Users of nikon 24-70 f2.8 on D7000 / cropped body
- Thread starter edwthy
- Start date
Never tried, I guess it works too. As long as it suits your need.
Just that for myself, if I am going to carry that total weight, I must get back that much result per kilogram
Totally respect D7000 if shooting under ISO400.
I have a D7000 too, along other gears.
Never tried, I guess it works too. As long as it suits your need.
Just that for myself, if I am going to carry that total weight, I must get back that much result per kilogram
Totally respect D7000 if shooting under ISO400.
I have a D7000 too, along other gears.
I respect my D7000 shooting up till ISO3200 ^^
maybe that's just me
Thanks to all the pros for sharing their experiences! It provides many diff and new perspectives for me. I had considered just getting the 35 1.8G to pair with 50 1.8D. But for a little extra, I might as well get the tamron 17-50 non-VC for the versatility and wider angle, although maybe sacrificing image. Also considered the new tamron 24-70 vc, but at 1.7k, and supposedly 'onion' bokeh, would rather stick to nikon. Another reason for considering third party lenses, is that given the nikon 17-55 and 24-70 have been released for quite a while, if nikon releases a new version of these lenses e.g. nikon 24-70 VR, the value of the older version would drop if I decide to sell it used. Although, since I am spending so much money, I would prob keep it for a long time.
In the end, it came down to considering the nikon 17-55 and 24-70. Ideally, I would get the 17-55 and 55-300 or 70-300. However, since I already have the 18-300, it seems more a waste to duplicate the wide angle range when the f2.8 is not really needed in that range I think. Also, I think wide angle 17-23 not as frequently used for small group shots/portraits, but rather more for landscape I believe, and I'm not into landscape. I'm not likely to transit to FF, cos its quite a lot of money to spend on a hobby, unless maybe buy the D600 on impulse when its released haha. Will prob still get the nikon 24-70 over the 17-55. The 18-300 weighs about the same as the nikon 24-70 and feels ok for me with the grip attached, although the 17-55 does feel more balanced. As 2 seniors have mentioned, I was also thinking of using 24-70 for street. I suppose I will have to sacrifice the 17-23 range which might be useful in close quarters indoor, but I guess I gain the 56-70, useful for outdoor events where there's wider space.
Although it seems more people advice for the 17-55, I suppose the 24-70 would suit me more. Thanks again to all! Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
In the end, it came down to considering the nikon 17-55 and 24-70. Ideally, I would get the 17-55 and 55-300 or 70-300. However, since I already have the 18-300, it seems more a waste to duplicate the wide angle range when the f2.8 is not really needed in that range I think. Also, I think wide angle 17-23 not as frequently used for small group shots/portraits, but rather more for landscape I believe, and I'm not into landscape. I'm not likely to transit to FF, cos its quite a lot of money to spend on a hobby, unless maybe buy the D600 on impulse when its released haha. Will prob still get the nikon 24-70 over the 17-55. The 18-300 weighs about the same as the nikon 24-70 and feels ok for me with the grip attached, although the 17-55 does feel more balanced. As 2 seniors have mentioned, I was also thinking of using 24-70 for street. I suppose I will have to sacrifice the 17-23 range which might be useful in close quarters indoor, but I guess I gain the 56-70, useful for outdoor events where there's wider space.
Although it seems more people advice for the 17-55, I suppose the 24-70 would suit me more. Thanks again to all! Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
Last edited:
Actually 17-23 range is indispensable for small group shots and portraits. It is not as critical if you are taking single person portraits.
I dont own the 24-70mm but tired it on my D5000 and found it's uses as follows:
1) Nature landscape - OK but misses the FOV of 24mm
2) Cityscape - FOV most of the time too narrow at an equivalent FOV of 36mm unless on overhang, high vantage or interesting subjects in frame at street level.
3) Portraits - Good but its a heavy lens at 900g and very bulky to carry around on the streets. Excluding the factor of lens changing, there are cheaper f/1.8g primes that produce better bokeh (if it matters) and are much lighter. This especially so with 50mm f/1.8g and 85mm f/1.8g.
Just a suggestion, you can consider 50mm f/1.8g with effective FOV of 75mm on DX which is a good range for portrait, 85mm f/1.8g with FOV of 130mm on DX for long range street portrait and gives you the bugdet for WA lens to cover 17-50mm DX.
But you are the end user, buy what that gives you the peace of mind and fulfills your hearts desire.
1) Nature landscape - OK but misses the FOV of 24mm
2) Cityscape - FOV most of the time too narrow at an equivalent FOV of 36mm unless on overhang, high vantage or interesting subjects in frame at street level.
