Miao said:
I agreed that 14-24 on fx is really wide but I believe some shot (general shot) that we would like to have them is not able to achieve by 14-24. Thus, 24-70 will come into play.
D800 or 24-70mm
- Thread starter DesmondOng
- Start date
I agreed that 14-24 on fx is really wide but I believe some shot (general shot) that we would like to have them is not able to achieve by 14-24. Thus, 24-70 will come into play.
I would go for the body first. The 24-70 is won't give you increased flexibility. You will still probably use your 50 1.8 more due to weight and speed and still reach for your 14-24 for wide. No question, I owned the 24-70 for almost 6 months and never used it on my D7000 bodies as it is BLOODY heavy (or my fast primes offered better low light performance). I have only recently used it for my new D800E and mostly when I am shooting studio work. My lens of choice for general purpose is usually my Sigma 50 F1.4 .
Your money spent here will gain you almost no utility if the lens won't be used. This lens amazing and is one of the few that will won't be out resolved by the D800. However, it takes the D800 to give it it's true potential. The 24-70 range on DX is also not a ideal zoom range for general purpose use... not wide enough (oh yeah, I have to mention again... too freaking big and heavy). I assure you that you will run back to your 50 F1.8 if that's what you have been using for your current work, or the 14-24 which you use for landscapes now.
The D90 is already fairly old tech. If you were on a D7000, there could be an argument for hanging on to that. The D7000 represents an incredible leap over the D90 and my previous D300. I could not believe the advances in ISO performance it gave. In addition, there are 51 focus points and a myriad of other improvements.... The D800E I have now is again another leap...
Buy the latest if you can afford it. Contrary to what others may be saying, the D700 did not drop in price much (or at all) over the 2-3 years that it was out. Only now has the price dropped with the D800 out. You can wait but people who buy the latest and update when the following model comes only loses about 15-25% in resale value. Try holding on to a D700 for another 3 years and see how much people are willing to pay then (or if you can find buyers). I don't see much interest in D200's or D2x's these days. D90's are gonna be hard to sell with D3200 offering so much more performance for so little! If you bought the D90 new... you will be losing a fair bit more in terms of percentage depreciation by the year if you sell it today.
My point in summary... the D800 is going to offer you SO MUCH MORE in terms of gear satisfaction and image delivering performance than the 24-70 will do on your D90 now..... this is with your current lenses. (You may want to upgrade to the 50 1.4 or even the 85 F1.8). The camera you buy won't drop much in price for the next 3 years... You are going to get the 24-70 anyway.... but getting it now isn't going to add much to your fun... getting it later will make you appreciate your D800 moreIf the camera body is meant to be upgraded and sold in time (as opposed to lenses), isn't it better to get it early in the model's life cycle so it maintains it's value longer?
I agreed of what you said. In fact of expressing my feeling, my intention of getting 24-70 first is that, I'm afraid that some shots I'm wish to capture but unable to achieve with my current lenses due to the restrictions in focal length (which I had not experience it using the FX bodies) especially during travel. That's why i thinking to go for lense first so that I have a comfortable focal range. If it the case, based on your experience, if my current set lenses should provide sufficient focal length, then I would decide to go for the body first. As I understand if carrying both 14-24 and 24-70 is not a joke due to its weight.
Yup. OMG... even just the 24-70 is big enough. It just feels so over the top for walking about. If in the bag, then of course it will be a little heavy. With both? Well, lets just say it's the sacrifices you gotta make to get your shot.
One thing I will gurantee you though. The D800 will put a MUCH bigger smile on your face when you hold it and use it... and when you review your shots on the screen. So much so that you will be happy to work with the focal lengths that you do have.... the 24-70 though will only give you peace of mind knowing you got the focal range. The improvement in the IQ will not be as dramatic as if you were to use a new body (given the significant upgrade involved- lets not compare D700 to D800).
Cheers buddy!
I carry the 14-24 and 70-200 on my travels. It is not that heavy in a backpack. What are the alternatives to 70-200? The 85 mm f1.4 might work if you have a d800 and crop. But the longitudinal ca at f 1.4 is too high for me. If you want 200mm, no choice.
