    Outdoor zoom lens still useful. I dun like to change lens in a dusty and awkward location... Lens might dropped.
    D700 - 24-70mm F2.8 ED - 105mm VR2 Micro - Samyang 14mm - 50mm 1.8D - Mb 10 - SB900 - SB400

  8. #8

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    I wouldn't recommend in view of the crop factor that cause you to lose the 24mm coverage. Unless you are planning to upgrade to FX body, the DX16-85mm would be a better choice.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by rye09 View Post
    Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
    The lens is perfect for both DX and FX. Whether is it reasonable or not, the buyer will have to justify that himself/herself. If you make a living out of it or you shoot very often, then probably good to buy. If not, dun waste the $$$. There are other less expensive glasses that you can consider.
    D200

  10. #10

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    I love wide angle perspective, IMHO 24-70 f/2.8 is build for FX. Use it for DX is such a waste, for DX go for 17-55 f/2.8 instead.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  11. #11
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by rye09 View Post
    Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
    Can... but heavy and expensive... so you are paying for and carrying all that the extra glass just so that you sensor will not use.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by rye09 View Post
    Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
    Why you ask this question ? Fast, f/2.8 (good for low light), Excellent IQ for events, people.. If you can budget for it, buy loh..next time poison by fx format, no need to budget for " fx len kit"

  13. #13
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rye09
    Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
    I would suggest tamron 17-50, sigma 17-50 or tamron 28-75.

    If you have the budget, 17-55 from Nikon is a good alternative. In the end, it comes down to what you intend to shoot and what are the focal range you need

  14. #14
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GReddyZC76
    same dilemma. Had been looking ard nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, was quoted 2450 by iPhoto(lords) & 2534 by CP. Grey sets us about 2.2k+ & 2.4k+. Whilst iPhoto quoted 2250 for nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. Judging from the price alone, imho, personally, way too pricey for a dx len. Above all, read comments prime len is way much cheaper and , how often one fully make full use of the zoom on 17-55 or 24-70. Well, It perfectly make sense to me

    Dilemma.....
    1.8 primes are cheaper. But if you need versatility and speed in your shooting flow, zoom will be better.

    But once you go 1.4, prices soar.

  15. #15
    Member GReddyZC76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    singapore, northeast
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123

    1.8 primes are cheaper. But if you need versatility and speed in your shooting flow, zoom will be better.

    But once you go 1.4, prices soar.
    Ya thanks 4 ur replies

    Yes u r right. The cheapest f/1.4 is afd 50mm or afs 50mm f/1.4(am I right?)

    M using a 35mm f/1.8 dx and 85mm f/1.4 now, and getting use with these 2 lens. (hence letting go the tamron 17 55 f/2.8 di II).

    But 35mm sometime quite tight, need and want shoot grp shot or scenario. After thinking thru, a wide angle zoom or prime, will suit me more than a 24 70 .

    Hence, shelfing 24 70 for the time being, and considering 17 35 f/2.8 or 16 35 f/4 or 12 24 f/2.8. I understand if use on dx, it will not be 'wide'. But I forsee a fx body in future, and hence considering a fx len.

    (thou I understand tokina 11 16 f/2.8 is best fit for dx, but if use on fx, there be vignetting and so?)

    Dilemma..

    Any sound advice any1?
    [D800|AFS2470F2.8G|AFS70200F2.8G|AFS1635F4G|AFS28F1 .8G|AF85F1.8D|AFDC105F2D|SB700|SB900]

  16. #16

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by GReddyZC76 View Post
    After thinking thru, a wide angle zoom or prime, will suit me more than a 24 70 .

    Hence, shelfing 24 70 for the time being, and considering 17 35 f/2.8 or 16 35 f/4 or 12 24 f/2.8. I understand if use on dx, it will not be 'wide'. But I forsee a fx body in future, and hence considering a fx len.
    Then let me help poison you more, get a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It's one of Nikon Trinity lens which I still lack. It will be wide enough at 21mm(35mm equiv) on the DX body and 14mm at its widest on the FF body.

