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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by maximilian_gajek, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. Hi. I have the choice of buying the 10-24mm and the 24-70mm or only the 70-200mm.
    It will be mounted on a Nikon D7000.
    What is the better choice?
    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?
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    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.
    Do you already have something like a 16-85mm DX AF-S? Start shooting a little more and develop your interest.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
    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.
    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.
    Just my opinion.
     
  5. 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 are 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.

    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.

    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.
    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.​
    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!
     
  6. thanks for the replies.
    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.
     
  7. 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.

    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.

    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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
    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.
    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.
    the 70-200 length is stellar on DX if you need a telephoto.
    What about a 16-85 VR/70-200 VR combo? (and a nice tripod)
     
  10. 16-85 and a 70-200mm is too expensive. and i already have a tripod :D.
     
  11. 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.
    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.
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  13. But look. I live in Norway. and everything here is REALLY expensive. The lenses cost almost the double here then they do in USA.​
    Well. Unless you are planning to smuggle those lenses home on some whaler you`ll probably have to pay customs and VAT in Norway.
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. Well. Unless you are planning to smuggle those lenses home on some whaler you`ll probably have to pay customs and VAT in Norway.
    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.
     
  16. 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.

    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.
     
  17. 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.
    if you have an 18-105, you will at least be covered under 70mm, you just wont have 2.8.
     
  18. 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).
    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 :)
     
  19. Hi again. Thank you so much for all your replies! It has helped me make my desicion.
    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 :)
    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
     
  20. 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.
     
  21. 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.
     
  22. 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...
    Are you looking at used lenses at all?
     
  23. 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.
    Kent in SD
     
  24. 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.
     
  25. 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.
    Does anyone here have the 70-200mm?
     
  26. And don't get me wrong. But i really want a sexy lens. That looks damn good on my d-slr. The 18-200mm is not one of those ;P But i'd go for the 70-300mm if i had a 24-70mm probably. I just want the 2.8 aperture.
     
  27. oh shait. I wrote something like this: ''then i'll have a 600mm 5.6 which is probably good enough for wildlife'' Haha. I meant if i get the 70-200mm + a 2x teleconverter. I'll have 600mm reach with 5,6 aperture ^^
     
  28. But many of the reviewers on B&H say they have the 24-70mm on a DX body and they say it works great. How could 10-24mm + 24-70mm not be ideal`?
     
  29. Because IF i get the D4. Then what?
    If you care about lens prices, be careful with the D4 ;)
    ''then i'll have a 600mm 5.6 which is probably good enough for wildlife'' Haha. I meant if i get the 70-200mm + a 2x teleconverter. I'll have 600mm reach with 5,6 aperture ^^
    Then you wanted to mean you`ll have a 400mm reach... at most. Not 600.
    But many of the reviewers on B&H say they have the 24-70mm on a DX body and they say it works great. How could 10-24mm + 24-70mm not be ideal`?
    Because the focal lenght could not be optimal for the expected function on that format (the 10-24 is ok on DX, the 24-70 could be a bit long, in current standards). You can use longer skis, longer pants, they are great... you`ll go downhill faster, or have a loose and confortable fit. But this are not recommended, obviously.
    Does anyone here have the 70-200mm?
    Yes; a very nice (big, heavy) lens. There are two versions; VRI and VRII.
     
