Does anyone really need a big mid-range zoom?

<p>From the man you (some of you) love to hate:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Since we all carry a wide zoom and a tele zoom (usually each on its own dedicated camera), we drop a 50mm fixed lens in our bag for the times we need something in-between our other two big zooms, or need a fast aperture for low light. --KR<br /><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is he right on this, in your opinion? Is an f/2.8 mid-range zoom in your arsenal?<br>

<br>

When I shot only Canon EOS, 24- 70mm f/2.8L was often my "go to" lens. I haven't been able to afford the Nikkor equivalent for my D800E, at least not yet.<br>

<br>

Do you find a mid-range zoom useful on your NIkon FX cameras? If not, what's your preference?<br /><br>

<br>

--Lannie<br /></p>

<p>It depends what you're shooting. KR primarily shoots his two kids, landscapes, colorful signs, trash cans and restrooms, and he's adapted his equipment and techniques to those subject areas. But he also thinks that everybody's needs are the same as his own, meaning that everybody needs a camera capable of producing extremely saturated colors when set to vivid mode and low res JPG, and nobody should be using a tripod or lens caps. If he were a wedding photographer I'm sure he'd have a different idea of what all photographers need.</p>

<p>Personally I find that a mid-range zoom is often very useful, because it covers a lot of bases. If I didn't mind carrying a lot of stuff and had another D800 and time to switch lenses before every shot, sure, maybe I could get better results with a wide zoom, a 50, an 85, etc.</p>

<p>For the occasions when you can't take the time to change lenses, the mid-range zoom is indispensable. It's very hard to do event photography without something like it. The Nikon 24-70 is optically superb. But it has terrible bokeh. Where I need to shoot wide open without compromising aesthetics, I leave the zoom in the bag in favor of the 28-50-85 f/1.8 trio. </p>

<p>I think for FX it makes sense. Since f2.8 gives good OOF and narrow DOF on FX. Still for<br>

me 70mm is a little short for portraits. <br>

For DX I like to use a fast prime for portraits. So since my old Nikon 85mm f1.4 acts like<br>

a 130mm lens, I got a CV 58mm f1.4 that acts like an 87mm on DX.<br>

This new Sigma lens on DX acts like a 27-53mm lens. and the range from 55-8omm<br>

I really don't find a reason to cover because its neither normal or portrait and<br>

this transitional area is sort of a no mans land of view for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is an f/2.8 mid-range zoom in your arsenal?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, don't have one (assuming the 80-200 does not count as mid-range).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you find a mid-range zoom useful on your NIkon FX cameras?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I do, for the reasons Andy indicated. I also find it very useful on a DX camera actually :-) But for me, primes do make up most of the work, and when I want a fast lens, I'll use those. So, for my uses, a f/2.8 zoom is unnecessarily heavy, expensive, large, limited zoomrange... I've got the 24-120 f/4 VR now, and I do like the compromise it is (though not without some reservations, which in various threads I brought forward). But I am glad to give up one stop for the extra bit of range, a lot less weight and bulk, all in all, it's the right lens in my arsenal. For those days I do not carry a bag of primes... birthday parties, long hikes...Wouldn't want to be without.</p>

<p>All my cameras have a mid-range zoom of some sort on them.<br>

I was an early user of the 43-86. Not a GREAT lens, but very convenient for the kind of stuff I was shooting, and I liked it. My setup was 24/2.8, 43-86/3.5, 80-200/4.5. I'm rebuilding my 35mm setup with newer gear, but the lenses will be essentially the same. I will be using a mid zoom with more range than the old 43-86; 35-105 MF and 28-85 AF.</p>

<p>I think lens needs tend to get slimmer if you only do personal work and have developed a personal style. I think at some point you just adapt to what you have as well. For instance, when I shoot a fixed lens camera or my <a href="http://acurso.com/Lensless/Lensless.html#1">zone plate on my dslr</a>, I don't ever miss having options for anything wider or longer.</p>

<p>Commercial work is different, you have what you need to do what you do or rent when you need something for a specific use. "Needing" any lens is often more about how one has been marketed to rather than what one really needs.</p>

<p>It's among the most useful lenses of all. Looking at Roland Vink's Nikon lens serial number database, it seems the 24-70/2.8 is the best selling Nikon professional lens. My observations in the field support this, along with the 70-200 which in its various incarnations is very popular.</p>

<p>KR generally writes mostly to provoke, and factuality is obviously not his goal. He writes stuff intentionally so that discussion is stirred by the outrageous claims. It's a business model. Ethical? I think not, but stating false claims is not illegal, either. </p>

<p>Years shooting DX made me realize how important the 17-55/2.8 is for me in that format. I'm using FX for some pretty specific things, and so the 16-35 and 70-200 seem to be what do all the work there ... though there's a 50/1.4 in the bag for when I really have to split the difference.<br /><br />If I didn't have to spend a bunch more on video-related stuff just now, the 24-70/2.8 would be the next item in the bag. It may indeed BE one of the next most important video tools, actually.<br /><br />But to directly answer the question: yes, a fairly fast lens in that mid-zoom range has proven to be incredibly useful over the years. I'd have missed a lot without it.</p>

<p>Everything around "standard" is what I use mostly... 50/1.4, 24-70/2.8 and 24-120/4.<br /> But I think KR is right for some tasks; if I were shooting whatever in a remote exotic place for a travel magazine, I`d certainly take a 17-35 and a 70-200, with a 50/1.4 in the bag. Adding a 24-70 makes maybe too much lenses, replacing the 17-35 makes indoor shooting more difficult.</p>

<p>No professional work here - strictly amateur, although I do a fair amount of selling on various auction sites. If I'm not using a prime lens, I'll grab my Nikkor 28-80/3.3-5.6G. I used to use the older, much more substantial non-G version, but for my needs the G version does just fine and cost a lot less than the other one. So, yes, I think a mid range zoom is a pretty good choice for everyday work.</p>

<p>I have one, 28-70 2.8, but most of the times I use my AFS 24-85 3.5-4.5, much lighter and nearly as good. In combination with Sigma 15-30 and 70-200.</p>

<p>Not remotely. For a long time my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G was my lens cap on the D700 - the lens I'd use when I didn't know what I was going to shoot - but being faster and heavier would have made it less useful. I was usually at the wide end or over 100mm with it. It's not really good enough for my D800, though I've yet to see how my 28-85 f/3.3-5.6G holds up. What's currently sitting on it is a 150mm macro, but I change lenses a bit more to get the best out of it.<br />

<br />

If I want depth of field control and subject isolation, I usually use a longer lens than 24-70. I mostly use my 85 f/1.4, 150 f/2.8 and 200 f/2 for that, with occasional appearances by the 90mm f/2.8 Tamron, 135 f/2 DC, 135 f/2.8 AI and 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (bought when I want "some" subject separation choices with some zoom options). 24-70 doesn't give me enough separation.<br />

<br />

If I want to handle a more intimate perspective, there's the 14-24 for the extreme end (and a fish-eye), a 50mm f/1.8 or - again - the 85mm f/1.4. I'm pretty rarely at the middle "boring" perspective, but the lens was cheap enough to get anyway. I may be tempted by a 35mm f/1.4 at some point, or a 28 f/1.8, but f/2.8 just isn't that fast for me, and I don't use the mid-range enough for it to matter.<br />

<br />

On top of that, the 24-70 is big (compared with the small primes, not the 200 f/2), heavy and expensive. And it didn't look all that optically perfect in Nikon's D800 sample shots, either. It's in the category of lenses that aren't cheap enough to have modest abilities and forgivable quirks, and aren't expensive enough to be absolutely faultless - though that's a category more clearly occupied by the 135 DC and the 150-500. It's just too expensive for me to justify what it can do.<br />

<br />

Don't get me wrong, if you need a mid-range zoom for flexibility and you need as much light gathering capacity as you can get while still zooming, it has its place. It just doesn't suit what I shoot.(That should be a motto.)<br />

<br />

But I could be doing it wrong.<br />

<br />

As for Ken, I've lost track. I assume a Mamiya 7 is still the world's best camera, that the 6D is still better than the D800, and I think I recently noticed that the Sony A99 is getting some love (and that Minolta made a perfect lens a while back). It's true that a lot of pros cart two bodies around with different lenses, but I've usually had a bit more control over my positioning than I'd expect to if I were in a press scrum.</p>

<p>I do concerts and followup events with two D300s bodies, one with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC and SB600, the other with a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM OS, with and without an SB600. Most times I don't use the flash during the concert, unless I can get away with it. I also use the Sigma for portraits, gives me a lot of flexibility depending on the space I have.</p>

<p>As in all things ... depends what you are doing, and WHERE. Do not take a VW to a NASCAR race as a competitor ;-) . I have some primes, and use them here and there ... but the quality of the Nikon 3 (14-24/24-70/70-200) are hard to beat for most needs (not all). Also I use Bigma (Sigma 50-500) when not convenient, or easy, or advisable to change out. Your post made me think of an incident ... and it WAS an incident, last year ... working with the Sierra Club on a small project to bring photo types into "our tent" ... took five out on the marshes ... one fellow was a 'I zoom with my feet' type, had a bag of primes and nothing else ... "I go for quality", he said. Oh Really? Spent three hours moving about on our small boat, making noise, un-necessary movement, and bitching about how we were not getting anything. Did not have a clue that his 'activities' were the main reason any and ALL wildlife within 1/2 mile had cleared out, and stayed cleared out. I had the Bigma, but was also on the tiller ... I, and we, got nothing but a first-class dose of SUN. Of the Nikon 3 ... I find the 24-70 generally gets used the most...but I started out waaay back when with the 43-86 ... so it's a 'natural'.<br>

Sorry about the long post, but every time I think back on that truly goofy 'mission', I start to laugh all over again ... thanks to the OP and the Q which served as a reminder, ;) ;) ;) What a HOOT. </p>

<p>Ah, now come on, Lanny - you <em>know</em> it depends what you're shooting. My Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (which is mid-range for me) gets <em>tons</em> of use for superbikes, touring cars, moto-x and the like.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is an f/2.8 mid-range zoom in your arsenal?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>absolutely. in fact, i have three--the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS for DX, the nikon 24-70/2.8 AF-S for FX, and the tamron 28-75/2.8 -- for walkaround stuff when i dont want to carry the 24-70, or on DX along with 12-24. i'll occasionally use the 24-70 on DX as well for things where i can get away with it not being so wide.</p>

<p>what makes the 24-70 so good is its combination of killer optical performance and fast AF speed. it allows me to just shoot without having to think about what i'm doing to much, which is great for those in-the-moment situations. if i didnt shoot events or do PJ work, i'm sure i could get by without it, either by shooting primes or a slower lens. But for all those FX shooters for whom the 24-70's price tag is unattainable, i highly recommend the 28-75 as a superior budget option. and, from what i've heard, the 28-105 is a great budget option as well if you dont need 2.8 and/or want a longer zoom range. As far as DX, i've been happy with the sigma 17-50, which i bought to replace a stolen tamron 17-50 (which was super sharp). The sigma has grown on me and earned my trust in almost 3 years of duty, although if i was buying today, i'd probably get the new 18-35/1.8, which looks fantastic.</p>

<p>btw, i dont find the 24-70's bokeh to be "terrible," but it's certainly not as good as my 70-200 or 85/1.4, and about equal to the 28-75. Like Michael, i also have a 50-150 for DX, and that lens also has excellent bokeh.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Since we all carry a wide zoom and a tele zoom (usually each on its own dedicated camera), we drop a 50mm fixed lens in our bag for the times we need something in-between our other two big zooms, or need a fast aperture for low light."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't keep track of what other people tend to carry but, as an anecdotal matter, I sometimes do this when I don't want to lessen the bulk carried.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Is he right on this, in your opinion?"<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too easy. For people who conform to such practices, yes. For those that don't, no.</p>

 

<p>The individual in question is not only totally wrong much of the time, but he has a tendency to exaggerate and also to contradict himself pretty regularly.</p>

<p>I think that 6 or 7 years ago his stuff was more useful than it is now, but even then you had to be careful what you believed from him.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is he right on this, in your opinion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since we all carry a wide zoom and a tele zoom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not use wide zoom. I carry 14mm prime, mid-range and tele-zoom for my event gigs. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that 6 or 7 years ago his stuff was more useful than it is now,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, I would respectively disagree. However, you have matured and improved as a photographer by another 6, 7 years, so you know better now.</p>

<p>In my work I have no use for a mid range zoom. I do carry a 50mm but it gets less use then my long zooms and telephoto primes. I don't have any wide zooms either I am very happy using primes on the wide end too.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>respectfully, I'm the same hack amateur photographer that I was back then... ;-)</p>

the perfect lens for shooting my art work...gets it right every time.

<p>I backpack for multiple days with my 24-70 2.8. However, that might have to change as I plan longer trips. When I need something lighter I'll go with my micro 4/3 set-up. Still if I can manage, I will take the nikon zoom.</p>