Nikon 10-24mm + 24-70mm or only the 70-200mm?

<p>Hi. I have the choice of buying the 10-24mm and the 24-70mm or only the 70-200mm. <br>

It will be mounted on a Nikon D7000. <br>

What is the better choice?</p>

<p>I'm pretty new to photography. So i don't reeaally know what i like to shoot yet. But i have found a special interrest in shooting landscapes. and portraits are also nice. But wildlife seems very interesting to shoot, and i also do some city and candid street shots in low light. But i don't really know what to get really. What is the better choice for me?</p>

<p>Those are drastically different lenses for totally different purposes, and they are expensive, higher-end ones. Clearly you are not sure what you need. Unless you are wealthy so that money is completely a non-issue, I think you are better off waiting until you know what you need.</p>

<p>Do you already have something like a 16-85mm DX AF-S? Start shooting a little more and develop your interest.</p>

<p>My ideaal set-up for DX was for years: Sigma 10-20, Nikkor 17-55 and a Nikkor 80-200 and later a 70-200. Before I had this set-up I had the same with a 28-70 instead of the 17-55 and I had to change often between the 10-20 and 28-70, when I replaced the 28-70 with a 17-55 I nearly had to change between the lenses(only for the extreme UW) and I never missed the 15(25)mm.</p>

<p>A D7000 has an APS-C size sensor, which is smaller than the original 35mm film/full frame sensor, so understand that your lens choices are not going to show you the same amount of the image. Basically, if you have a 24mm designated lens being used on a D7000, it is going to show what a 36mm lens would on a full frame camera like the D700 or D3 series (you multiply the lens focal length by 1.5). Or to think of it another way, if you want to get what you see with a 24mm on a full frame camera, you need to use a 16mm lens on the D7000/APS-C camera.</p>

<p>Traditionally the 24-70 and 70-200 were the preferred focal lengths that covered wide angle to telephoto extremely well. On an D7000/APS-C, 17-50 and 50-135 (or 150) lenses will show pretty much the same size image. </p>

<p>You may want to consider more cost effective lenses made specifically for APS-C cameras like the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 , Tamron 17-50 VC f/2.8, Sigma 17-50 OS f/2.8, along with a Sigma 50-150 OS f/28 or Tokina 16-135 f/28, and for extra wide angle, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Just my opinion.</p>

<p>I'm with Shun - that's a lot of money to spend on completely different options. It's like learning to drive, then immediately buying a Lamborghini because you heard they're good; they <i>are</i> good, but they're also no use if you wanted a car so you can take your four kids to school. Start with something cheap - used right, most lenses are pretty good. Worry about paying for lenses that can be used in more extreme circumstances (which mostly means wider apertures and very short or very long lenses) when you know where a cheap kit lens is limiting you.<br />

<br />

Landscapes, portraits, wildlife and street photography all have different demands. Landscapes can often live with small apertures (unless you want a shallow depth of field for creative reasons) and a tripod, and may mean a moderate wide angle is good. Portraits - at least, conventional ones - tend to need a lens between about 60 and 85mm and a fast aperture to lose the background; a fast prime may do significantly better than a zoom here. Wildlife often needs the longest lens you can get, depending on the wildlife; that can be a 200-400 f/4 zoom or a 400mm+ prime - or, more affordably, an 80-400, a 70-300 or a 300mm f/4 prime. Street photography benefits from a fastish (at low light) and smallish wide lens, possibly something like a 35mm f/1.4. None of these fields are perfectly suited to the 24-70 or 70-200, and you have to be sure before getting a 10-24, because the wideness takes some getting used to. Not that you can't take good photos in any of these categories with the lenses you mention, I'm just pointing out that - for the money you're spending - you may not be getting the "ultimate system" that you expect.<br />

<br />

So get a cheap lens which won't do absolutely everything you need. Then add lenses once you know where you're lacking. I'm still building my Nikon system when I need new capabilities, fourteen lenses in.</p>

 

<blockquote>A D7000 has an APS-C size sensor, which is smaller than the original 35mm film/full frame sensor, so understand that your lens choices are not going to show you the same amount of the image.</blockquote>

 

<p>Michael - true, but since Maximilian is "quite new to photography", I doubt he has any expectations of what field of view these focal lengths provide on a full frame camera. Let's not introduce more confusion? :-) I agree, though, that with the 24-70 and (less so) 70-200 you're partly paying a lot of money for a lens that will cover a larger sensor than the one in a D7000, and there's something to be said for saving some money by looking at DX lenses, where their quality holds up. Then again, there's also something to be said for saving money by not buying lenses until you know what you want from them!</p>

<p>thanks for the replies. <br>

But look. I live in Norway. and everything here is REALLY expensive. The lenses cost almost the double here then they do in USA. And in October, i'm visiting NY city for 5 days. And then i'm going to B&H photo to buy some gear because it's much cheaper. I don't really have much time then to find out what i really want to shoot and what i need. so that's why i'm asking. I know about the DX cropping by 1.5. I have read 3 books about photography from Scott Kelby. and i watch videos on youtube of photography daily. So i acutally know quite a bit about photography. But the issue is. I'm not going back to the states before in probably several years or such. and i don't wanna be stuck with my kit lens for ever when i can save my money on buying some lenses in the states. that's why i'm asking.</p>

<p>If you expect that you'll be sticking with the DX format, I would give serious thought to the 17-55/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. Skip the (very nice, but not perfect for DX) 24-70.<br /><br />You didn't answer Shun's very important question. What lens(es) do you have now? Presuming you have one of the kit zooms, you can use that to help you understand what sort of focal lengths actually appeal to you. THEN you can decide which better-quality, or faster lens(es) in that range make sense. <br /><br />Wildlife? Are we talking about rabbits from three meters, elk from 200 meters, or birds in flight? You may find that the 200mm end of the 70-200 you mentioned is still much too short for that sort of work. You really do need to concentrate on what you can achieve at each focal length, and try to prioritize.</p>

<p>I live in Norway too and despite the money you'll save in the US my advice is to first find out out what you like shooting. If you want lenses for landscape and general photography, go with 10-24 and 17-55. If you want to shoot wildlife and/or sports buy a 70-200. I'd drop the 24-70 on DX unless you specifically need that focal length.</p>

<p>When you shoot with your kit lens (and we don't know what that is), do you wish you could go wider or longer? Which do you wish for more? That will help answer the question.</p>

<p>The 10-24 is very wide (at the wide end) and believe it or not, those really wide angles are NOT the best for landscape. They just lead to boring cluttered photos at that point.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is not, for most people, the best "normal" lens for DX, as you will likely be very often wishing you could go just a touch wider. The 17-55 f2.8 is a better choice for DX for almost all of us I expect.</p>

<p>the 70-200 length is stellar on DX if you need a telephoto.</p>

<p>What about a 16-85 VR/70-200 VR combo? (and a nice tripod)</p>

<p>16-85 and a 70-200mm is too expensive. and i already have a tripod :D. </p>

<p>I'm using a 18-105 kit lens. And my father will maby buy the D4 when it comes out because his company can cover it for him. So FX can be within my range :D. <br>

And if i buy the 70-200mm, then i'll also buy a 2x teleconverter. Then i'll get a 600mm 5.6 which is probably enough for wildlife. </p>

<p>B&H (and Adorama) are both closed on Friday afternoons and all day Saturdays. In October they'll be close for a few days for Succos. Please check this schedule: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/HoursOfOperation.jsp">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/HoursOfOperation.jsp</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But look. I live in Norway. and everything here is REALLY expensive. The lenses cost almost the double here then they do in USA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well. Unless you are planning to smuggle those lenses home on some whaler you`ll probably have to pay customs and VAT in Norway.</p>

 

<p>Yeah, i saw that. I hope they're not closed all the days that i'm there. But it looks like they're just closed on 2 of the days.</p>

<p>Well. Unless you are planning to smuggle those lenses home on some whaler you`ll probably have to pay customs and VAT in Norway.</p>

<p>I can shop for 12k norwegian krones, because i'm traveling with my father too. But that limit will probably be blown :P. But my father says that he's never gotten catched. and i don't know how the airport guys would find out that i have bought for more then i can. They don't check recipes and stuff. So that's not a problem for me.</p>

<p>I think the choice is easy, the 70-200 and 50mm F1.4, they are the lenses that will grow with you. If you have a child, you'll be very happy for that setup. Need to take pictures of events, you'll be happy again with the above. Wildlife, again. <br /><br />However, if you plan on using this setup for pictures of New York City, that's probably the worst setup for close scenery like NYC you'll probably be frustrated during this trip of not having anything to go wider, and I'm not sure how safe you'll feel pulling out a 70-200 to take pictures in NY as well, it's huge and brings attention to you for sure. Pick yourself up a camera bag like a Domke F-5XC or Domke F-10, it's discrete so one is unlikely to guess it's a camera bag when not in use and comfortable.</p>