3) Portraits - Good but its a heavy lens at 900g and very bulky to carry around on the streets. Excluding the factor of lens changing, there are cheaper f/1.8g primes that produce better bokeh (if it matters) and are much lighter. This especially so with 50mm f/1.8g and 85mm f/1.8g.
Just a suggestion, you can consider 50mm f/1.8g with effective FOV of 75mm on DX which is a good range for portrait, 85mm f/1.8g with FOV of 130mm on DX for long range street portrait and gives you the bugdet for WA lens to cover 17-50mm DX.
But you are the end user, buy what that gives you the peace of mind and fulfills your hearts desire.
If Bokeh is concern, get a prime on DX.
I use 24~70mm on D300 for all my editorial shots. It transits to FX.Format 35~105mm FOV.
Lazy to switch lens for low paying jobs. Although I own 35, 50, 85, 105mm primes.
Its good but heavy.
I use 24~70mm on D300 for all my editorial shots. It transits to FX.Format 35~105mm FOV.
Lazy to switch lens for low paying jobs. Although I own 35, 50, 85, 105mm primes.
Its good but heavy.
Last edited:
The 24-70 is designed as a wide-to-normal lens for FX. It's pretty much wasted on a DX body. What you get is a normal to short-tele, a range that isn't remotely as versatile as wide-to-normal. I can see it being useful in some street photography situations, but not in too many other situations. Unless you're actually looking into upgrading to FX in the near future, I'd say, save the cash. Get the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 (Tokina), which is the corresponsing lens for DX usage. It fits all your requirements too.
I'm a bit confused here. If shooting with primes, the cheapest widest angle prime (without paying a premium for 24 or 28mm) that I can get with D7000 would be the 35mm prime, which I've read that some people use when travelling, or when at events, even to shoot weddings. Those with FF would use a 50 prime instead. Hence, I thought that with the 24-70, I get a wider 24 angle, and the 35, 50 and 70 (close to 85) lengths. Would it make more sense to get the 24-70 if I say that my main purpose is to shoot people e.g. in indoor events (conference, sports, gatherings), outdoor events (bbqs, tours etc), outings with friends and family? Bokeh would be nice, but the prime setup doesn't seem to suit me, and the bokeh of fast zooms seems nice to me already. So far, I've always used 20 onwards to shoot groups of max 8 ppl, perhaps I'm framing the picture wrongly? So I was thinking with 24-70, I would take a few steps back if needed. For larger groups, I would just change to 18-300 and use the flash anyway. Since if it is shooting a large group, they would have to arrange themselves, and I would get the time to change lens. Thats why I was thinking the 17-23 overlap of the 17-55 f2.8 was less useful than the additional 56-70 of the 24-70 f2.8 that I can use in wider spaces at outdoor events.
I have been using the 24-70mm on my D90 for portraits as I will be upgrading to FX in the near future.
I do not want the hassle to buy DX lenses then FX lenses.
Some photos to share.
2012 APR FHM Models Top Ten, Bugis Junction, Singapore « xtemujin 360°Resources, Singapore
I do not want the hassle to buy DX lenses then FX lenses.
Some photos to share.
2012 APR FHM Models Top Ten, Bugis Junction, Singapore « xtemujin 360°Resources, Singapore
Like I said earlier, if you are using the 24-70mm on your D7000, you don't get '24 angle' but '36 angle' because of the DX sensor. However, if you are shooting close-up portraits at 24mm with this lens, you do get the distortions in the facial proportions assosiated with shooting close-up portraits with a lens at 24mm focal length though.
In the end it really depends on how you shoot your portraits. I cannot live with 36mm on the wide end...
24-70 on FX (same as FOV 16mm on DX)...
and sometimes I want the distortion.. 24mm on FX shot up close.
24-70 on FX (same as FOV 16mm on DX)...
and sometimes I want the distortion.. 24mm on FX shot up close.
Last edited:
After reading your feedback on more ppls bet on DX lens on DX Body.
But time is passing a fast, maybe just get what your own opinion to go for FX 24-70mm is the right choice, from the B&S for 17-55 at $1500 for 24-70 at $2k at the end just top up for $500 to get FX lens for more worth.
Cause looks in forward of the D600 FX is coming so don't wasted time to be force your self buying a DX lens anymore.
but is except for 35mm DX is the most useful on DX crop sensor is just like 50mm price in the FX body.
BBB.
But time is passing a fast, maybe just get what your own opinion to go for FX 24-70mm is the right choice, from the B&S for 17-55 at $1500 for 24-70 at $2k at the end just top up for $500 to get FX lens for more worth.
Cause looks in forward of the D600 FX is coming so don't wasted time to be force your self buying a DX lens anymore.
but is except for 35mm DX is the most useful on DX crop sensor is just like 50mm price in the FX body.
BBB.
Similar threads
