NIKON 24-70 OR THESE PRIMES.

R

raider2727

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,108
Edit My Images
Yes
Now i have decided on a D700 over the 5DMKII after being convinced by recent threads i now need to decide on a zoom or primes.

My choice would be either a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 new or these 3 used

Sigma 20mm f1.8
Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-D
Nikon 85mm F1.4 AF-D

Going back to my old Film days i did love primes but was converted to a zoom with digital to cut back on lens changing and dust.
Now i am going full frame thinking maybe i should revert back to primes as i always found the IQ far better.
 
Get the 24-70 - it's awesome... really...
Unless you're studio-based, or desperately need the extra stop that the primes offer, there's no reason to carry three lenses when one will do the job equally well under most conditions...

The only people who should worry about lens-IQ on modern Pro lenses are lab-rats who spend thier lives photographing test charts...
 
Tony, I'm gonna go against Rob (sort of) on this occassion.

Fast primes are my favourites - especially as I shoot in low light a lot. If you're the same then the faster primes will be very handy. But if most of what you shoot is in decent light then it might not be such a biggie.

Also - I like the added creative freedom of shooting with a really shallow DOF - your primes will give you this :)

A bit tricky to advise as I don't know what you take pictures of. But if it were me then I'd go for the primes.

And just to echo what Rob said - the 24-70 is a quality lens too.
 
Thank you, i fully understand what you are all saying about the 24-70 as i had one and then sold it when i thought i was going back to Canon.

I have just been offered one which is 12 months old and it seem's in mint condition for £980 inc RMSD.

I will be taking mainly general pics, but also having thoughts of setting up spare bedroom as a doggie portrait studio, seems to be a calling for this.
That is where i thought the primes would shine,
 
Dogs that don't sit still and shallow dof don't mix well - most of the time! I'd go with the 24-70 - easily my most used lens. :)
 
I'd go primes any day, but then again I shoot blokes fishing, which gives me time to move around and compose on my own terms.... if you're shooting something that requires quicker composition and where you have just one chance to get the shot, get the zoom. My zooms still come in very, very handy in these situations - the primes are for those quieter moments :)
 
D700 + 24-70 is a match made in heaven. OK it's heavy but then I think that Sigma 20mm is too IIRC. I'd go with the 24-70 as it is just so good.

I wouldn't be without my 85/1.4 it really is a fantastic lens, and I wont get rid of that until the AFS version comes out and I try one of those.

The 50/1.4 is good, the AFS is a tiny bit better IQ wise, but I find them a bit... well meh ( to use a young text speak word, I'm down wid da kids me :D ) Images taken with them don't jump out at me like the 85, and the 24-70. I'm hoping Nikon hurry up with the rumored 50/1.2 AFS and it's as stellar as the new 24mm promises to be.

Pete
 
Ok i am convinced and i am going for the 24-70, now i have another dilema as i wanted a lens when the D700 arrives tomorrow (very dissapointed as it was suppose to be today) so i ordered a 50mm f1.4 AF-D at the same time, do you think i will need it, will it remain in the bag unused or should i sell it on?
 
Depends what you shoot. I do use the 50/1.4, and it makes a great walk around lens when you want to travel light.

Pete
 
raider2727 said:
Ok i am convinced and i am going for the 24-70, now i have another dilema as i wanted a lens when the D700 arrives tomorrow (very dissapointed as it was suppose to be today) so i ordered a 50mm f1.4 AF-D at the same time, do you think i will need it, will it remain in the bag unused or should i sell it on?
Click to expand...

My 50mm f:1.4 has been pretty much redundant since I got the 24-70mm f:2.8. Maybe I should get it out for a play.

I still use my Sigma 20mm f:1.8 once in a very blue moon, but my Nikkor 20mm f:2.8 is relegated to the back of my kit cupbaord save for those very rare occassions when I want to use filters.

If I were starting again I'd get the 24-70mm before any of these primes.
 
ryanyboy said:
Tony, I'm gonna go against Rob (sort of) on this occassion.