  30. 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.​
    This is totally not true (at least in the US -- which is good news, imho). Half my lenses were purchased used, and they are just as well-functioning as the ones I bought new. And in the case of the ones I bought, I saved a LOT on them.
    But many of the reviewers on B&H say they have the 24-70mm on a DX body and they say it works great. How could 10-24mm + 24-70mm not be ideal`?​
    If you're shooting on DX and your "walk-around" zoom is a 24-70 f2.8 (although that's too big for walk-around for me) every time you want to go wider than 35mm equivalent of 36mm field of view, you have to change lenses... outside... in the wind... or whatever. That would drive me crazy, as I often go back and forth between just wider than that or just longer. When I want a "standard zoom" on my camera, on DX I want 16/17/18 - 50/55/70 or so. If it was FX then the 24-70 would make sense, although it's still too big for me to carry around the way I shoot. ymmv. Not EVERYBODY feels this way, but I'll bet you that MOST DX shooters want and use a 16/17/18 - 50/55/70 lens as their standard zoom, especially those that want to shoot the variety of things that you do.
    And don't get me wrong. But i really want a sexy lens. That looks damn good on my d-slr.​
    Sorry, Maximilian, this just seems silly to me. But to each their own.
     
  31. If i have 200mm on DX it will be 300mm because of the 1,5 crop. And 300mm times 2 is 600mm. That's why i'm going to have 600mm reach when i'm still on DX that is. Switching lenses does seem kinda stressy. But not that big of a problem. I could like take some wide shots with the UWA first. And then i could throw on the 24-70mm and just take photos with that one. But i don't know what to get yet. I hope i'll figure out before i'm going to NY.
     
  32. If i have 200mm on DX it will be 300mm because of the 1,5 crop. And 300mm times 2 is 600mm. That's why i'm going to have 600mm reach when i'm still on DX that is.
    A 200mm lens is 200mm -or 300mm with a 2X teleconverter-, whatever the format or cropping factor... but I understand your point, you`re right.
    BTW, if you want something really sexy, the 200/2VR-VRII.
     
  33. It all depends on what works for you. Personally I use 28mm often so it is a good place for me to begin in the FX format. I also have a 35mm prime when I go "light". For landscape you already have a good range. For wildlife I would want something longer than 200mm. I would not use a 2x on a 70-200mm but I do use a 1.4 with my 300mm f4. I use a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 as a normal zoom, the Nikkor 24-70mm is just to heavy and large for me. IMHO you will be better off getting lens that meet your needs in DX and not worry to much about a future FX unless it is very soon.
     
  34. Hi, as a DX shooter here's my thoughts.
    First, don't get hung up on the kit, it does help having a wide variety but it's best to do things in a considered manner. Given your cost concerns and an approaching chance to 'fix it' I can understand your sense of urgency however this isn't something to get emotional about...this is too important.

    12k Krone (2130ish USD, 1350 UK Pound) is not a shabby amount of money. Nikon lenses yes 1st Choice but you'll not have much to show for your money. I would imagine UK prices are a little cheaper than Norway but I've not done a comparison Norway, USA, UK so excuse me if I err here. Based on your budget and the feel of what you are looking to achieve my thoughts are go Sigma. There are a few limitations with the lenses but given the scope you will have focally I'd walk past those I did, never had an issue!

    Looking at the B&H site:
    50-500mm $1,659.00 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682764-USA/Sigma_738101_50_500mm_f_4_5_6_3_DG_OS.html
    150-500mm $1,069.00 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549256-REG/Sigma_737306_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html
    or save a few $$$
    120-400mm $999.00 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549248-REG/Sigma_728306_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_DG_OS.html
    Those give you a good choice for top end of the Focal lengths. Leaves us $471 - $1131 depending what you go for...50-500 could kill your budget though!

