24-70 F2.8 lenses

AndrewSt

AndrewSt

Messages
1,261
Edit My Images
No
Some seem to swear by them, are they worth the money and weight?

With the ISO capabilities of today's sensors are they as usefulness as they once were?

I have primes and I am trying to decide between adding a couple of extra primes to my bag or selling them all for a 24-70.

Would an F4 zoom paired with a prime serve me better, even for weddings?

Or stick with my 35-85 kit and add a wide angle prime for the few shots that I need wider than 35.
 
Just the dilemma I am in. I have a d7000 (crop) and 35 f1.8 DX, 50 f1.8 And 85 f1.8 D

Don't love the 35 for much as I find its focal length (50 equivalent) a bit meh, prefer the 50 and 85 for portraits. The 85 is too short and slow for hockey but super for portraits. I tried it at my son's go karting party and was again limited by focus speed.

I would like to either get a wider prime 20 or 24 f1.8, or junk the lot and get a Nikon 24-70. I do find swapping lenses a faff, although I like the discipline of composition. My family are just a bit impatient and I wonder if a zoom would be better.

I eventually plan to upgrade to a d750 when funds allow and maybe a 70-200 for the sporty stuff. I primarily do portraits and urban stuff. Not much of a naturalist or landscaper.
 
Last edited:
With a 35 and 85 1.4 combo I didn't think i needed a 24-70 2.8 until i recently had a quick go of a friend's one. Damn that's a beauty, i can't see it replacing them but they'd definitely complement the current lineup as a go to lens for 1 body or a backup!
 
I find the 24-70 focal range in a full frame format a general purpose lens. You can shot a lot from that range, from a semi wide to not so tele shot. Really like my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8! :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I have a 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and a 85mm f/1.4 and we have a 24-70 f/2.8 as a back up for these.


It's a very good lens and one I lusted after for a long time, however as it doesn't get used much have debated selling it a couple of times but then I find a need for it and it's always good so can't part with it plus it's very useful as a back up.
 
I have the 24-120 f4 and 3 primes (35 f2 - 50 f1.4 - 85 1.4) - if you are wanting super duper shallow d.o.f then even f2.8 may not satisfy you? Admittedly I use the primes more, strangely I find it easier being limited with a fixed focal length.
 
As a general purpose lens I wouldn't want to swap my 24-70 f/2.8 Tamron. It's simply too good, and too useful. The only occasions I've wanted "more" have been a longer focal length and even then, 105mm wouldn't have cut it.

I too tried the f/4 and f/2.8 options and in my experience the f/2.8 has been massively useful.
 
Looking at my metadata I don't often shoot my primes at F1.8, usually at F2.8 to be honest. The occasions where I do shoot wider I could probably get away with my cheap 50 1.8

I do love my 85 though and often shoot with that at F2-2.2, I think a good set up for me is 2 body's with 24-70 on one, 85 on the other. 50mm in my pocket if I need to go wider and shallow.
 
Good for general purpose but heavy and expensive :)
 
I use mine as a general purpose lens. Yes it's heavy but it saves carrying a bag full of primes and I end up using it for probably 80% of my shots.
 
I was looking at using 3 primes, but the combined weight is more than the 24-70. I can see pros and cons for both and I cant actually decide!
 
I've previously been prime only and said I'd never have a 24-70 but after trying one I kept it as frankly the difference in IQ was minimal and for most situations its a lot more flexible and practical than a prime.
I do however always keep primes too as sometimes just a 35mm or 50mm will do especially for travel, there are times I think 2x bodies with say a 24/35 and something longer on the other would be great but the cost outweighs just having the 24-70...
 
Tamron is supposedly excellent. The new Nikon with IS looks good but is £££ and heavier. Maybe try and get a 2nd hand Nikon without IS?
 
AndrewSt said:
Some seem to swear by them, are they worth the money and weight?

With the ISO capabilities of today's sensors are they as usefulness as they once were?

I have primes and I am trying to decide between adding a couple of extra primes to my bag or selling them all for a 24-70.

Would an F4 zoom paired with a prime serve me better, even for weddings?

Or stick with my 35-85 kit and add a wide angle prime for the few shots that I need wider than 35.
Click to expand...

The Tamron on paper is big, heavy and the filter size is a monster, but once you actually handle one it feels not so big and not so heavy. When I tried a friends (which actually had knackered VC) I was surprised how lighter it actaully felt.

Yes, its huge and heavy compared to the 35 and the 85, but in hand it feels very good and you can always get a super light 50mm for those times when you want to travel super light.
 
Tamron is an excellent lens if your lucky enough to get a good one, unfortunately it's been dogged with QC problems
 
Hotshots said:
Tamron is an excellent lens if your lucky enough to get a good one, unfortunately it's been dogged with QC problems
Click to expand...

True, but for every bad copy there are hundreds of good copies - its just people moan more about bad copies more than they rave about decent copies so when you google the problems, they come up quite a lot.
 
Guess it depends how many primes an individual photographer would need to cover the 24-70 focal length if they didn't have the zoom. If you can do it with just two primes there are significant cost and weight savings. If you want three primes then perhaps not.
 
Guess it depends how many primes an individual photographer would need to cover the 24-70 focal length if they didn't have the zoom. If you can do it with just two primes there are significant cost and weight savings. If you want three primes then perhaps not.
 
Guess it depends how many primes an individual photographer would need to cover the 24-70 focal length if they didn't have the zoom. If you can do it with just two primes there are significant cost and weight savings. If you want three primes then perhaps not
 
Going back to your original question I assume you would be looking for a 24mm prime to add to your bag if you stuck with primes? Are you mainly shooting weddings?
 
I have now sold my 35/85 combo in favour of a 24-70. I'm keeping the 50mm 1.8g as its so damn light and cheap it makes for a great walk about lens when you don't want the weight of a 24-70.

I sold for a couple of reasons. The 35mm just wasnt a focal length that I was enjoying and the 85 is quite specialist.

I tried a wedding with one body/two prime combo and it wasn't enjoyable!
 
Well I have my first 24-70 and the instant impression was wooooaaaahhhhh this thing is big and heavy! Taking off a prime and putting this beast on is certainly an interesting experiance!

Having checked my recent shots with the primes I have rarley used f1.8, in actual fact most my biggest percentage are around F4 and above with 25% being around f2.8. So I guess the 24-70 makes sense on paper - and will see how it performs over the weekend!
 
JJ! said:
Well I have my first 24-70 and the instant impression was wooooaaaahhhhh this thing is big and heavy! Taking off a prime and putting this beast on is certainly an interesting experiance!

Having checked my recent shots with the primes I have rarley used f1.8, in actual fact most my biggest percentage are around F4 and above with 25% being around f2.8. So I guess the 24-70 makes sense on paper - and will see how it performs over the weekend!
Click to expand...

I'm doing my first non-prime weddings this weekend - swapped my 35 & 85 for 24-70 & 70-200....should be interesting :)
 
danny_bhoy said:
I'm doing my first non-prime weddings this weekend - swapped my 35 & 85 for 24-70 & 70-200....should be interesting :)
Click to expand...

Good stuff! I loved the concept of primes, but in reality... it wasnt working for me!
 
popeyebx said:
I find the 24-70 focal range in a full frame format a general purpose lens. You can shot a lot from that range, from a semi wide to not so tele shot. Really like my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8! :D
Click to expand...

For landscape shooting its a great lens, but wish it was an F4, lighter, sharper and didn't colour fringe as much.

A bag full of primes would work but forever changing lenses and cleaning sensors gets tiresome but reckon with 21mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, most landscapers could make do.

For the few times I've shot events, I've just used a sigma Art 35mm and Nikkor 85mm F1.8
 
I got a 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 primes for various events where the 24-105 f4L just wasn't fast enough in low light. I used the 50 most of the time on my 5D3 and went between the other two on my 6D and occasionally a crop body too. However, I eventually bought a Canon 24-70 f2.8L, and apart from it being a thing of beauty in itself, it's now my 'go to' lens for 90% of events. The lens practically lives on my 5D3 these days and decide on what lens for the back up cameras depending on the event on the day. The 3 primes don't get an awful lot of use these days though.
 
danny_bhoy said:
I'm doing my first non-prime weddings this weekend - swapped my 35 & 85 for 24-70 & 70-200....should be interesting :)
Click to expand...
Good luck. Will be very interested to hear your take on the change. Let us all know how you get on.
 
I'm not sure if a 24-70 is overkill for casual photographer.... but hey... i got it now!
 
JJ! said:
I'm not sure if a 24-70 is overkill for casual photographer.... but hey... i got it now!
Click to expand...
Of course not, just like having 3 primes in the same range isn't overkill :)

For casual photography the most important thing is to use whatever helps you get enjoyment out of the process!
 
ST4 said:
For landscape shooting its a great lens, but wish it was an F4, lighter, sharper and didn't colour fringe as much.

A bag full of primes would work but forever changing lenses and cleaning sensors gets tiresome but reckon with 21mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, most landscapers could make do.

For the few times I've shot events, I've just used a sigma Art 35mm and Nikkor 85mm F1.8
Click to expand...
It is, they just called it the Nikon 24-85mm VR
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
The 24-85 I had was cheap but yes, mediocre (not very) wide open.
 
I cover classical music concerts and was using a 35mm f2, a 50mm f1.4, an 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2, on older DSLR multiple bodies (not all at once).
Nowdays I am shooting with M4/3 system and a 24-80 f2.8 (equivalent) and an 80-300 f2.8 (equvalent) on two bodies and I am very happy.
The DSLR system has been relegated to a back up for these events.
 
I sold my 24-70 last year but do miss it so may consider another one. As has been said above I do wish Nikon made an F4 version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top