24-70 f2.8 on D7k ... is it waste of money?


bethpapa74

New Member
Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#1
Harlo all bros,
do you think it is waste of green to buy a such a high-end mid range on a crop body?

Dun think will go FX in 5yrs time, most likely will switch to d400 when it is out.
Does it give better images than a $500 kit lens?

Care to advise?
 

Michael

New Member
Apr 5, 2005
829
0
0
47
Thailand
www.pbase.com
#2
does it give better images than $500 kit lens? you are joking right? if not why would you spend 5x more money?
the 24-70 is one of the sharpest and high contrast lenses you can get. it is money well spend. i use it on my D300 and bought it in view of a FF cam as well. but the sharpness, just mind blowing
 

Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#3
Depends on how you use the lens... 35-105mm FF equiv on Dx, I'd say that is a good general mid range.

Better images? In terms of bokeh (due to constant 2.8) and sharpness, very likely better than kit zooms if you aim to have the subject well separated from the background. Even better in low lights.

But you needn't really go for this lens if you do not always want zooms... Professionals use this because they need the variable FL in their field of work. Alternative is to find primes with bigger apertures - of course at the sacrifice of zooming capabilities.
 

Last edited:

akerue

New Member
Aug 10, 2009
798
0
0
SIngAporE
www.flickr.com
#4
Harlo all bros,
do you think it is waste of green to buy a such a high-end mid range on a crop body?


Dun think will go FX in 5yrs time, most likely will switch to d400 when it is out.
Does it give better images than a $500 kit lens?

Care to advise?
warning its one heavy lens, but its my fav walk-about to pair with my previous D300s. in fact is a good buy since u already have the 10-24 nikkor.. so it actually complement...

and yesh u paying over 2.5k++ of course it will and have to yield bette iq, contrast sharpness, bokeh than a 500 kit lens....
 

Jul 9, 2009
849
1
0
Singapore
#5
Harlo all bros,
do you think it is waste of green to buy a such a high-end mid range on a crop body?

Dun think will go FX in 5yrs time, most likely will switch to d400 when it is out.
Does it give better images than a $500 kit lens?

Care to advise?
If you thirst for better IQ and weather sealing etc... Why not? Its your money after all. I am on the same track too, planning to obtain this gem for use on the D90 until I get a FX body
 

bethpapa74

New Member
Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#6
Actually i was ''planning'' to buy the 17-55 f2.8 from John 3:16 ... my fren recommended me this shop and I have to pay alot of compliments about their services and attitudes!
This guy Daniel serves us during the course and his untiring effort to explain every details on flash, lenses, tripod, prime, ... surprises me.
(btw we walk in with sloppy tees and jeans)
We left the shop w/o buying anything... after walking around FDM bumping into shops with really lousy attitudes, we found ourselves walking back to John316 :)
In the end, we bought a prime, b+w CPL and couple of accessories despite the fact that they are not the cheapest, but their customer service makes every single cts worth!!

Daniel gave me a 'strange' look when i approach him for the 17-55mm ... he compliments the lens though but advise me to consider 24-70mm f2.8 instead, becos it the 17-55 are overpriced for a DX lenses. On the other hand, he saw that i have the 10-24mm ... he recommend me to go 24-70mm to partially complete the ''Trinity''.
for you information, he even text me asking if i enjoy my prime lens!!

I used to buy most of my family's photography needs from Alan photo, but i personally find that their service quality drop over the years ...
why doesn't these people learn their F* lesson ... you open up shop to sell things, you should built long term relationships with circles of customer by rendering good services and humble opinions.
And not just simple ask ''can i help you.. no stock ... you go anywhere also no stock ... cheapest liao ... cannot bargain ... bye''
If this is the case, just ask few bangalis or TKBs to mend your shop enough liao ... cheaper some more.

For that 2hrs in John316 ... never did I came across any of these phases.

I think i will be visiting them alot in this process of gearing up!
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#8
There are alternatives to the 17-55/2.8 which are pretty darn good also. Just to
List some of them:

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM - slightly over $1k
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC - $900+
Tamron 17-50/2.8 - $630

But the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is better in IQ than all the above lenses slightly.

Your call.

I think the 24-70 is a very good lens, but it is very heavy also. But it is kind of long on a crop body (for me at least). And the trinity lenses make more sense on a FX cam. But in the end, it means nothing, having the trinity. Lenses are just tools. Skill make more.
 

Last edited:
Apr 7, 2010
2,560
0
0
Southern Enclave
#9
Then again, heavy is a heavily subjective term... :bsmilie: But yes, 24-70 is heavy compared to its peers (lens around that focal range).

24-70 FL is never wasted on Dx cams - a number of peeps are more than glad to have it in their inventory due to its sharpness and f/2.8 constant. 14-24/16-35/17-35 - yes, if you yearn for the ultra-wideness - on DX it's a wasted trip.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#10
kriegsketten said:
Then again, heavy is a heavily subjective term... :bsmilie: But yes, 24-70 is heavy compared to its peers (lens around that focal range).