    10-24mm $479.00 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381611-REG/Sigma_201306_10_20mm_f_4_5_6D_EX_DC.html Though they have another Nikon mount for $649.00 I'd check with them...if you can guarantee the cheaper one will be there I'd go for it.
    Possibly leaves $625 to $482. New Bag or another smaller lens, skylight filters to protect the fronts of your new weapons. If the Massive focal length just isn't your thing perhaps a smaller zoom and look at a Prime lens. the 50mm 1.4 (did I read?) is a good start. 2x conversion you'll loose 2(?) stops so forget it on the 70-200 (+2x looking at F6.3-7.1 poss 8 as a minimum). If Wildlife (even Zoo specimens) is a main subject for you I'd put my money here and look at the Zooms above.
    Also with your Dad going FX I'd check the lenses I was buying are FX compatible (think the Sigma stuff is?) You may find yourself moving FX too and it would be a shame to have spent all that money only to find you needed to replace to get the full 35mm frame. Besides means you can share with your Dad!
    As example I have the D40x, it came with 18-55mm & 55-200mm kit lenses. Makes a great travelling set (I have an eye on a Nikon 18-200 as I find it a pain changing lenses too)
    I've added (all sigma) 10-20mm (great for landscapes, tight shots and crowds), 150mm Macro (Natural History but does as a good lens for Portraiture...though 85mm would be better) 50-500mm Tele Zoom (Again bought for Natural History but is great for bringing in distant subjects and at the focal lengths it offers a very versatile lens) A 500mm on a good day f6.3 for the money you'll struggle to better it. (I'm going to get told on this I fear?)


    The main thing is use what you have, Challenge yourself...have a look at My stuff if you want an idea of what the above can offer I've put the kit details into the majority of my Dslr stuff. I used to shoot film 35mm, then started using 35mm film & digital compacts...back to Dslr after quite a while. I really do not notice the difference when shooting in Field of view terms though the lens focal lengths and what I see sometimes have me confused. Like 500mm is actually 750mm in 35mm terms still find myself thinking 800mm fixed (DX=1200...mind boggling!)
    Have you considered used/refurbished? With buying in the USA, unless there is an international Warranty you'll not be covered in Norway (?right?) If you do buy new ditch the box (case in your suite case) Use the lenses and make them look like your regular kit...nobody will bat an eye. Mail the Warranty card & paper work home...if they do decide to search those are enough for them to deduce Import is due. (A family experience with UK customs!) It's unlikely they will notice if it's in a regular camera bag. (Watch hand luggage sizes and check for weight restrictions...50-500, 150-500 or even the 120-400 do weigh a few kg.) Can recommend Lowepro Primus AW (http://products.lowepro.com/product/Primus-AW,1995,14.htm) use it on all my trips. Body + 50-500. 10-20mm & 18-55mm easily space on top for small toilet bag, change of clothes and travel docs...plus space for a netbook & HDD for downloading cards and backing up.
    Hope you have a great trip, happy shopping and if you want some shooting & travel tips for NY mail me. I'm sure there are plenty people based in NY who could also help too! It's a big place so a schedule would not go wrong if you want to make the most! I had 4 days and barely scraped the surface!
    You'll enjoy it's a great city for photography! Next year...I'll be back for more!!
    Regards
    Finlay
     
  35. Max, buy a cheap Sigma 18-200 zoom. Shoot it a lot before you go to the US. Examine your EXIF data and then make a purchase decision. I also live outside the US and face the same dilemma. The Sig-ster helped me out a lot
     
  36. Maximilian, I am not a professional but if I had the money right now to buy those lenses ( 10-24, 24-70 and 70-200 ) I would buy them with not hesitation at all, and let me tell you, I do have only one camera, the D300 ( DX ). Honestly, the best you can do is to invest in very good lenses regardless of the cropping issue, and this is my personal opinion. I see that you are new to photography. When you are new, you practically don't know your photography tendency; the only way to find out is to start exploring, using ultra-wide, middle range and zoom lenses, so very soon, you will know what your preference is and you will probably will stick to that tendency, but the question is, how will you find out if you never explored those options? If at the end you find out you don't like landscaping, then you can sell the 10-24 and I am very sure you will find somebody to pay for that lens, so you will not loose that much.
    There are several options that you can go for about lenses, but again, if you want the best on your camera, you have it on those lenses and if money is not an issue, I repeat, if money is not an issue at all, go for and don't look back. As you said, perhaps in the future, you can move to a FX camera and those lenses will work much better. You are now like a general medical doctor who still does not know what specialization to go for, so you need to explore options and having those lenses will help you to decide. If money is not an issue, I would buy them. Those are the best in the market now. If you want to save some money but give up on quality, then go for other options recommended above. Those lenses are a dream and anybody with full pocket, would buy them. Having them will let you move to FX someday and you would not have the need to invest on lenses again. Go for buddy and happing shooting.
     
  37. Hi again. Thanks for all your replies, i really apreciate it.
    I can't buy the 10-24mm, the 24-70 and the 70-200mm. Money is an issue to some degree. i can only buy the 10-24mm + 24-70mm or only the 70-200mm. Since the 70-200mm is much more expensive. I'll probably do a lot of shooting before i head to NY to find out what focal length i prefer using. This is not easy :/
     
  38. not easy but fun taking photos to find out ;-)
     
  39. Hi, I just checked my picture information on most of my pics. And most of the shots were either between 24-70mm or at 105mm. Some landscape shots were at 18mm. But my best landscape shots were actually at 24mm. And the best pics overall were between 24-70mm. So for me, it kinda makes sense to buy the 24-70mm.
     
  40. Well said Maurice, trouble is if he goes Nikon and I don't think anybody will argue that is the 1st Choice, Maximilian's choices are limited in terms of cost. Going over to Sigma lets him open up his choice...looking at the Nikon lenses again it is do-able there too within budget but a compromise has to be made on lens speed.

    I kind of missed the original question with my ramblings.
    First lets assume at today's rate 12K krone is giving us $2130 (conservative estimate)

    24-70mm $1,699.00 + 10-24mm $889.95 cracks the budget at $2558.95
    70-200mm $2,179.00 (budget is needing a good Krone/Dollar conversion rate)
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html
    As an alternative to the 70-200mm how about the 80-200mm $1,119.00
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html
    And go 10-24mm + 80-200mm ?
    Gives Maximilian: 10-24mm, 50mm, 18-105mm, 80-200mm a fair bit of overlap but affordable and keeps him in the Nikon stable. This gets him pretty much end to end coverage from wide angle to telephoto. Next would be a longer zoom or a prime.
    Faced with this dilemma and absolutely staying Nikon 70-200mm what a lens!

    I've had shots of Nikon lenses in the range of the ones I have. F stops are a bit slower on the Sigma but over all from an enthusiasts point of view negligible optical difference...now, if I were to go high end focal length I am sure I would notice especially in marginal lighting.

    I bought over a two year period to give me a variety of lenses that would allow me to develop my interest and find the areas of photography that I found interesting and rewarding.
    Looking at this more I'm thinking I need to save and make some purchases next time I go state side. Been an eye opener this...thanks Maximilian. Not sure How I smuggle an F4 600mm lens though! It's not going in my suitcase!
     
  41. But many of the reviewers on B&H say they have the 24-70mm on a DX body and they say it works great.​
    It does work great. While it's a minority view as you can see from the other posts, I always thought 24-70 was an ideal range on a DX camera. To me, that range covers the typical human ways of looking at things—from a bit (but not too much) of a wide perspective at 24mm to homing in for a closer look at something especially interesting, a face maybe, at 70mm. Anything much wider than 24mm starts to exhibit obviously wide angle effects such as elongation of objects near the edges of the frame and extreme near-far perspective, all of which can be fine and dandy but to me get into a completely different way of seeing and is a natural point for switching lenses. And once one starts thinking in a wide-anglish sort of way, 17mm isn't all that wide so you might as well switch to a 10-24 or 12-24 or the like to really open up the wide angle possibilities.
    For a pro-quality Nikkor normal zoom, your choices are the 17-55 or the 24-70, meaning you give up either the obviously wide angle look or the intimate portrait perspective (unless of course you switch lenses). In most cases, I think I'm more likely to encounter a charming human or an adorable puppy dog, for which the 70mm length is great, than a sweeping vista calling for something wider than 24mm on DX. It's a personal thing and as I said not the majority view, but I just wanted to note this alternative way of considering the question.
     
  42. Finlay:
    Haha good luck smugling that 600mm beast ;D
     
  43. Kent: Yes i agree. If i find out that i really need some wide angle for landscape or something like that. I'll probably buy it when i have some money again. But at the moment. I don't see a need for an ultra wide angle lens. Because i have a 18-105. and 18 is more then wide enough for me. And i barerly use the 18mm. Most of my shots are between 24-70mm.
     
  44. For those 105mm shots take a look at the Nikkor P-105/2.5 AI (S) manual focus, dream optics
     
  45. I tried to make a single-camera DX setup with a focal length break at 24mm work for a long time (in my case 12-24 and 24-85) and finally gave up and purchased a 11-16 and 17-55 - not the least to get the constant f/2.8 aperture but mostly to avoid the constant lens changes. With two cameras, there isn't a problem; in fact, I now often have the 12-24 on one camera and an old 28-105 I recently acquired on another - this has worked out great so far (if I do carry two cameras). No regrets on selling the 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S; the 28-105 is a lot more versatile. But I am afraid I am just delaying the what seems inevitable purchase of the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Macro OS....
    It is hard to recommend a lens setup for you - the possibility of needing to use the lenses on both DX and FX complicates things. Despite owning the 11-16, I held on to the 12-24/4 and I use it quite often - thus my recommendation to definitely get the 10-24. If it was me, I would get the Sigma 17-70 instead of the Nikkor 24-70 or I would consider the Nikkor 24-120/4 VR. I can see the versatility of the 24-70 on FX - but it just isn't there on DX.
    You give a broad range of interests - and some mean different things to different people. I could see myself using a 24-70 for portrait - but could as well use any of my 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 17-55, or 80-200 as well. Though it isn't available yet, but I would consider the Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS a very good alternative to the 70-200/2.8 on a DX body - and it would be very versatile for street candid and portrait.
     
  46. Russ mentions the sexiest lens of them all. My AI-converted one costed a whole €170.
    With regards to not getting a DX lens: it makes no sense. Even if you can borrow a FX camera at times, your own camera is in fact a DX camera. So get the proper lens for it. And if you can borrow this "D4" once/if it arrives, can't you borrow a matching FX lens with it as well?
    Get the right lens for the D7000. And given all that's been mentioned so far, I'd say the 16-85VR makes the most sense. Not the sexiest lens, but it does a lot of jobs well (landscapes, I'd say, exceptionally well) and as walk around lens, it has the advantage of not being near one kilo.
    If you really insist now, and use 24mm a lot, and want to go REALLY sexy, then is the AF-S 24mm f/1.4. Right on the edge of your budget, also not the right tool for the job, but oh my....(I'd wish I could afford it).
     
  47. max i have both the 24-70 and the 70-200, used on both DX and FX bodies. the 24-70 does work great on DX, but... a) it's too long. you can miss shots switching between that and an UWA unless you're using two bodies; b) for the money, it's not 3-4x better than the tamron 17-50 which sells for $450 USD and is a better choice for a DX camera since it goes wider; c) the 24-70's weight and bulk are not a plus and negate the compact advantage of a DX body; and d) IMO it doesn't make complete sense to base a lens purchase now around a future purchase of a body which doesn't yet exist.
    IMO, choosing a lens based on "sexiness" sounds like an outttake from the movie "Zoolander." that's because said sexiness doesn't improve performance one iota. there are some sexy lenses which perform well, but it's just silly to make that part of the criteria for lens selection. i'm far too sexy for my camera, but somehow i make it work.
    as far as judging from EXIF data, that's an incomplete analysis in comparison because...the 18-105 only goes to 105mm. it's impossible to know whether you'd use the 70-200 a lot, based on that. in my experience, the 70-200 is worth its weight in gold and is the one to get, if you can only get one great lens. especially since on DX there are less expensive alternatives to the 24-70 which have excellent IQ.
    i know it's hard to make choices purely based on speculation, but there's a lot of real-world experience being offered in this thread, as well as some not-so-well-thought-out comments. but it doesnt help that you're all over the map, max. perhaps the best solution for you would be to rent both the 24-70 and 70-200 and get some practical experience with both lenses before you purchase.
     
