Nikon Lens Advice: 24-70 / 70-200 is there anything in between?

AshleyC

AshleyC

Messages
2,971
Name
...
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering if there is a good lens in between those 2?

Theyre both great lenses but the 70-200 is the size of a missile launcher and the 24-70 doesnt really go as far as i want it to.

Ive got the wide angle covered with a 16-35 f4 Now i want something that i can use in the studio.

The 135 f2 DC seems to be the one to get but i wouldnt mind a zoom to save me swapping lenses out. I currently use the 50mm 1.8 and 90mm tamron macro. Both nice but annoying to switch over when i want to do full body or head and shoulders.

The 70-200 would be the one i guess but its sheer size puts me off it. Hand holding that beastie for 4 hours would be a pain.

I see that there is a 28-300 which could be the one, sounds sharp in various reviews. Does anyone own one and have an opinion? Or thoughts on another lens out there?
 
I would think the 135 DC would produce stunning results with the D800. Superb lump of glass but you have to watch for shake. The 70-200 has the bonus of VR for low speed shooting as well as great IQ. Would I swap my 135 for the 70-200.............? No - I would have both!
 
Personally, if you want a zoom and the fact you're going to use it in a studio points to the 70-200. They're heavy but you aren't going to be trekking for miles with hanging off your neck.
 
Thanks for the replies peeps. The 70-200 does seem to be at the centre of an ever decreasing circle. I might try and get one for a weekend and see how i get on with it.
 
The 70-200 is a really great lens, the weight and size shouldnt put you off buying it, it isnt that heavy actually
 
You drop £2.5k on a camera, and want to get a cheap and nasty superzoom??? Come on, don't be that guy! :shrug:

If you want a telephoto zoom to pull out the IQ from D800, there is really no substitute for 70-200mm. To even compare it to a superzoom is a sacrilege, IMO. Do the proper thing, and go get the right glass to do the new camera justice. :thumbs:
 
But my 50mm 1.8 that cost me £80 is insanely sharp so long as you dont go wide open, so you dont always have to equate quality to cost ;) But yeah, im trying to be cheap and i dont think it will work with the sort of lens i want now.

Actually its not really cost thats the issue. Im as happy as you could be to drop 1k+ on a lens, i was just wondering if there was something of quality between those 2 bad boys.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top