Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8

Messages
812
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
I'm considering hiring either a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 from Camerent for a week. For the 24-70 it'd be £70 total, for the 70-200 it'd be £90 total.

Over the next week, I'm covering a trade show and the X Factor live concert.

Which lens do you think would be best?
 
You have'nt mentioned what camera you use ,full frame or not .My guess seeing as you're going to the xfactor event would definatly go for the 70-200 ;)
 
I guess it depends on how big the venue location is, how close / faraway you'll be to your subject and what kind of shots you want to capture :shrug:

I've used both, and they're equally ideal for what you have in mind (obviously); it will just depend on the factors above, I think!
 
two completely different lenses, but both stunning in every respect.

I have just done some long exposures for an electricity company using the 24-70. Tripod and stopped down to f22 with some 20 second exposures....didn't bother with the long exposure noise reduction or anything, just cranked the aperture round and tripped the shutter at ISO200.....no flare, no ghosting, no noise in the shadows and the star busrts off the flood lights are pin sharp and crisp, just lovely radial lines from the source (I was worried these might flare or ghost a bit). The internal reflections and stuff just don't show up in normal use.

Any "problems" you might see published baout any of these lenses is just people writng for the sake of writing...yes, I bet if you put the images under a microscope and trawled the corners you would find something wrong - but if you do what anyone else does, and look at the pictures with your eyes, at normal viewing there is nothing to call a flaw.

Choose according to what you intend to do with it. OR, stump up the £150 and take both.:thumbs:
 
I decided to hire the 70-200 f/2.8 lens from Stewart - they've been exceedingly helpful so far!
 
Back
Top