17-55 + 85 1.4 VS 24-70 + 105 2.8 VR

<p>I shoot Beauty and Fashion (Creative commercial, not runway)<br>

All I need is sharpness.<br>

Dont care about bokeh, and sharpness at 2.8 is not my main concern.<br>

Most of my shots are at f8 up in a flash controled medium.<br>

My questions :<br>

_24-70 vs 85 1.4 @ F8?<br>

_24-70 vs 17-55 @ 24mm @ F8?<br>

_Is the 24-70 the sharpest nikon zoom at all ranges?<br>

Note for who's ever questioned: 105 VR is Much more sharper than 85 1.4</p>

<p> </p>

<p>then most of premium nikon zooms will feed your needs.</p>

<p>I don't know that anyone has tried testing each Nikon lens only at f/8. If you are shooting at f/8+, then nearly all Nikon lenses will be sharp. </p>

 

<p>Yeah, I agree with Bruce, at f/8 all of the lenses you mention are highly likely to be tack sharp. My copy of the 17-55mm DX was brutally sharp at f/8 - I expect the 24-70mm to also have that same precise sharp image quality too at f/8. If you shoot DX then go for the 17-55mm, it compromises nothing in sharpness throughout it's focal range IMHO.</p>

<p>The most valuable characteristic of an ultra-fast quasi-exotic lens like the 85 f/1.4 is its very bright f/1.4 aperture and the capabilities associated with it. Slower but similar lenses tend to be a little sharper at smaller aperture settings; the slower lenses also tend to suffer less distortion and CA. </p>

<p>I've used both the 17-55 and the 24-70; and I own the 24-70. The 17-55 is a very respectable lens, but the 24-70 seems to be a little better. The 24-70 has less distortion and less vignetting, and it is a FX lens. On DX, the extra reach the 24-70 has is very nice for portraits (perspective wise); and for your application you might not actually "miss" the loss of serious wide angle coverage. </p>

<p>The 105 f/2.8 VR is simply ridiculously sharp. It's already sharp at f/2.8 and has gorgeous bokeh. But at f/4 and f/8, its sharpness is almost surreal. </p><div></div>

<p>For studio settings why not try out the Zeiss prime lenses? I have the 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. They're manual focus, which should be best for studio work anyway, and they're wonderfully sharp. <br>

But the others are right, at F/8 most lenses will perform very well.</p>

<p>In the last 2 days, I have used all three lenses you mentioned on a D700: 85 f1.4, 105 VR and the 24-70 f2.8.<br>

All lenses are very good. I own the 24-70 f2.8 but I will buy the 105VR soon over the 85.<br>

I find for outdoor portraits that the 85 is a bit too short reach. I always have to be close to the person to shoot a full frame on my D700. The 105 is perfect and the sharpness is very good.The VR is also an added bonus.<br>

The 24-70 f2.8 is also very good but for portraits, i think the 70mm is just as short as the 85mm esp for close headshots.<br>

Here are some pictures:<br>

24-70 f2.8 at f3.2<br>

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/Ferdinand77/Nikon24-70at32.jpg<br>

85 f1.4 at f1.8<br>

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/Ferdinand77/85f14atf18.jpg<br>

105 vR at f3.2<br>

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/Ferdinand77/105VRatf32.jpg</p>

 

<p>I assume you are shooting DX. I have the 24-70 and the 105 with DX and I love them; I prefer a bit more range over wide angle for most of my applications. I rented the 17-55 for a wedding and found that I didn't use the 17-24 mm range much at all, but it was definetly sharp unless wide open. I would think that fashion work would not have much use for wider angles, but then again, I am fairly ignorant in that arena. The 24-70 extremly sharp even at 2.8 and even at 70 mm, 2.8. The 105 is also amazingly sharp and I don't think anyone would argue with that. Not as freaky fast focusing as the 24-70. Unless price is an issue, get the beastly 24-70 over the 17-55. The price on the 24-70 has, unfortunately, jumped quite a bit recently.</p>