<p>i would get the 70-200II (or maybe a used 70-200 I). reason being, you won't ever outgrow it, even if you move to FX, and there really aren't too many cheaper options, except for the 80-200, which lacks AF-S and VR. OTOH, with a DX body, there's no need to get the 10-24/24-70 combo. for UWA, a tokina 12-24/4 offers bang for the buck and excellent IQ. and i can also recommend the tamron 17-50/2.8 and the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS.</p>

<p>if you have an 18-105, you will at least be covered under 70mm, you just wont have 2.8.</p>

<p>I think I have the Domke F-803 to tote around town without looking too "photographer". I use it the most for my camera equipment (I also have 2 backpacks which I now never use).</p>

<p>The shoulder strap doesn't have latches that can be undone by a thief, you can pick it up by the handle on top and if you forgot to snap the lid closed it's not going to spill. It's discrete, light, portable, convenient, and comfortable. And if it is the one I have, is just big enough to fit a DSLR + 70-200 combo. The flap on top is also waterproof. I couldn't edit my post to remove the F-5XC & F-10, and it looks like Eric snuck in before I could finish this :)</p>

<p>Hi again. Thank you so much for all your replies! It has helped me make my desicion.<br>

When my father returns from his job trip in Wien. I'll have a brand-spanking new 50mm 1.8. So i'm not stuck with the 5,6 aperture anymore :)<br>

And then when i'm in NY, i'll buy the 70-200mm. We're going to the zoo in Bronx i think. And then i can get some reeally nice shots of some wildlife. I thought about getting a lowepro flipside 300 backpack. It's big enough to fit my D7000 with a mb-d11 grip with the 70-200mm mounted. And it has enough room for my 50mm 1.8 and my 18-105 kit lens. Is there a problem to walk around with a camera bag in New York with a 70-200mm too? Do they think i'm papparazi or something then or what? :P</p>

Max, just use the same care that you would exercise in London, Paris, Berlin, or any other large city. If you are in

populated areas in daylight you shouldnt have to worry about being robbed. Deserted areas or late at night or very

early morning could be a problem. People can become angry if you take their photo or get in their way, so be polite

and respectful, and you should be okay. Watch your gear very closely on the subway and in stations, I would

recommend that you keep it in your bag on subways, busses, and stations.

<p>should be cool for the zoo, but i dont really recommend the 70-200 as a street photography lens. the 18-105 and the 50 should do just fine in that regard. NYC is full of hustlers, so check your surroundings.</p>

 

<p>Hmm... The 80-200 seems to have been dismissed pretty quickly, but for the cost savings over the 70-200 (especially a new VR II) you could get a tamron 17-50 2.8 AND something like a tokina 11-16 or 12-24... If you're looking for a setup that you can use in several different scenarios over the next few years, that may be more flexible for you...</p>

<p>Are you looking at used lenses at all?</p>

<p>For wildlife I'd really suggest Nikons 17-55 f2.8 and 70-300mm VR, or the Nikon 300mm f4 AFS + TC-14E. The 70-200mm is really too short for most kinds of wildlife. I guess you could add a TC-17E though and get a 340mm equivalent out of it. You will stretch you money a lot further by getting the 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 (version 1) rather than the version 2. You won't see a difference on your camera, so why pay more? I think all in all a Nikoin 17-55mm f2.8 would be a first priority for what you want, and maybe a 70-300mm f2.8 for wildlife? It is a good lens. Remember that when you read from many websites sponsored by Nikon, they are trying to get you to buy expensive stuff that you might not really need for what you do. I read these posts with great interest from Europeans who are constantly trying to get around their toxic tax rates on photo gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>a 17-55 for wildlife, kent? c'mon now, what are you shooting, sleeping kittens at 3 meters? first of all, if you're not shooting pro events, a 17-55 arguably offers less practical advantages than either of the stabilized 3rd party options for casual shooters. second of all, the great plus of the 70-200 is its versatility. it's a good enough zoom to mean you dont need separate portrait and sports lenses. not practical for street, but great for just about everything else. third, the 70-300s are good values for the money but if you could only have one killer lens for a nikon camera, the 70-200 would be right up there. nothing wrong with assembling a good kit, especially since the OP will have access to an FX camera and a 500mm. plus it's easier to add a $500 lens down the line than a $2000 (or $1500) one.</p>

<p>I don't buy used lenses. You don't save that much on it. And when they're used. There's probably something wrong with them. I'll most likely never buy a 500mm lens. That's really to expensive. I looked at the 17-55 and you know. I won't buy DX lenses. Because IF i get the D4. Then what? If i would buy a midrange zoom i'd go for the 24-70mm. <br>

Does anyone here have the 70-200mm?</p>