I want to buy a lense plz help

Hello every body I just switched to full fram body I bought d600 ((i have d7000 also))I have some f lens :

35 .. 1.8 g

50.1.8 g

105 2.8 g

24-70 normal one 3.5-4.5

Im shooting my daughter @ school ((play ground)) and some of my friend wedding im thinking about

Selling the 24-70 ((the kit lens)) and buy the 24-70 2.8 .. or keep that one and buy the 70-200 ..and how about the 24-120

Any idea

I want the sharpest lens thats why I want to stay with nikor

I only can buy one lens

<p>Not saying this applies to you, but I always get a kick out of those asking for the "sharpest lens," but it turns out they never use a tripod. Those who are REALLY concerned with sharpness will be using a tripod. But anyway, on to your case. I'd suggest the Nikon 24-120 VR. It's a great zoom range, the VR works, and it's much more compact and lighter than the 24-70mm. BTW, it's no longer true that Nikon lenses are necessarily the sharpest. Some of the new Sigmas are taking that title. You would need to be using a tripod to see the difference though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Thanks kent well to be honest im using tripod &mono but believe me I tryed to read about lenses review it make me

going crazy some say for example 24-120 they say this lens sharp @ the center and a little bit soft at the corner so im

kind lost :( I just want to ask you guys who r taking photos alot and most of u guys r professionals . U used most of the

lenses

I cant afford to buy more then one lens at this time

I meant 24-85 3.5-4.5 g that what I have now

Which 24-85? The one that comes with the D600? In what ways is that not cutting it for you?

Yeah its the kit lens .. Im thinking about buying new lens and im thinking about

24-70 2.8

24-120 4

70-200 2.8

<p>I thought about it lately and just my 2c if that counts any....<br /> What do you need and what do you want?</p>

<p>Both those lenses are not cheap and like you say just (1). Like someone say it is subjective, I think the 24-70 is 6yrs old now and history tells us maybe in a few yrs it may get updated and then yet .. something better will eventually come along and again and again ... Like someone said about Sigma, are you just dead set on Nikon only? Funny that, b/c I was speaking to someone from Asia and he said that after I mentioned I got a Tamron and it was so much cheaper. He said that it's face value, pro's use OEM b/c of how customers perceive them, dunno how true though ...</p>

<p>Well basically you have no telephoto why not keep the kit and get the tele then, just a thought. Or maybe if you can stomach it get some older versions so you can have both. I think it just depends how you wanna take this hobby of yours .... For me I am quite harsh of myself. I see other people at my club who have been shortlisted or won categories, v cheap gear - entry SLRs kit. And she's never used a film camera seriously, and she's in her near 70s.</p>

<p>What is the problem you have with the 24-85VR?<br>

Buying a new lens is all nice but if you have no problem with your current lenses, it is wasting money. And if you cannot tell us whether you actually need a 24-70 or a 70-200, how can we tell you what you need? So, take a step back and first decide WHY you want to replace the 24-85VR. What are the things you do not like about it? Without understanding that, it is really impossible to say whether a f/2.8 lens is a solution, or a lens with more range as the 24-120VR, or whether you should look at a telelens.<br>

As it is now, it seems you feel you must spend a lot of money on the "sharpest" zoom, and then your photos will be better. It doesn't work like that. Lenses are tools with specific pros and cons, and if you do not understand what you need, you'll end up spending a LOT of money on very heavy and large lenses that stay at home because they're too heavy and too large.... So, first define what you need, then search the lens that fulfills those needs best.<br>

Plus, worth repeating because it is simply true:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon lenses are necessarily the sharpest. Some of the new Sigmas are taking that title.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Don't make a shortlist of lenses without studying properly what Tamron, Tokina and Sigma have on offer. You could end spending a lot for an inferior Nikon.</p>

<p>How are you using these photos? If you don't print above 8 x 10, you'll never see the difference in sharpness. Smart post-processing and great camera technique are far more important. No way would I trade the kit lens for the 24-120. It's not much of an upgrade.</p>

<p>And the 24-70 is wonderful, but make sure you can handle all that weight. For me, I wouldn't want it.</p>

Thank u guys .. u helped alot

The reason why I want to buy new lens im looking for fast action lens which will help me shoot indoor events with low

light ... the prim lens are fine but im looking for somthing faster in focus one of my friend told me the 24-70 and 70-200

they r too fast in focusing ..

<p>The differences between modern lenses isn't all that great, maybe not even perceivable. If your present lens will focus fast enough, I'd keep it and just add a 70-200mm f4. This stuff gets very expensive very quickly and you can't always see any difference. For low light fast focus, you might have been better off with a D7100. It has noticeably faster focus in low light than the D600, especially in low light.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...The reason why I want to buy new lens im looking for fast action lens which will help me shoot indoor events with low light...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just skip right to an f2.8 zoom then.</p>

<p>I'm intriqued by the possibility, though of the new Sigma "normal zoom" that's f1.8 for DX, though. That might be a heck of an indoor lens, with a f2.8 tele zoom on a second body.</p>

<p>Yes, those indoor events in low light make a good case for the f/2.8 zooms. Then still remains the question: 24-70, or 70-200? And it still begs the question if one realises how nice a 900gr (24-70) / 1400gr (70-200) lens is to carry around? The f/4 lenses (24-120 or 70-200) may be a tad slower to AF, but they're also a lot more portable.<br>

These are really questions none of us can answer for you - you need to decide for yourself.</p>

<p>One of the best bits of advice I got from this forum when setting up my new D800 was AF Nikkor 180/2.8 nice price fabulous lens.</p>

Thank u guys I decided to slow down and use the camrra with kit lens and with my primes I have also my good speed

lights two of sb910

<blockquote>

<p>im looking for fast action lens which will help me shoot indoor events with low light ... the prim lens are fine but im looking for somthing faster in focus one of my friend told me the 24-70 and 70-200 they r too fast in focusing ..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>too fast in focusing? never. maybe you meant to say "near-instantaneous"*</p>

<p>[*in decent light w/contrasty subjects and edges the AF module can lock on to.]</p>

<p>not sure what to say here. yes, those lenses are quite sharp and quite fast to focus. yes, they are also expensive. so depends on budget, as usual. maybe get the tele first as that's your biggest need. in the tele range, the 70-200 VRII is THE lens to get. if you are even thinking about shooting indoor events, i wouldnt bother with the 24-120.</p>