Come to think of it. If currently I have 14-24 and 50 f1.8G. Does 24-70 a redundant? Is it recommendable to get 70-200 than 24-70 since I'm shooting landscape and portrait?
What a coincidence, that I am using D90 but I have already purchased 24-70mm as I am going to FX gear for sure. 24-70mm is great for me in portrait and works well with my D90 but yes is heavy as the weight is very unbalanced due to the weight of the lens is heavier than the body itself. You will feel some strain at your forearm when after a long hold. I have to get a grip to balance up the weight.
Whats wrong with 14-24 and 50 1.8G? They can take good landscape and portrait too.
70-200 and 24-70..these 2 lenses are so much different..you seems confused and dontknow which to get..if thats the case..frankly speaking, dont buy..Yet until you know what you want. If not. Buy 2.
Redundant? Depends on individual.. really.
Yup. I knew that 14-24 and 50 f1.8g can take good landscape and portrait as both are really sharp lense. My problem is I'm afraid is if both lense mounted on the FX body, the picture will appear much wider on its 1:1 ratio, I might face focal range constraint in the event I need to take some shots that beyond the lense focal length capability. As currently, I'm using D90 is still fine because of its crop factor that helps. That's my draw my concern. Anyway, after read so much opinion on these thread, I had decided to get the body first since the D800 also offer DX mode which could help and thanks to its 36.3 MP even after crop, the picture may still appear sharp.
1:1 ratio??? eh, those lenses are not macro lenses...
Anyway, 24-70 is not a good range on DX... so better you get both at the same time.
Up to you. My lens are 14-24, 35, 70-200. I really prefer the 35mm vs 50 mm pov.
After you buy your D800, you really should consider this lens and a general purpose lens. If you can live with the 14-24 on the D90 as your wide, then 24 and up on FX will come fairly close. Your 14-24 will take on a UWA role. The 24-70 is simply one of the BEST lenses for the D800. Most lenses can't take advantage of the resolution that the D800 offers. At 50mm at F5, it is sharper than my Sigma 50 1.4 prime. You can see the difference at 100%. The D800 will push your requirements to the max if you want to take full advantage of the 36mpix. If you resize your shots, then almost any reasonable lens will do. The range of the 24-70 is wide enough for some landscapes and gets you close enough for portraits.
If you like fast glass, a cheap and reasonable alternative is 24mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.8G lenses..... cheap, very good IQ, light and faster
If you know what you will be shooting, light primes are certainly a good alternative. In any case, I think your buying of the camera body is certainly a good choice. I can't understand why other people feel they should delay body purchase due to faster depreciation? If the two causes of depreciation are shutter count and new models revealed, why would you want to buy closer to when a new model is coming out? Buy as soon as price has stabilized and own the latest and greatest for longer.... if you are worried about shutter count and will baby your camera counting the clicks, then owning a D800 is pointless. For your needs, the body upgrade will deliver far more utility than getting the lens now. Better dynamic range, better low light performance, increased resolution (not necessarily a good thing), more focus points, better AF, pro features..... you are going to have a hard time wiping the smile of your face for a month. The lens purchase for now won't do it for you. It isn't going to go up in price either so it can wait
If you like fast glass, a cheap and reasonable alternative is 24mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.8G lenses..... cheap, very good IQ, light and faster
If you know what you will be shooting, light primes are certainly a good alternative. In any case, I think your buying of the camera body is certainly a good choice. I can't understand why other people feel they should delay body purchase due to faster depreciation? If the two causes of depreciation are shutter count and new models revealed, why would you want to buy closer to when a new model is coming out? Buy as soon as price has stabilized and own the latest and greatest for longer.... if you are worried about shutter count and will baby your camera counting the clicks, then owning a D800 is pointless. [/QUOTE]For your needs, the body upgrade will deliver far more utility than getting the lens now. Better dynamic range, better low light performance, increased resolution (not necessarily a good thing), more focus points, better AF, pro features..... you are going to have a hard time wiping the smile of your face for a month. The lens purchase for now won't do it for you. It isn't going to go up in price either so it can wait
[/QUOTE]Yes. As per now, most of my shots are using 14-24 rather than 50mm, because 50mm on D90 is juxt too close for me due to its 1.5x crop factor to make it 75mm. But it will suit me comfortably on the D800 for sure. After reading so much on this thread, I decided to go for the body first, so as I can really feel the full performance of both lenses on the FX then I can decide whether should I go for 24-70 or 70-200 (which i thinking to get before 24-70).
