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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by eugene_breus, Dec 14, 2010.

  1. Hi Guys, I hope to hear your logical and practical opinions on my situation.
    I have D700 and 50mm 1.4G and 24-70mm 2.8
    I've bought 24-70mm lens just about 2 weeks ago.
    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
    I found I mostly use either 24mm end or 70mm end,
    while shooting 24mm mostly at 2.8 in low light.
    What I'd like to shoot mostly is in low light urban, indoors, documentary, a bit of landcapes, some fishing catches etc..
    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.
    I don't shoot actions/wedding/people in studio and don't want to use flash & tripods at least for now.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    So I have to choose:
    1) To keep 24-70mm and to play with it for a year or so.
    And then if I use 24mm mainly to sell the lens and to buy 24mm 1.4,
    or to find that 2.8mm is absolutely enough and I mainly use longer end.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Straight away, the budget is not the problem and I Don't concider any other alternatives rather these two lenses.
    Thanks a lot in advance for your pros and cons
     
  2. Option 1. But the 24mm f/1.4G Nikkor is a fantastic lens.
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    Or you start creating nice images with the equipment you already own.
     
  4. bms

    bms

    Agree with Ellis. You will probably be able to recoup most the the purchase price even after 1year.
     
  5. Some thoughts:
    • 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.
    • 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 ("actions/wedding/people... ").
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
     
  6. You have only had it 2 weeks for goodness' sake. Give it at least six months.
     
  7. 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...
     
  8. "However I really miss that narrow depth of field of 1.4 and a handheld shooting in a nearly darkness." You answered your own question.
     
  9. Mmm, clearly symptoms of NAS,, ;-)
    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. :)
    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 ..
    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
     
    • I found I mostly use either 24mm end or 70mm end, while shooting 24mm mostly at 2.8 in low light.
    • 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.
    • However I really miss that narrow depth of field of 1.4 and a handheld shooting in a nearly darkness.
    • 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.
    • I was dreaming of 24mm 1.4 once it's been released and first examples were posted.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    So what are you waiting for? Get it.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Hi Guys, thanks you all for your points of view.
    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.
    Thanks again, Eugene
     
  12. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  13. 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.....
     
  14. 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
     

Share This Page