D90 & 24-70 lens?

ShoeQueen

ShoeQueen

Messages
2,370
Name
Lynn
Edit My Images
No
My kit currently consists of D90, kit lens, 50 f1.8D and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (which I use almost all the time).

I'm considering going FF but am aware I'd need better glass so thought it would be a good idea to get a new lens first which I could use on my D90 while I save for another body.

I was thinking of getting a 24-70 f2.8 - any other suggestions?

I'm currently doing studio stuff but have some events and wedding second shooting coming up over the summer.
 
Last edited:
Nikon or sigma version?
 
You're lacking a longer lens for portraits in my opinion. And as you've mentioned changing to a full frame camera I would recommend the 70-200 2.8.
 
ryanyboy said:
You're lacking a longer lens for portraits in my opinion. And as you've mentioned changing to a full frame camera I would recommend the 70-200 2.8.
Click to expand...
Yes I am, especially as I tend to use the 17-50 for everything, it is too short for portraits. I was thinking of getting a couple of longer primes for portraits - definitely 85 and maybe 135 - (partly because the 70-200 is quite heavy!)

But if I'm going to buy one lens now, for use on crop frame but that will also give me a good lens to start off with on FF... would the 24-70 be a good place to start?

I thought that as I use the 17-50 a lot on my DX body the 24-70 would give me something similiar on FX.
 
The 85 f1.4 on the D90


Sunday Morning Lazing! by Sir SR, on Flickr

You know my feelings on this little cracker.

Although I do like my 70-200 f2.8, the 85 sees a lot of use. However, I've recently got the same 17-50 as you, which is fairly glued to the D90 at the mo!!

Although as you said you were doing weddings would the 17-50 on the d90 and a 70-200 on a FF have you fairly well covered?
 
Last edited:
What sort of budget are you looking at? Given you were looking at the Nikon 24-70 on top of at least a D700 I'd recommend a d700 and a Sigma 85 1.4. The 50 1.8 can become your go to walkabout lens and if not you should have some cash aside for something like the great value Tamron 28-75.
 
Sir SR said:
You know my feelings on this little cracker.

Although I do like my 70-200 f2.8, the 85 sees a lot of use. However, I've recently got the same 17-50 as you, which is fairly glued to the D90 at the mo!!
Click to expand...
I know, that is on my list of possibles, I just can't decide on which 85 to go for! The Tamron is a great all rounder lens isn't it?
Ksanti said:
What sort of budget are you looking at? Given you were looking at the Nikon 24-70 on top of at least a D700 I'd recommend a d700 and a Sigma 85 1.4. The 50 1.8 can become your go to walkabout lens and if not you should have some cash aside for something like the great value Tamron 28-75.
Click to expand...
Thanks. At the moment I don't want to get a FF body and only have a s/h 50 1.8D to use on it - but I can't afford a body and lens just yet. So I was thinking if I went for a decent FF lens now that would give me something if/when I did get a FF.

How does the Tamron 28-75 compare to the Nikon?

Someone I know just got that Sigma 85 this week, though the 85 1.8G is also supposed to be good? I definitely plan on getting an 85mm lens.

I want some sort of a zoom for FF as I take photographs at dancing events and there sometimes isn't time to move myself to get the shot, so I like the flexiblity of a zoom.
 
Slightly leftfield..........

How about an older nikon 35-70 f2.8 afd.

Don't know how it compares to the Tamron, but there's one available at aperture.

S
 
Having done some reading, I think the 24-70 will suit my needs.

I want to use it for - portraits (outdoor and studio), events - eg low light dancing shots, and second shooting at weddings.

I know its not a cheap lens, hence my hesitation, but I can afford it at the moment and I think it would stand me in good stead in the long run if/when I move to FX....
 
ShoeQueen said:
Having done some reading, I think the 24-70 will suit my needs.

I want to use it for - portraits (outdoor and studio), events - eg low light dancing shots, and second shooting at weddings.

I know its not a cheap lens, hence my hesitation, but I can afford it at the moment and I think it would stand me in good stead in the long run if/when I move to FX....
Click to expand...

If you have the cash, I can't think of another lens that does all of this better. Only slight issue is that I find that 70mm is only just long enough for portraits sometimes. Certainly not ideal for candid stealth shots but then no lens will cover all those bases any better.
 
ShoeQueen said:
Having done some reading, I think the 24-70 will suit my needs.

I want to use it for - portraits (outdoor and studio), events - eg low light dancing shots, and second shooting at weddings.

I know its not a cheap lens, hence my hesitation, but I can afford it at the moment and I think it would stand me in good stead in the long run if/when I move to FX....
Click to expand...

Check out the Nikon 24-120 f4....:thumbs:
 
gad-westy said:
If you have the cash, I can't think of another lens that does all of this better. Only slight issue is that I find that 70mm is only just long enough for portraits sometimes. Certainly not ideal for candid stealth shots but then no lens will cover all those bases any better.
Click to expand...
Thanks, it is a lot to spend, and that's the bit that's holding me back, but if its worth it in terms of optical quality and sharpness then maybe I should just go for it. I'm currently doing studio portrait work with a 17-50 so I'd find being able to go to 70 an improvement (esp on DX).

I'd love to get an 85 next, but I do need the zoom for dancing events...
SteveF said:
Check out the Nikon 24-120 f4....:thumbs:
Click to expand...
I've had a look at it after another recommendation, but I still want to have a lens I can use at f2.8 if I need to.

Sir SR said:
Does that mean that some lucky person will be buying a minty 17-50 tamron
Click to expand...
Nope! I'm hanging on to it - the 24-70 is a lot heavier so the Tamron would still get some use popping on the D90 ungripped for a day out walking. Plus I like the idea of having it as a back up.

Still a bit undecided between the 24-70 and an 85 1.8/1.4 - two very different lenses! Can't help but think if I go FX the 24-70 is going to be a great all rounder so it makes sense to go for it now.
 
Last edited:
The 24-70 works really well on a cropped body. I would use mine the majority of the time on a cropped body if the low light performance was a bit better.

I upgraded from the Tamron 17-50 to the Nikon 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 is miles better in terms of optical performance and much quicker in terms of AF operation and AF accuracy. I always found the Tamron would hunt a bit in low light and the focus accuracy was not very good meaning I was always a bit wary of using it at f2.8. The Nikon 24-70 produces consistently good results at f2.8. You may want to keep the Tamron as a backup for the odd wider shot.
 
I use my 24-70 on my D300 and its perfect. I was blown away by how good it was, and although I still prefer my 50mm 1.4, it is very close in terms of performance.

If I could only have 1 lens, that would be the one.
 
ah5168 said:
I upgraded from the Tamron 17-50 to the Nikon 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 is miles better in terms of optical performance and much quicker in terms of AF operation and AF accuracy. I always found the Tamron would hunt a bit in low light and the focus accuracy was not very good meaning I was always a bit wary of using it at f2.8. The Nikon 24-70 produces consistently good results at f2.8. You may want to keep the Tamron as a backup for the odd wider shot.
Click to expand...
Thanks - that's good to know and helpful to hear a comparison with the Tamron (which is a great lens for the money). Yes I will be keeping the Tamron for when I want a bit wider and when I want a lighter combination (eg longish walks).
 
cambsno said:
I use my 24-70 on my D300 and its perfect. I was blown away by how good it was, and although I still prefer my 50mm 1.4, it is very close in terms of performance.

If I could only have 1 lens, that would be the one.
Click to expand...
Thanks Simon.

I'm trying to make sure that I'm getting it because it suits my needs and is worth the money in terms of performance, rather than just going on 'oh I want a shiny new lens'!
 
Thanks for all the advice - got the 24-70 f2.8 on Friday afternoon and so far have used it -

- at a dance event - action in low light with flash - performed well and focuses fast even in the low light
- using ambient light on a walk round a local museum - its good even wide open
- in the studio - stopped down its super sharp

Really pleased with it! :D
 
Last edited:
ShoeQueen said:
My kit currently consists of D90, kit lens, 50 f1.8D and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (which I use almost all the time).

I'm considering going FF but am aware I'd need better glass so thought it would be a good idea to get a new lens first which I could use on my D90 while I save for another body.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking, if I want to go full frame I'd probably be better to get a D700 now while still available, given the price difference between it and D800? I know its a few years old but still a great camera...
 
ShoeQueen,

You are in exactly the same position as me.

I've got a D90 and have recently purchased the Nikon 24-70 (I've upgraded from the Sigma version).

The vast majority of my shots full within this range and I will be going FF eventually but wanted the glass first. It is an absolutely fantastic lens, so sharp and you won't regret it for one minute. It will then be perfect for when you upgrade your body later on.

Obviously it is expensive but I haven't regretted it at all.

Good luck with whatever you go for :)
 
Thanks Sam - got it a couple of weeks ago and love it! Now thinking about a D700...
 
my dad has a D90 and uses a nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and i personally think it is a fantastic lens, i have never used a 24-70 f/2.8 so i can't comment but i have heard on other forum posts that some people say the lenses are practically the same except from the price so the 28-70 will save you a few hundred
 
callumduff said:
my dad has a D90 and uses a nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and i personally think it is a fantastic lens, i have never used a 24-70 f/2.8 so i can't comment but i have heard on other forum posts that some people say the lenses are practically the same except from the price so the 28-70 will save you a few hundred
Click to expand...

This is certainly true. I've had both and although I have the 24-70 now, I would be equally happy with a 28-70. In terms of performance there is absolutely nothing in it. Both focus very quickly and work well from wide open. 4mm at the wide end is helpful on the 24-70 but that isn't where it's best so is maybe more of a bonus than anything.

The only big difference in my experience is in the ergonomics. The 28-70 probably feels better built but it is also very bulky. It has a very wide barrel over it's full length where as the 24-70 is more slender. I believe the 24-70 might actually be heavier but for some reason it never feels it.

The shot below hopefully illustrates the point.


TRI_4998 by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
A bit off topic, I have a D7000 and am looking at 24-70mm f2.8, totally agree with the glass upgrade and from what. Have read and spoken to others I am all set for the 14-24 & 70-200mm after 24-70mm all in good time.
There seems to be a few reports of zoom ring problems, some of which have fallen on deaf ears from Nikon, this is concerning given the cost of the lens, best price I have seen is £1,199 and I can at least check the lens before it lands on my doorstep.
Anyone had problems with this zoom ring issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top