Other people think that the delay body purchase depreciate because of its successor release with better performance. But in my point of view, for example, even if D800 revealed, its predessor D700 will still have its value and it won't really perform badly compare to D800. The main issue is the person behind the camera makes the difference. Even today, if a person really good in composing a shots, a point and shoot can do its minimum works too and get a good out of it. I don't really see shutter count is a big concern for me as depreciation unless the camera has other defects caused by induced. And I believe Nikon tested its shutter mechanism for every cameras for 200-300k shutter counts does not mean it will fail after which.
Agreed. What I need for D800 because of its low light performance for night shots, because I don't really own a tripod as I shoot mostly daylight and during travel so it is quite inconvenience somehow (But will get one in future).
Last edited:
DesmondOng said:If you like fast glass, a cheap and reasonable alternative is 24mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.8G lenses..... cheap, very good IQ, light and faster
Actually you had do a lots research and why not wait until you have some cash and grab on what you like??
We can advise you, but we can't fulfill what you wanna go 1st
In CS is very common on B&S.
Last edited:
Do wish to remind the excited people of one underlying principle of photography:
Better gear does not automatically mean you will get better pictures.
Better gear does not automatically mean you will get better pictures.
Sorry, don't quite understand, how can adding weight like the battery grip, help to ease the strain caused by load? If a 24-70 can cause such 'strain' then you may need to attach a brick to the body when hand holding a 70-200mm? Unless you telling us that you grip the camera (both left and right hands) on the body, otherwise how can it be unbalanced?
(Picture source for elaboration: Don't let go, kid. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! by Ryan Brenizer)
....aren't it's more stable and comfortable to find the CG between the lens and body, somewhere along the the barrel of the lens and hold BENEATH the lens?
(Picture source for elaboration: Alex, shooting with chl's 24-70 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! by Ryan Goodman)
My longest duration with a 24-70 was three continuous days and 2 nights, yes, the lens is a bit on the heavy side, but glad that I don't have the additional weight of the grip.
Last edited:
MacroMarlin said:
Some people have bigger hands Mah. The grip probably makes the camera feel "fuller" do it's more comfortable to hold, thus less strain. The weight of the grip also helps balance the body so it's less strenuous trying to point and balance the camera but it doesn't reduce the weight per se.
Ah yes, Fudgecakes, totally agree with you, when mentioning the comfort to hold, there's no doubt about it......
Anyway back to the topic, as TS had mentioned weight is not a matter, that makes decision easier, but IMHO, other than for portraits, I find that a 24-70 on DX is little too tight for scenic most of the time, but will go better with an FX.
daredevil123 said:
Absolutley agree ..
Just to share my experience a bit, few yrs ago during a wedding dinner, the photographer was a uncle using basic d70 dslr and kit len 18-70, my first impression (as like many) was, wow, where did the couple find this ancient guy to shoot, not pro at all .. he did not shoot a lot, just the neccesary photo, likewise the couple's friend fire non stop with their top of the end dslr.
I was very lucky to be introduce to this uncle photographer, he was kind to enlighten me what photography means to him, i dun really understand, till i seen his photos on the dslr. He capture the emotion of wedding, which in my opinion, is very good. Since then i have made a true photography friend, and read up a lot on famous photographer 's mindset through their published book. Magazine on equipment have already serve no purpose for me.
To me, improving one's mindset will improve the photo taken, not the equipment, but sad to say, most ppl think with their wallet then their head.
Does anyone on this forum ever discuss what photography means ? Nope, its just all talks on equipment .. which is sharper, which is more pro etc ... I do like to see new threads relating to photography skill, photographer understanding of what photography means.
Ppl say a good photo tell a storey, but i say not, rather it trigger the mind of the ppl looking at it to think deep, thats a good photo.
Similar threads