Fast primes are my favourites - especially as I shoot in low light a lot. If you're the same then the faster primes will be very handy. But if most of what you shoot is in decent light then it might not be such a biggie.

Also - I like the added creative freedom of shooting with a really shallow DOF - your primes will give you this :)

A bit tricky to advise as I don't know what you take pictures of. But if it were me then I'd go for the primes.

And just to echo what Rob said - the 24-70 is a quality lens too.
Click to expand...

:D You haven't - you just reiterated what I said: Unless you're studio-based, or desperately need the extra stop that the primes offer, there's no reason to carry three lenses when one will do the job equally well under most conditions...

And yes, keep that 50mm f/1.4 for the times you do want that lovely shallow DoF and additional low-light capability...
 
Arkady said:
:D You haven't - you just reiterated what I said: Unless you're studio-based, or desperately need the extra stop that the primes offer, there's no reason to carry three lenses when one will do the job equally well under most conditions...

And yes, keep that 50mm f/1.4 for the times you do want that lovely shallow DoF and additional low-light capability...
Click to expand...

I did say "sort of" :D

BTW - I wasn't aware of the sigma 20mm F1.8. Have just spent the last 20 minutes "researching" it to see if I'd like to get one. Looks pretty good and a LOT cheaper than the new Nikon 24mm 1.4!!
 
There's a reason they're cheaper than the Nikkors - I was issued a Sigma ultra wide once - sent it back after a month. I think it was thought that the Army could save money since they weren't used that often by phots...which was true - I've used my 14-24...ohhh... never...

The Sigma lens exhibited terrible flare problems outdoors and indoors, especially with studio lights - I spent more time fiddling with my Bowens kit with that lens to eliminate flare than with any other lens I've ever used. This was on location shoots before we got into the CLS-stobe approach...
Sharpness was fine - just the coatings weren't up to much - so we all now have nice shiny Nikkor ultra-wide lenses again...
 
Thanks Rob. Your comments on flare and the stuff I've just been reading on poor sharpness at larger apps is enough to put me off.

Next.......
 
Also, (Ryanyboy) why would you bother putting an inferior lens (even if it was only slightly inferior) on those cameras of yours? Seems a false economy to me...
 
Completely agree (if you're talking to me). I haven't got a "cheap" lens in my arsenal and I have no non-nikon lenses either (unless you count a lensbaby).

But every now and then I see a third party lens where there is no Nikon equivalent and start to wonder.......

I usually get over it though :D
 
there are rare examples where at least the 'quality' (uck, I sound like a test chart shooter), but not the handling/build, is *as good* as the nikon glass, eg tamron 90mm macro, tokina 11-16 2.8, but it is pretty rare...I sure wasn't happy with my sigma ultrawide.

OP keep the 50 1.4, you'll love it :)
 
get the primes change the sigma for

a 35mm f2 or 24mm f2.8

i dont even have to think about it
 
straycat said:
get the primes change the sigma for

a 35mm f2 or 24mm f2.8

i dont even have to think about it
Click to expand...

Too late i have just brought the 24-70 going to keep the 50 f1.4 for now and see if it gets used.
Now looking for either a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 or Nikon 300mm f4 if the OD can stand it lol.

I have used the Sigma 20 f1.8 on a Crop body and was happy with it from F8, no it is not up to nikon standards but the trade off as always is price.

thanks for all your help
Tony
 
raider2727 said:
Now i have decided on a D700 over the 5DMKII after being convinced by recent threads i now need to decide on a zoom or primes.

My choice would be either a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 new or these 3 used

Sigma 20mm f1.8
Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-D
Nikon 85mm F1.4 AF-D

Going back to my old Film days i did love primes but was converted to a zoom with digital to cut back on lens changing and dust.
Now i am going full frame thinking maybe i should revert back to primes as i always found the IQ far better.
Click to expand...

My choice would be the f/1.4 Nikkors, and one other Nikon lens for the wider end rather than the Sigma (24 or 28mm perhaps, the 35mm is good too, but perhaps too close to the 50). I've owned and used the 24-70 and those two Nikon primes on the D700, and prefer the faster primes any day becuase they suit me better than the f/2.8 you get with the zoom. YMMV however. IQ on the 24-70 is not an issue however. The 85mm is a really lovely lens.
 
raider2727 said:
I have used the Sigma 20 f1.8 on a Crop body and was happy with it from F8, no it is not up to nikon standards but the trade off as always is price.

thanks for all your help
Tony
Click to expand...

from f8 :gag:

ouch.... the nikon kit lenses are great stopped down less than that :/
 
I am still looking for a wide option and cant afford the 17-35 i crave, so been looking at a Nikon 20-35 f2.8 seems to have 20/24/28 @f2.8 all wrapped up in one, The reviews i have read say it does fall off on the edges at f2.8 to a small degree on full frame, has anyone tried it?
 
There's nothing wrong with the Sigma 20mm f:1.8. I own both that and a Nikkor 20mm f:2.8 and I reach for the Siggy nearly everytime. The only downsides are it's relative large size and the large filter ring (82mm) which are the main reasons I've kept the Nikkor on.

Having said that, the Siggy is used infrequently now I've got the 24-70mm.
 
I would go for primes...

As some of you now Im switching to Nikon soon (2-3 weeks) and started to think about which lenses I should go for:)

Still havent made my mind yet what lenses to get...bit thorn between 85 1.4 and 135 2.0 ...

and one wide one. I used to have 50mm as well but will skip it this time as I almost never used it!

If I would go for zoom I would go for new 70-200 and thats it...add one wide prime and Im sorted ;)
 
i have the 24-70mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F1.4. but use the 24-70 on a daily basis and the other for that little bit more.. but i did have the primes before the zoom
 
Fast primes every time.

I have the Sigma 20mm f1.8 and love it, but on my crop Canon. Maybe go for the Sigma 50mm f1.4 over the Nikon?

Get the zoom and every now and again you'll look at the f2.8 and wish for something faster, with less distortion (probably...)

Fast primes, you know it makes sense.
 
Hmmmm....

Out and about with a 24mm prime fitted and suddenly there's a fantastic opportunity that needs 70mm. Off with the bag, unzip, grab the 70mm, swap lenses, raise camera to eye and see the opportunity vanishing over the horizon. OK, the prime shot might possibly have been better/sharper etc at 300% but since the shot was missed, the point is moot. Good move on getting the zoom.

Having said that, keep the 50mm f/1.4 - 2 stops extra can make all the difference, especially when combined with a D700's high ISO capability.
 
woof woof said:
Get the zoom and every now and again you'll look at the f2.8 and wish for something faster, with less distortion (probably...)
Click to expand...

Hasn't happened to me in a year of owning the 24-70mm

Fast primes, you know it makes sense.
Click to expand...

If you believe the hype of the depth of field minimalists. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, unless you have particular requirements the 24-70mm is all the lens you'll need for the majority of photography in that range.
 
Nod said:
Hmmmm....

Out and about with a 24mm prime fitted and suddenly there's a fantastic opportunity that needs 70mm. Off with the bag, unzip, grab the 70mm, swap lenses, raise camera to eye and see the opportunity vanishing over the horizon. OK, the prime shot might possibly have been better/sharper etc at 300% but since the shot was missed, the point is moot. Good move on getting the zoom.

Having said that, keep the 50mm f/1.4 - 2 stops extra can make all the difference, especially when combined with a D700's high ISO capability.
Click to expand...



^^^^^

Is that the biggest contradiction of the week??

:lol:
 
NorthernNikon "Hasn't happened to me in a year of owning the 24-70mm"

Perhaps other people have different needs or are more exacting. My experience is completely opposite you yours, I've only used my "general purpose f2.8 zoom" once in a year.

"If you believe the hype of the depth of field minimalists."

There's more to a fast prime than limited dof and to think that there isn't is a bit, limited.

"unless you have particular requirements the 24-70mm is all the lens you'll need for the majority of photography in that range."

It's a general purpose lens and that's fine but for other needs or wants there might just be a better lens for the job.

Up to the OP to choose. Choose wisely OP, choose the fast primes. :lol:
 
woof woof said:
NorthernNikon "Hasn't happened to me in a year of owning the 24-70mm"

Perhaps other people have different needs or are more exacting. My experience is completely opposite you yours, I've only used my "general purpose f2.8 zoom" once in a year.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I'm pointing it out as another point of view when all those, including you, are say primes are the only option.

More exacting? Maybe, but exacting for what reason? Usually it's not for anything that will actually affect the final image to any great extent.

"If you believe the hype of the depth of field minimalists."

There's more to a fast prime than limited dof and to think that there isn't is a bit, limited.
Click to expand...

What else is there then, and how does it benefit photography? The image quality obtainable from the 24-70mm is sufficient for anyone on this forum barring the pixel peepers.

"unless you have particular requirements the 24-70mm is all the lens you'll need for the majority of photography in that range."

It's a general purpose lens and that's fine but for other needs or wants there might just be a better lens for the job.
Click to expand...

Errr, as I pointed out, there will be occassions when a fast rpime will be required, but these times are few and far between compared to the significant advantage of range coverage the 24-70 offers.
Better lens for the job? As Nod pointed out, the best lens isn't always the one that offers the best image quality (perceived or tangible)


Up to the OP to choose. Choose wisely OP, choose the fast primes. :lol:
Click to expand...

Indeed, which is why I'm keen to present a balance of opinions to counter the often misconceived notion that primes are always best. (You probably haven't noticed, but I haven't told the OP what to do, just offered up my experiences)
 
NorthernNikon said:
Maybe you're reading something between the lines there, but I see no contradiction in Nod's post.
Click to expand...

First he says the 24-70 is THE lens because of the flexibility of the zoom. Then he says the extra two stops of the prime "makes all the difference". I think there's a contradiction in there somewhere. But I'm sure Nod can explain without your help........

NorthernNikon said:
What else is there then, and how does it benefit photography? The image quality obtainable from the 24-70mm is sufficient for anyone on this forum barring the pixel peepers.
Click to expand...

And that is a sweeping statement which belittles every user of the forum. I'm a member of the forum and the 24-70 is NOT sufficient for me as it's not fast enough. There's a huge difference between image quality and speed. And sometimes speed is the most important - unless YOU'RE a pixel peeper??
 
Well I just finished doing a job out on the airfield...Half-past midnight, minimal light from one spotlight 100m from the subjects and some ambient light from an aircraft interior...
ISO 1000 and speeds of 30th-60th at f/2.8
More than adequate as the multiple subjects were relatively slow-moving - at the slow-march, in fact. Even though I had the 50mm f/1.4 in my pocket, the 24-70 stayed on as I had to constantly re-frame and was unable to move as freely as I would have liked.

FYI the event was a Repatriation Ceremony - known as Op PABAY to us...five lads coming home early...

Sometimes you just have to stand still, know what I mean?
 
ryanyboy said:
First he says the 24-70 is THE lens because of the flexibility of the zoom. Then he says the extra two stops of the prime "makes all the difference". I think there's a contradiction in there somewhere. But I'm sure Nod can explain without your help........
Click to expand...

I'm sure he can.

And that is a sweeping statement which belittles every user of the forum. I'm a member of the forum and the 24-70 is NOT sufficient for me as it's not fast enough. There's a huge difference between image quality and speed. And sometimes speed is the most important - unless YOU'RE a pixel peeper??
Click to expand...

LOL "belittles every user of the forum"? You're having a laugh, it does nothing of the kind. It's actually a statement about the quality of the lens. Now, if you take time to reread what I wrote, you'd see that I was talking about the image quality. Where it is fast or not for you is neither here nor there, I've already said that there are certain situations where fast primes have their place but for the vast majority of photography, f:2.8 is more than fast enough as a first choice option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top