Nikon FX users - 24-70 2.8 or 28 and 85

Speedy136

Speedy136

Messages
2,898
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this has been asked many times but my quandry is 24-70 2.8 or the Nikon 28 and 85 both g to go with my 50mm d? Second option would be cheaper than a secondhand zoom but would I be still wanting the 24-70 after buying primes. Mixed choice of subject matter from general landscapes to walkaround.
Expecting your reaction Cagey:help:
 
gramps said:
24mm will be useful for landscapes and 24-70 will be more flexible for walkabout, not to mention the IQ of the zoom :)
Click to expand...

The 24 end is the only thing that is worrying me about primes Gramps I think I would miss it. But I have a limit of £900 without upsetting the wife so I would have to go secondhand and hopefully win one under the £900 mark
 
Have you considered the still excellent predecessor to the 24-70, the 28-70. Still usable for landscapes with excellent IQ and really rather affordable SH at around £600. That would leave you £300 for something else.
 
Hmm, it's a very good walkabout lens and the VR is great ... it's quite different to the earlier model and mine is very sharp, worth looking at.



PsiFox said:
Have you considered the still excellent predecessor to the 24-70, the 28-70. Still usable for landscapes with excellent IQ and really rather affordable SH at around £600. That would leave you £300 for something else.
Click to expand...

Very true but get to check it first if possible, I picked one up but had to return it due to being so heavily contaminated internally.
 
Last edited:
I have both the 24-70 and the 85 1.8G - I bought that and a 150mm to replace my 70-200 really. And I'm not sorry. I love having a couple of primes, got the 35mm 1.4 sigma on the way too. I'll be more than happy with my set up then, though ... I won't write off more GAS soon ... :D

I took the 24-70 through a forest in the rain this morning, I'll process some shots later and stick some up and link full res ;)

It was lashing rain here all morn, so I was certainly glad of the weather sealing. Just had to keep wiping the front element to knock drops off. Hope I got some nice shots, I think I might have a nice hand held landscape at least.

I had the 150 macro + 85mm with me too, they didn't get a look in. Tight forest paths and then the wide view over looking the boyne river [in the rain, all misty in the distance!] and a tall but narrow waterfall.

The 24-70 is just your perfect do-all [bar wildlife in the distance I guess]

You don't need VR for this lens either. I've never felt like I needed it at least.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree, the 24-70 is a great lens.
whether it would suit you better than 3 primes, only you can answer that but i'm pretty sure you wouldn't be disappointed if you got one :thumbs:
 
Be hard to imagine what the benefits of 3 primes over the 24-70 for landscapes and walkaround. The only thing i can possibly think of is size znd weight, having 3 primes you could choose to just take 1 out.
The 24-70 would win every week for me, loving mine!
 
Primes have there advantages no doubt in terms of I.Q but the 24-70 is no slouch either and offers a lot more versatility. Delighted with mine.
 
24 - 70 (Nikon) every time for me, the iq is so good, and frame to perfection instead of walking backwards and forwards to try to get the right perspective and fill the frame with your subject.
 
twist said:
Primes, 24-70 doesnt go faster than 2.8
Click to expand...

For general landscapes the zoom is amazing, and the fast primes only have just over a stop advantage from the 24-70 f2.8, and that is easily coped with by upping the iso if the camera is up to it.

I rarely use faster than f4 on general photography anyway, the main benefit of the f1.4, f1.8 fast primes is realised in portraiture jobs where you need the shallow depth of field, there is probably not much benefit of the wider apertures even in coal-cellar type photography.

All imvho, of course.
 
Get a 24-70 if you want a walkabout lens. Changing primes is no fun walking about.
 
david357 said:
For general landscapes the zoom is amazing, and the fast primes only have just over a stop advantage from the 24-70 f2.8, and that is easily coped with by upping the iso if the camera is up to it.
Click to expand...

Serves me right for not reading the last para, 24-70 is better for his requirements!
 
twist said:
Serves me right for not reading the last para, 24-70 is better for his requirements!
Click to expand...

Having said that, I find that Nikon's 24-70 zoom does handle portraiture very well, much better than I ever thought it would.
 
Here's one from today, nothing special whatsoever. It is cropped a bit as it was crooked, and there was a little much green to either side. The usual tweaks besides as I only shoot RAW, so upped clarity a little, contrast and reduced highlights, upped vibrance a little too.

It's hand held @ 1/5 - well, ok, the hood on the lens rested on the edge of a wee wooden bridge in front of the falls, but certainly nothing like on a tripod. So it could be sharper, but, overall if you zoom in around the rocks and down along the length of the falls and side greenery, you can see it done a good enough job. Since it was also ****ing rain at the time. You can see some blob, drop spots here and there down near bottom especially.


DSC_8785 by Cagey75, on Flickr


Just to show how rainy it was, here's another - look close, that's not noise you see, it's just bloody rain! :D Got a right soaking.


But, even in the conditions, I'm not sure what a prime could have done that this lens couldn't do?


Overlooking the Boyne [In the rain!] by Cagey75, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Gents, thank you for your replies and Cagey thanks for the images. I think you all have summed up what I wanted to hear that the 24-70 would cover 90% of what I need. The 24mm end for sure and the versatility. This must still be Nikons flagship lens and the complete answer to many needs. Now just have to wait for my PPI cheque to arrive and hopefully find a nice copy for around £900.
Once again thank you for helping me decide:)
 
£900 would be great, even used. I paid €1699 for mine, which is around £1440 :gag: sickening, as I know I'll lose a lot on it if I ever happen to sell on.
 
Cagey75 said:
£900 would be great, even used. I paid €1699 for mine, which is around £1440 :gag: sickening, as I know I'll lose a lot on it if I ever happen to sell on.
Click to expand...

Don't ever see you wanting to part with it so all in all it was money well spent:thumbs:
 
8440784273_4c217d0b78.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

Here is a shot taken with the 24-70 and D600 combination.
As someone said earlier,why would want to take out three lenses when the 24-70 is so good.
 
Nice shot Jeff and I like the colours of the 24-70. Swaying toward this lens now but there doesn't seem to be many second hand ones around at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top