Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8


rye09

New Member
Sep 17, 2011
4
0
0
#1
Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#2
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?
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#3
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.
 

Aug 28, 2008
590
0
0
singapore, northeast
#4
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.....
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#6
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.
 

small pig

New Member
May 17, 2011
919
0
0
Punggol
#7
Outdoor zoom lens still useful. I dun like to change lens in a dusty and awkward location... Lens might dropped.
 

Sep 19, 2006
608
0
0
East
www.flickr.com
#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.
 

bruggink

New Member
Jul 2, 2008
901
0
0
#9
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.
 

David Kwok

Senior Member
Aug 23, 2008
1,107
0
36
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#10
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.
 

UncleFai

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010
4,451
37
48
Singapore
#11
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.
 

NikF601

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,541
0
36
52
CCK
#12
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"
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#13
rye09 said:
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
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#14
GReddyZC76 said:
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.
 

Aug 28, 2008
590
0
0
singapore, northeast
#15
daredevil123 said:
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?
 

David Kwok

Senior Member
Aug 23, 2008
1,107
0
36
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#16
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. :bsmilie:
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#17
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.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#18
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. :bsmilie:
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/5291/5477852787_3229d7a187_z.jpg
 

David Kwok

Senior Member
Aug 23, 2008
1,107
0
36
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#19
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. :bsmilie:

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/5291/5477852787_3229d7a187_z.jpg
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom