is a 24-70 a pointless lens for a DX?

J

jimbobc

Messages
291
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I have read a few reviews of the Nikon 2.8 and they seem to think its a waste on DX. Why is that? I was thinking in terms of baby and childrens photography that it would be quite versatile?

Am I missing the point?
 
It is a fabulous lens on full-frame, but for me it would also be the perfect lens range for your intended use on the D90, being a 36 to 105mm equivalent.

The usual fast standard zoom for a crop sensor is the 17-55 f2.8, but I found it a bit short at the long end for portraiture.

...... and then, when you decide you want a full-frame, the lens still works!
 
It's not pointless but it's a lot of tech wasted IMO. Plus, the wide end isn't wide at all..... the 17-55mm is a better option for DX, although you could say that a 24-70mm on crop would be a good people-watching lens, what with that little extra reach.
 
david357 said:
It is a fabulous lens on full-frame, but for me it would also be the perfect lens range for your intended use on the D90, being a 36 to 105mm equivalent.

The usual fast standard zoom for a crop sensor is the 17-55 f2.8, but I found it a bit short at the long end for portraiture.

...... and then, when you decide you want a full-frame, the lens still works!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Had the Tamron 28-75 on my D300 after finding the Nikon 17-55 not long enough. Have now got the Nikon 24-70 and it is a stunning lens.Not a waste on DX.

Very rarely do I find it not wide enough, but i know that if I had a 17-55 I would find it not long enough on a lot of occasions. IQ is virtually as good as a prime!

I shoot babies and kids mainly and its perfect!
 
I've got a sigma 24 - 70 on my D90

I personally think its a great focal length range, its a great walk about lens

but stating the obvious not very wide at the wide end
 
Great comments thanks. How do the Sigma and Nikon compare. Iread the Sigma boekh is not great but its good value next to the Nikon and has good user reviews. My other option was an 85mm 1.8d but I do like the flexibility of a zoom.
 
I use one on a D7000, for me the focal length is great for walking around provided I dont want to shoot anything particularly wide. Pin sharp and very quick autofocus, the only downside for me as I use it as a general walk about lens is the weight, you certainly dont forget that it is attached to the camera.

Hence why I also have a Nikon 12-24 that normally goes in the bag when I go out just incase I do want something wide.
 
If the 24-70 range suits you and you don't mind the price, go for it.

On my D90 I love my 17-55, but then I spend more time at the wide end, however I did find the long end slightly too short for portraiture.
 
I use the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 on both my D300 and D7000. I find it very usable actually because i shoot alot of portrait and don't shoot enough landscape, so the wide end isn't a problem for me. If i need wider for landscape i just change to a wide angle lens.

Only down side is the lens is massive and bloody heavy to walkaround all day, specially when using with my gripped D300 ......

If i know i going to do some street shot or walk around then i will use a smaller lens like Nikon 18-70 or some kind of tamron/sigma 17-50
 
Think I will go and have a look at one of these. I hear its heavy but not in the scale of a 70-200. Seems like its 150g heavier than my 70-300 which I think feels ok on my d90.
 
Cracking lens but I definite don't want to walk around in the street with that lens when going to trip/travel lol
 
Just read about the Tamron 24.70 2.8 but with stabilisation. That might help me as one of my hands is shaky. Being interested to read some reviews and see a price.
 
Unless budget isn't an issue have a think about whether you need that extra 15mm over a 17-55, as they can be found for just over half the price of a 24-70 (both Nikon)....
 
I have the Sigma F2.8 24-70 on a Canon 7D. I was a bit worried about not having anything wide end. But I have to say it has never being a problem for portraiture and travel photography for me as I find I am never really at the 24 end anyway. I have the non OS version of the Sigma and I am really happy with sharpness and colours from the lens.

I also have the non OS Sigma 70-200 which I think compliments this lens really well and then I can look to get a specific wide angle lens rather than if you have the 17-55 I would think you are missing focal length or having large overlaps.
 
For the portraiture use that you have specified I would say that going wide is a bad thing due to perspective distortion. Consequently, a 24-70 on a cropped sensor gives you a better working range.
 
Deadlock said:
For the portraiture use that you have specified I would say that going wide is a bad thing due to perspective distortion. Consequently, a 24-70 on a cropped sensor gives you a better working range.
Click to expand...

Yeh I agree I think for me the 24-70 is going to work better. I am want to predominantly take shots of family and for the occassional wider shots I could always keep my 18-105 which is generally pretty good and will go a bit wider. Think I will wait for the Tamron to check whether the OS helps but also will take a look at the Sigma.
 
badboy1984 said:
Cracking lens but I definite don't want to walk around in the street with that lens when going to trip/travel lol
Click to expand...

I was thinking of this lens for my D7000, first main use would be on holiday. Why wouldn't you want to you it for that?
 
MBZ3147 said:
I was thinking of this lens for my D7000, first main use would be on holiday. Why wouldn't you want to you it for that?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's down to size and weight. The 24-70 is a lovely lens (I have one myself) but it is big and it is heavy. It's tiring to carry around and it's very difficult to blend in with one of those things hanging off the front of your camera. I probably would still take one myself as a travel lens though if I were on DX I'd maybe think carefully about the 16-85 or even an 18-70, which I love. For anything that doesn't involve lugging it around for miles (or concerns over being mugged!), I think the 24-70 is just superb, whether FX or DX.
 
For studio work it is my lens of choice and I use it on both my crop and full frame cameras, I replaced an old 28-70 f2.8 and have not looked back in terms of image quality.
 
Just to echo a few points already made here. Regardless of FX or DX, a lens is only pointless if you buy it and don't use it.

My main lens, which is on my camera majority of the time, is a 35 prime and I shoot DX. My 18-55 kit is only in the bag just in case I need wider, which is very rarely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top