Nikon 24-70 or 70-200 - worth bothering with??

[cambsno]

Please say no, they are both rubbish... or my wife will kill me

Seriously, was tempted by the 70-200 on the forum yesterday and by the 24-70 today. My main portrait lens is the rather excellent 1.4AFS 50mm, and having just sold my 17-55 have a need for a zoom. I sold that as I found I didnt use the 17-24/28 range that much and often wanted more.

I also have a 70-300VR which is a very good lens, but it is never going to compare to a 2.8 lens or a 1.4 is it? Which is why I think I rarely use it. Most pics are people & portraits - posed and candid - so maybe I dont have a need for a mid range zoom, use the 50mm for indoor and a 70-200 for outdoor??

Decisions, decisions...

Oh, and dont get me started on a D700, all those good comments must be lies :bonk:

 

[Mud]

I don't think you'll find many people who can compare all those lenses first-hand, and fewer still who can tell you how you should do your photography!

For what it's worth, I love my 17-55/2.8, but whilst I often wish it were slightly longer I do find I use 17mm. Having sold it I guess you've already made your decision! I'm weary of changing to the 24-70 because it's expensive (hard to find second hand), longer, heavier, and has a shorter zoom range than the 17-55. Doubtless it's a marginally better lens than the 17-55 in most optical tests, but there're primes capable of better performance still.

I find the 70-200 to be a very useful range on my D300s, but do tend to keep the D90 on hand loaded with the 17-55 or something of a similar length as 70mm on a crop body is quite limiting.

 

[munchycarrot]

I think you nearly answered yourself lol.. yep the 70-200 is probably a lot more valuable to portraits than the 24-70. Especially as you have the 50mm too.
I own the 70-300 and, fingers crossed, have just bought the 70-200 2.8. I have the 24-70 too.
At the price point the 70-300 is such an amazing lens, great for day trips. It is so light and friendly to use. Not tack sharp at 300mm but very impressive. Ive bought the 70-200 for the DOF and portait work, if thats what your into, then probably worth every penny.
I use the 24-70 for indoor portraits, its a stunning piece of glass. Couldnt recommend it enough. But you know you will probably buy both lenses and a d700 eventually.

The answer to your question is, no, the 70-300 is not as good, but is still very good if you dont use 280-300mm or need 2.8

 

[Martyn...]

How about a used 35-70 f2.8D, should be around £300, lovely sharp lens. You could add the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S or D ED around £650 used.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I started with a 70-300 VR, Simon and I really liked it, until I got the 80-200 f/2.8 (replaced now by my 70-200)- the difference in IQ between the consumer and pro glass is really noticeable.

Oh and the 70-200 is fantastic as a portrait lens too - sorry :nuts:

 

[PhotoTalk]

How about a used 35-70 f2.8D, should be around £300, lovely sharp lens. You could add the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S or D ED around £650 used.

I had thought about the 35-70mm too but when I look at the images it produced in ken Rockewell's test of the mid-zooms, they all look frighteningly bad compared with the 24-70mm. In fact, they look bad full stop. See images here http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/pro-normal-zooms/index.htm

I agree about the 80-200mm f/2.8 though. It's a stellar performer and the only reason I'm selling mine is that the 70-200mm is on the way.

 

[crphoto]

I use both the 24-70 and the 70-200 on the D300.

I find the 24-70 a great general lens and this stays on my body most of the time. It's tack sharp too. On the downside, 24mm on a DX sensor isn't quite wide enough sometimes (won't be a problem when I get a D3 though).

The 70-200 is also very nice. I've got a lot of great wedding shots with it and it can also be good for portrait work shooting at 100mm+ for shallow depth of field. On the downside though, it is really heavy.

Both these lenses work great with the focus tracking features of the D300 and I find that the 70-200 tends to focus-hunt much less than the 70-300 did. It's also a bonus that both lenses are weather sealed too as it adds a little peace of mind.

To be honest though, I got great outdoor portraits with the 70-300 (still a great lens).

 

[raider2727]

ok i am the idiot selling them.
I have to say the 2 lenses are better than the canon 24-70 and 70-200 but more expensive.
The 24-70 is a very sharp well refined lens ideal for portraits and landscapes general walk about even, i have never had a duff photo while i have used it.
The 70-200 VR is so sharp contrasty and on a DX body has no real distortion or issues, i use it as a general tele for portraits and for use of animals in the zoo and the like.
I use it hand held more than on a tripod and have never felt a pic was blurred because of it.
i would say the tripod foot on the lens is a let down but still ok, the collar of the lens looks thin the thing i love most about both these lenses compared to Canon is the hoods fit so well and lock into place where they stay.

i will go no further else i will end up changing my mind and keeping them.

For me i wish to try full frame, did not like the metering on the D700 can not afford a D3 so i am going back to my beloved Canon and the 5DMKII where i can buy the same lenses for around £500 cheaper