    (thou I understand tokina 11 16 f/2.8 is best fit for dx, but if use on fx, there be vignetting and so?)
    Confirm vignetting, I tried it before after I converted from D300 to D3. I once own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I remember when on the D3, the vignetting will be very obvious once u start zoom out to 15mm. At 16mm, it will see a lot less. That being said, if you often like to put in deliberate vignetting in your photos to create focal point in your subject, then using Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on FX will give you that effect optically.
    Last edited by David Kwok; 23rd September 2011 at 12:38 AM.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  17. #17
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by GReddyZC76 View Post
    Ya thanks 4 ur replies

    Yes u r right. The cheapest f/1.4 is afd 50mm or afs 50mm f/1.4(am I right?)

    M using a 35mm f/1.8 dx and 85mm f/1.4 now, and getting use with these 2 lens. (hence letting go the tamron 17 55 f/2.8 di II).

    But 35mm sometime quite tight, need and want shoot grp shot or scenario. After thinking thru, a wide angle zoom or prime, will suit me more than a 24 70 .

    Hence, shelfing 24 70 for the time being, and considering 17 35 f/2.8 or 16 35 f/4 or 12 24 f/2.8. I understand if use on dx, it will not be 'wide'. But I forsee a fx body in future, and hence considering a fx len.

    (thou I understand tokina 11 16 f/2.8 is best fit for dx, but if use on fx, there be vignetting and so?)

    Dilemma..

    Any sound advice any1?
    If I am you, I will keep the 17-50. The 17-35/2.8, 16-35/4 does nothing for you now. Don't think of FX etc... because your 17-50 is already depreciated. Keeping it for a couple more years will not make it fall much more in value. So might as well keep longer and only sell when you move to FX. Then buy the 17-35 or 16-35 after you get your FX.

    If you go Sigma 12-24 (remember to get v2), then it makes sense. It is still considered UWA range for DX, and when you move to FX, it will become super UWA.

    Tokina 11-16, when mounted on FX, will work perfectly fine at only 16mm, which which gives a slightly wider FOV than 11mm on DX.

  18. #18
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by David Kwok View Post
    Then let me help poison you more, get a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It's one of Nikon Trinity lens which I still lack. It will be wide enough at 21mm(35mm equiv) on the DX body and 14mm at its widest on the FF body.



    Confirm vignetting, I tried it before after I converted from D300 to D3. I once own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I remember when on the D3, the vignetting will be very obvious once u start zoom out to 15mm. At 16mm, it will see a lot less. That being said, if you often like to put in deliberate vignetting in your photos to create focal point in your subject, then using Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on FX will give you that effect optically.
    I do not see any vignetting at 16mm on the D700. A very slight and barely noticeable fall off maybe, but no vignetting.

    Sample. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/...29d7a187_z.jpg

  19. #19

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    I thought I mention it has the least at 16mm ? I tried it against a flat wall in my home at roughly 1~2 meters away. It does shows slightly. I understand that vignetting occurs different amount depending on the source light strength and angle at it is coming from. Generally it doesn't show up much in nature sceneries. Using your example, I can't say it's the best approach to decide on vignetting amount. You need a flat wall to determine.

    Unless its really a choice of cost and you already have one and not willing to sell it away at a heavy lost, I see it pretty pointless to get one for a FX body. I have also have my fair share in getting 3rd party lenses, and seriously I stop getting them for a reason that the price depreciate much faster than Nikon lens. But then after all these while, I don't change my gear much and pretty satisfied with what I have, I see it as lower priority in this aspect. Next is I own a copy of DxO and they largely just perform correction for Nikon Lens + Body combination as their priority. That's also why I got a S95 instead of other similar brands, should I neglect the fact that S95 build is small and rugged.

    Jokingly, I'm also interested to poison TS to get the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 because it will blow his expectation away and also at the same time his wallet.

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    I do not see any vignetting at 16mm on the D700. A very slight and barely noticeable fall off maybe, but no vignetting.

    Sample. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/...29d7a187_z.jpg
    Last edited by David Kwok; 23rd September 2011 at 01:28 AM.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  20. #20
    Member GReddyZC76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    singapore, northeast
    Posts
    590

    Default Re: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

    thanks all for the constructive replies. hope it is a objective and 'healthy' discussion

    are you refering to this sigma?
    http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english...2_24_45_56.htm

    and how about nikkor afd wide prime? afd 20mm f/2.8? afd 24mm f/2.8? etc? af 14mm f/2.8 ed?
    [D800|AFS2470F2.8G|AFS70200F2.8G|AFS1635F4G|AFS28F1 .8G|AF85F1.8D|AFDC105F2D|SB700|SB900]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •