Users of nikon 24-70 f2.8 on D7000 / cropped body

[edwthy]

Hi all,

I would like to ask the personal experience of anybody using 24-70 on dx camera. I intend to get the nikon 24-70 soon, after also considering the nikon 17-55 f2.8. Just to share, I have the 18-300 and 50 1.8D, use the SB700 in low light/indoors. I wish to get a lens that can be used in low light/indoors whereby a flash is not convenient. I mainly take pictures of friends and family at events or outings. I also travel a lot which was why I got the 18-300, and now, would like to get a fast zoom lens which I can switch to when going indoors. Generally I post photos on flickr, facebook to share, but another reason, is I wish to print a family album of photos, largest will be 6R, and am thinking that the image quality of 24-70 will be much better than 18-300. I don't know much about image quality, and probably chromatic abberation, fringing etc wouldn't really be my concern, more of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness etc I guess, which everybody says the 18-300 will be much worser at compared to 24-70 or 17-55 2.8, although I am not really able to tell. Mainly, would be being able to isolate the subject from the background, i.e. bokeh, which I assume would be the main advantage of having a fast zoom.

I'm favouring the 24-70 because
1. f2.8 is not really needed on 17-23 range?
2. pics I take mainly of people / small groups of people, and generally 17-23 is used more for landscape and other wide angle shots?
3. additional 56-70 can be useful in events to take candid shots of people from further distance
4. went to nikon showroom to try out both lenses, and the guy there said that the optics image quality and build of the 24-70 is much better than the 17-55 2.8

Other concerns are that as the lens doesn't have VR, perhaps 17-55 may be better since vibration is most obvious at longer lengths?

I was hoping to hear from those who use 24-70, whether you miss the 17-23 length, and whether you find the additional 56-70 length useful? Would also be glad to hear about any other alternatives / experience.

Thanks in advance!

 

[tomcat]

That's a strange way of comparing these 2 lenses considering that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a FX lens and the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a DX lens !
On a DX camera like the D7000, the effective focal length of the 24-70mm would be 36-105mm while that of the 17-55mm would be 25.5-82.5mm. The transition between the focal lengths of the 2 lenses is just not as linear as the way you described. You seems to be assuming that your camera is a FX camera and the 17-55mm is a FX lens. :think:

 

[spree86]

I use the 24-70 on my D7000. I mainly use it for portrait and street shoot and I don't see myself needing the wider angles in these situations. I do usually bring along an 11-16 just in case I need it

 

[wakaowalao]

Wide angle shooter will tell you they can't lose the 25mm view while portrait shooters will tell you otherwise. What is it that YOU prefer.

 

[Dav-C]

I find that for DX body, better use DX zoom. Unless you have a bunch of FX lens that you want to get the x1.5 cropped factor for further reach.

FX prime wise, is another story as they are lighter than FX zoom, quite nice weight distribution on the DX body.

Better get the FX lens if you plan to go FX body say in less than 1 year time. Otherwise just stick to DX lens.

 

[edwthy]

I use the 24-70 on my D7000. I mainly use it for portrait and street shoot and I don't see myself needing the wider angles in these situations. I do usually bring along an 11-16 just in case I need it

Thanks! I was also thinking of getting 11-16 or xx-24 in the future if I should ever need that angle, although unlikely given budget constraint..

 

[edwthy]

Thanks for all the replies! I know 17-55 is dx-compatible, 24-70 can be used by dx and fx, although it seems very few dx cams use 24-70. I prefer to get 24-70, just seeking more opinions, in case I have made some misassumptions in my rationale behind choosing 24-70.

 

[rnb65p]

Thanks for all the replies! I know 17-55 is dx-compatible, 24-70 can be used by dx and fx, although it seems very few dx cams use 24-70. I prefer to get 24-70, just seeking more opinions, in case I have made some misassumptions in my rationale behind choosing 24-70.

If you use the 24-70, keep your shutter speed high if hand holding (I use a minimum of 1/200). Try using a tripod with lower shutter speeds (or you can use higher ISOs). For me, I usually pair the 24-70 with a FX camera and put the 70-200 on the D7000 (since it has VR). Thus, I just switch bodies.

 

[tomcat]

The reason why few DX cameras users got the 24-70mm f/2.8 could be because it is reaaaally big, long and heavy and reaaaaally expensive. Most DX cameras are a lot smaller in size than the FX cameras and the 24-70mm really look and feel out of proportion on these bodies. If you are after a lens in this focal length range and want it to be cheap and small and light and comes with VR, then a good alternative would be new 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S G FX lens.