24-70 FL is never wasted on Dx cams - a number of peeps are more than glad to have it in their inventory due to its sharpness and f/2.8 constant. 14-24/16-35/17-35 - yes, if you yearn for the ultra-wideness - on DX it's a wasted trip.
Even the 24-70 has cheaper alternatives:

Nikon 28-70/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM
And quite a few older but excellent lenses.
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#11
If you can afford it, why not? Take this buy as an investment. You're gonna earn back the money in the future
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#12
There are alternatives to the 17-55/2.8 which are pretty darn good also. Just to
List some of them:

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS HSM - slightly over $1k
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC - $900+
Tamron 17-50/2.8 - $630

But the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is better in IQ than all the above lenses slightly.

Your call.

I think the 24-70 is a very good lens, but it is very heavy also. But it is kind of long on a crop body (for me at least). And the trinity lenses make more sense on a FX cam. But in the end, it means nothing, having the trinity. Lenses are just tools. Skill make more.
wah well said. "Lenses are just tools. Skill make more." :thumbsup:
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#13
anyway to answer to TS's question, is waste of green to buy a such a high-end mid range on a crop body.. to me, the answer is no, its not a waste.
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#14
I think it is a waste, especially if you are not going to upgrade to FX.

Why pay MORE money for Heavier Glass which you will NEVER use? You have to carry the extra weight all the time after spending the extra money.

I think there are some good f2.8 lens made specifically for DX.
 

cheesy

New Member
Aug 31, 2010
716
0
0
#15
a 24-70mm on a DX can give more reach as compared to the 17-55mm.
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#16
I think it is a waste, especially if you are not going to upgrade to FX.

Why pay MORE money for Heavier Glass which you will NEVER use? You have to carry the extra weight all the time after spending the extra money.

I think there are some good f2.8 lens made specifically for DX.
If you buy the lens, of course you will use it right? If you get the 17-55mm f/2.8 and later afew years you switched to FF, you might not want to use that anymore because DX lens on an FX body just wouldn't cut the deal. However, if you get the 24-70mm f2.8, you get to enjoy the sweetspot on the DX and later on for the FX body you'll get the desired FL and FOV. It's a win-win situation here.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#17
Sgdevilzz said:
If you buy the lens, of course you will use it right? If you get the 17-55mm f/2.8 and later afew years you switched to FF, you might not want to use that anymore because DX lens on an FX body just wouldn't cut the deal. However, if you get the 24-70mm f2.8, you get to enjoy the sweetspot on the DX and later on for the FX body you'll get the desired FL and FOV. It's a win-win situation here.
There is no definite win win. Everyone's needs are different. Tools are meant to be used. And as you use them more, they will wear down and need servicing. The more expensive the lens usually means cost of maintenance will be more.

So if you are using dx now, and prefer the range of the 17-55, then get the 17-55 or 17-50s. If you prefer the range of the 24-70 then get that or the cheaper variants. No point over thinking it. When time comes to move to fx, if you need a different range, then sell your old lens and buy a new one.

Live in the now. Get what you need now.
 

Last edited:

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#18
There is no definite win win. Everyone's needs are different. Tools are meant to be used. And as you use them more, they will wear down and need servicing. The more expensive the lens usually means cost of maintenance will be more.

So if you are using dx now, and prefer the range of the 17-55, then get the 17-55 or 17-50s. If you prefer the range of the 24-70 then get that or the cheaper variants. No point over thinking it. When time comes to move to fx, if you need a different range, then sell your old lens and buy a new one.

Live in the now. Get what you need now.
Well, it depends on who is really buying it. For me i think that i will save alot more if i just get a lens that can be used for DX and FX. I do not know about TS but it all boils down the the buyer.
 

Sep 15, 2010
48
0
0
#19
Hi TS, it's depend what result you want. Taking $$$ is not an issue.
A 18-105mm lens gives you 27~154mm. Advantages over 24-70mm: affordable (buy 4 vs 1), more coverage (wide:28-36 / tele:105-154), lighter (abt half the weight). Downside: pix not as clear as Pro lens, no 2.8, so-so Bokeh. You may also take pix with good Depth of Field by moving backwards (unless you can't), using the tele end of 18-105mm. The bokeh is quite OK but depends on what you are going for. I am satisfied with my 18-200mm back then.

I have a 10-20 too, and a 18-200mm for a few years, until I purchases 24-70mm half year back. Yes its heavy, after switching from 18-200 to 24-70 as a walk around lens. Mind you, I need to buy a deeper sling bag for it. But I'm most happy with the result this lens can produced.

So, its all depends on what you want. And a person taste change when he is almost over the learning curve.
From your time frame of 5 yrs before changing to FF, I predict Nikon may upgrade its 24-70mm with VR by then.
Well, the choice is yours. Take care.
 

Oct 23, 2010
70
0
6
#20
I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and I think it's a decent and cheap alternative to the 24-70. Though I would upgrade to the 24-70 if I know I can handle its weight. :)
If you bought your D7k with the 18-105 kit lens, I think it is a useful reference to help determine if you are comfortable with this focal range.

Someone did advise me the 24-70 is not suitable for DX and recommended the 24-120 F4. But I prefer having F2.8 than a longer range.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom