Hard choice. 24-70mm 2.8 vs 24mm 1.4

 

 

<p >Hi Guys, I hope to hear your logical and practical opinions on my situation.<br>

I have D700 and 50mm 1.4G and 24-70mm 2.8<br />I've bought 24-70mm lens just about 2 weeks ago.<br>

It is a spectacular lens, and a real workaround lens, it feels very solid and great balanced handheld on my D700. There is nothing wrong with it at all. And I would be happy to have it<br>

I found I mostly use either 24mm end or 70mm end,<br />while shooting 24mm mostly at 2.8 in low light.<br>

What I'd like to shoot mostly is in low light urban, indoors, documentary, a bit of landcapes, some fishing catches etc..<br>

I can't see any advantage of the 24-70mm over 50mm 1.4 in low light in between 35-70mm. It's always easy to make few steps forward/backward.<br>

I don't shoot actions/wedding/people in studio and don't want to use flash & tripods at least for now.<br>

The reason I bought 24-70 is to actually have that flexibility to have both 24mm and 70mm in one great peace of glass, sharp and fast enough. However I really miss that narrow depth of field of 1.4 and a handheld shooting in a nearly darkness.<br>

While playing a lot with my first 50mm 1.4, I felt in love in that depth of field and would love to go wider (and closer) with 24mm when shoot at maximum aperture.<br>

I was dreaming of 24mm 1.4 once it's been released and first examples were posted. I can see shooting this lens handheld most time at 1.4 and on occasion shooting landscapes & indoors.<br>

Having great 24-70mm for some reason I feel not happy knowing I won't be able to afford having 24mm 1.4 at the same time.<br>

So I have to choose:<br>

1) To keep 24-70mm and to play with it for a year or so.<br />And then if I use 24mm mainly to sell the lens and to buy 24mm 1.4,<br />or to find that 2.8mm is absolutely enough and I mainly use longer end.<br>

2) From the other point of view I still have two weeks time to return 24-70 back and/or replace it with 24mm 1.4 just paying price difference. I am sure I could sell it for about same price if I found it used not so often.<br>

If I go for 24mm 1.4 I could think of buying 85mm f1.8 in a year time for only £300, to cover most situations I may shoot with these three primes.<br>

I can't see the point of having 85mm with 24-70mm, it make sense to go for 105mm or 135 which are far more expensive.<br>

Straight away, the budget is not the problem and I Don't concider any other alternatives rather these two lenses.</p>

<p >Thanks a lot in advance for your pros and cons</p>

 

 

<p>Option 1. But the 24mm f/1.4G Nikkor is a fantastic lens. </p>

<p>I am sure the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S is a fantastic lens, but in order to temporarily suppress the symptoms of NAS, you need to own both lenses.</p>

<p>Or you start creating nice images with the equipment you already own.</p>

<p>Agree with Ellis. You will probably be able to recoup most the the purchase price even after 1year.</p>

 

<p>Some thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>I understand zooms are not for everybody, I thought than even not for me as I use primes a lot (50 and 105). Maybe you`re "not made" for zooms.</li>

<li>For anything wider than 50, I prefer to take the 24-70 over the 24AFD prime for it`s image quality, or when I need to shoot fast (<em>"actions/wedding/people... "</em>).</li>

<li>An aperture of f2.8 could be right enough for closer shots at 24mm. The only issue is that you need to be close enough. Sometimes too much close to my liking.</li>

<li>I`d be more worried about the size&weight of the 24-70. When I take my 24AFD is just to avoid this issue. If you dislike your 24-70 for this reason, I`d trade it for the 24AFS.</li>

<li>Maybe 24mm is too wide to be paired with a 50... if you know it`s ok, go for it. I`m waiting instead for the 35/1.4AFS, which seems to me far more versatile.</li>

<li>I believed zooms were not for me... but since I bought the new 24-120/4VR I have not removed it from my D700. I think it`s not the best lens I have used but in the real life it`s absolutely practical and versatile. The key is compact size and constant aperture.</li>

<li>I think Shun is right; it makes sense to start using the equipment you already have. There will be always lenses to be bought at the stores.</li>

</ul>

<p>You have only had it 2 weeks for goodness' sake. Give it at least six months.</p>

<p>Eugene, if you already hear/feel the music of fast primes, sooner or later you'll be there. :-) If I'd be you I'd sent back the zoom and I'd take now the 24/1.4. I have the zoom and the prime... I still keep the first for some assignments but I consider the 24/1.4 as my best lens. I even did a test recently... I went to shoot an event with two cameras (D700/D300) and just two primes (24/1.4 AF-S and 85/1.4 AF-D). When necessary I switched the two primes between the bodies. It was an amazing experience. And my back did better after that long day, not like after carying bulky zooms...</p>

<p><em>"However I really miss that narrow depth of field of 1.4 and a handheld shooting in a nearly darkness."</em> You answered your own question.</p>

<p>Mmm, clearly symptoms of NAS,, ;-)<br />Whenever you've made your choice , the next symptoms will show . I got a feeling that its gonna be something like ..14-24 2.8 ,,, When you found the light of the 24 1.4 you will want to go wider,, :-) and then after that.. and then after that. :-)</p>

<p>Seriously, I'd give it a month at least in your curren setup, and note down the focal lenght's you realy use . Once your used to work ( and work hard.) with what you,ve got now you will have a clearer view on whats going on.. You might even decide you want a 35mm 1.4 ( brand new from Nikon..) by then ..<br>

Remember, the DOF on a 24 at the same focussing distancewill be a lot more then the DOF on a 50 1.4 or 85 1.4 just because it''s a wider lens</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>I found I mostly use either 24mm end or 70mm end, while shooting 24mm mostly at 2.8 in low light.</li>

<li>I can't see any advantage of the 24-70mm over 50mm 1.4 in low light in between 35-70mm. </li>

<li>It's always easy to make few steps forward/backward.</li>

<li>However I really miss that narrow depth of field of 1.4 and a handheld shooting in a nearly darkness. </li>

<li>While playing a lot with my <a href="00Xr1e" target="_blank">first</a> 50mm 1.4, I felt in love in that depth of field and would love to go wider (and closer) with 24mm when shoot at maximum aperture. </li>

<li>I was dreaming of 24mm 1.4 once it's been released and first examples were posted.</li>

<li>Having great 24-70mm for some reason I feel not happy knowing I won't be able to afford having 24mm 1.4 at the same time.</li>

<li>From the other point of view I still have two weeks time to return 24-70 back and/or replace it with 24mm 1.4 just paying price difference.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>So what are you waiting for? Get it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both the 24/1.4 and 24-70, and while the 24/1.4 offers wonderful image quality even at the widest apertures, I don't recommend selling the 24-70 in order to fund the 24/1.4. I find the 24-70 very good for landscape and general documentary style people photography. If you can't afford both at this time, wait until you do. BTW I often use the 24-70 and 85/1.4 together.</p>

<p>Hi Guys, thanks you all for your points of view.<br>

24mm 1.4 lens is already on its way, will get it in three days! 24-70mm is an awesome lens and I think I'll by it once over again, as soon as I have available funds. But I think I may be more happy waiting for it that waiting for the prime.<br>

Thanks again, Eugene</p>

<p>hmm, i'm kind of in the midst of a NAS binge myself, and i love fast primes and shallow DoF--i picked up the sigma 50/1.4 purely on the basis of its "king of bokeh" rep--but so far i have resisted the siren call of the 24/1.4 AF-S.i did pick up the 24-70 and i tend to agree with Ellis here: keep it for a year and sell it at 80-85% of the cost in a year if you find you don't like it. in some ways the 24-70 is kind of a boring lens because it's just so basic. it's like a staple food or something. but the question is, could you live without it? after just two weeks ownership, there's just no way to know for sure.</p>

<p>you do have a lot of qualified criteria which suggests you would be a good candidate for the 24/1.4, which is sharper and faster with less distortion at 24mm. but with the D700, you have a lot of latitude in ISO, so 2.8 doesnt seem quite so limiting. what might be limiting for urban/street shooting is the size/weight of the 24-70. it's not exactly inobtrusive.</p>

<p>let me make a suggestion: try shooting the 24-70 just at 40mm as if it were a prime. according to photozone, that's the resolution sweet spot at all apertures. you need to give yourself some alone time with the 24-70 and really assess its capabilities before you move on.</p>

<p>then again, if budget isn't a concern, why not just get both? if, after a year, you find you no longer have a use for the 24-70, sell it and get an 85/1.4 AF-S.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>About six months after I picked up my 24-70, I sold my 24, and a 28 2.8. The 24-70 is just that good. I have not missed the primes for a minute.....</p>

<p>Now that the 24mm f1.4 has dipped below $2000 (Amazon) I'm guessing that plenty of people will be faced with a very similar choice, as am I. However, tempting as the prime is, I'm still tending towards the zoom for its flexibility</p>