 

[PhotoBees]

Do have plans for upgrading for Full Frame body? If yes 24-70mm is a very good option. If you will keep your D7000, 17-55mm is much better since mostly my experience with indoor shoots you will need atleast a wide angle 17mm - 28mm for group shots. But aperture f2.8 most cases still not enough especially if the lighting is not good. If I'm in your case, I will just buy a prime either Nikon 28mm f1.8 or Nikon 35mm f2 or Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX to supplement your current lenses. Or to make things more complicated I will sell off the 18-300mm and buy 17-55mm and 50-300mm. I will keep the 50mm f1.8 and buy 28mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8 .

 

[lewissac]

I own a D5100 and recently I bought Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens. So far I have no issues shooting on streets and portraits (I guess the range is good for both of these). Mine also doesn't have VC (VR equivalent in Nikon lens) but I guess not so needed? Just my experience.

 

[spree86]

I find that for DX body, better use DX zoom. Unless you have a bunch of FX lens that you want to get the x1.5 cropped factor for further reach.

FX prime wise, is another story as they are lighter than FX zoom, quite nice weight distribution on the DX body.

Better get the FX lens if you plan to go FX body say in less than 1 year time. Otherwise just stick to DX lens.

I don't see why DX users should stick to DX lenses. It's all about needs and requirements. FX lenses usually out performs DX lenses.

 

[p3l3r]

hi ts.

actually if u calculate 17-55 dx to fx its become somewhere close to 24-70.
but if u calculate 24-70 it becomes 35-100 something...

actually i have d7000, d700 and the 24-70. honnestly up until now i never try the 24-70 on the d7000 ( maybe i should) but i have a cheap yet a very sharp lense for my d7000, i use a tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc.

if you are not planing to upgrade to FX anytime soon. IMO i would get the 17-55 nikon.

 

[Blur Shadow]

I don't use the 24-70mm on my Nikon D7000, but I think I have sufficient experience with it to provide some insights.

1. The 24-70mm is optically superior over the 18-300mm. I am certain of that.

2. It is a mighty heavy and bulky lens, so if you want to travel with that lens (or anything more), be prepared to handle the weight.

3. 24mm may not be wide enough for some. I have no problems though. If I set out with a 24mm as my widest focal length, then i just make do with it. I generally don't "miss" things.

4. But if you pair it with a Nikon 10-24mm, Nikon 12-24mm, Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 12-24mm, you shouldn't miss much.

5. Compared against the 17-55mm, there is probably little to discern the image quality of either lenses. It would be a matter of preferred focal length.

 

[Dav-C]

I don't see why DX users should stick to DX lenses. It's all about needs and requirements. FX lenses usually out performs DX lenses.

For the best balance of the money, weight, handling, results, DX camera works fine with DX lens. Of course nobody is going to stop a person spending 1.0 million dollar to renovate a 500k dollar home. Up to individual. However it feels like a Toyota corolla with exotic rims and $30,000 audio system. I'd rather go with an entry level BMW.

 

[Blur Shadow]

For the best balance of the money, weight, handling, results, DX camera works fine with DX lens. Of course nobody is going to stop a person spending 1.0 million dollar to renovate a 500k dollar home. Up to individual. However it feels like a Toyota corolla with exotic rims and $30,000 audio system. I'd rather go with an entry level BMW.

Woah! DX not Toyota Corolla lah! DX is really capable too.

 

[lewissac]

Woah! DX not Toyota Corolla lah! DX is really capable too.

Gd point! DX is really capable. Only recently I'm transitioning to purchase FX lens because I do not want to spend more on DX items as I'm going to FX near future.
.

 

[spree86]

For the best balance of the money, weight, handling, results, DX camera works fine with DX lens. Of course nobody is going to stop a person spending 1.0 million dollar to renovate a 500k dollar home. Up to individual. However it feels like a Toyota corolla with exotic rims and $30,000 audio system. I'd rather go with an entry level BMW.

Haha you are underestimating what DX can do.I don't feel that it's unbalanced to put an FX lens on a cropped body.

 

[Dav-C]

Woah! DX not Toyota Corolla lah! DX is really capable too.

I use DX too. Especially on macro as not all the time able to get so near to the subject.

About corolla, it is capable as a small car. But it is small car.

 

[Dav-C]

Haha you are underestimating what DX can do.I don't feel that it's unbalanced to put an FX lens on a cropped body.

The weight distribution just don't feel right. Unless it is a prime FX lens. 24-70 is big and heavy for DX bodies.