  48. It's impossible to rent lenses here in my town in Norway. So can't do that :/
     
  49. Max,
    I feel for you, it took me a long time figure out what I liked in lenses, and in the process I've went through more lenses than a man has a right too (14-24mm F/2.8, 16-35mm F/4 VR, 17-35mm F/2.8, 24-70mm F/2.8, 70-200mm VRII, 2.8, and prime lenses: 15mm F/5.6, 20mm F/4 AIs, 24mm F/1.4G, 28mm F/2.8 AIs, 35mm F/1.4G & 1.8G, 50mm F/1.4G, 85mm F/1.4, G & AIs lenses and the 85mm F/1.8 AF-D, 105mm F/2.8 VR Macro, 105mm F/2 DC, 135mm F/2 DC, 200mm F/4 Macro, 200mm F/2 VR I, 300mm F/4 AFS, and the king of lenses, the 400mm F/2.8 VR and the 2X teleconverter). Over the past year I've owned and\or had at least a month of extensive experience with all above mentioned lenses mostly on 3 D3s bodies and a pair of D7000 bodies. Despite what most people may think I am not rich (and if I was, as you can tell my fortune would converted from paper to glass in a hurry :), but I have steadily purchased (mostly used) and sold (usually at a profit to fund my habit) nearly every lens you see listed above. Over this time period I have consistently honed what I like, and what I don't like, what works for me and what doesn't. My personal discoveries will be of little use to you, but I have found a few basic truths that reflect the majority of lenses.
    First, Tele primes are awesome, especially since I'm addicted to blurry backgrounds, but the truth be told, for most situations, the amazing 70-200 does everything most tele primes will (the 85mm F/1.4G, or the 135mm F/2, or even for that matter the 200mm F/2, unless you are shooting sporting events in the dark and require F/2 with ridiculously fast AF). Yes, the faster primes are a little better, but I rarely notice, the 70-200's AF is much faster than the primes (except the 200mm F/2), and if offers VR which again only the 200mm F/2 offers. I cannot recommend the 70-200mm enough and it has become the default choice for my telephoto needs. One of the reasons its much nicer is because on a prime tele lens it takes a lot of moving to change the frame of a picture, where the zoom is invaluable. With tele lenses a few steps forward or backward does little, on a wide angle lens a few feet can be a huge difference. Unless weight and size are an issue (its quite the monster if you are not used to shooting big lenses) or I need 1.4 or 2 for blur or moving objects in the dark (usually the VR will compensate for the F\stop difference in low light).
    Mid-range. Personally I discovered I don't like 50mm lenses. I know I am in the minority here, that most people will say the nifty fifty is the best thing since sliced bread. That's fine, I think the 50mm is one of the bets lenses you can buy on a budget, and for the most part all of the 50s Nikon makes are excellent lenses. I found that if I needed a 50mm, I would either go for the 35mm or 85mm, I preferred a little compression, or a little wide angle over "normal". That being said, even though I've had extensive experience with the 24-70, It never really interested me because I always found myself being not long enough, or wide enough, but suffering from the horrible distortions at 24mm. That being said, if you buy it, you will find it is one of the highest quality lenses ever, period, at 2.8 it is truly stunning.
    Wide Angles are different than Teles. Where as Tele's I can't walk around with a prime lens, and get composition easily, a few steps with a wide angle lens makes a huge difference, i.e. the zoom isn't as critical anymore. Where as the 70-200 has very little distortion (most tele zooms don't), almost all wide angle lenses have much distortion at the wide end, including 14-24, 16-35, 17-35 (although its the best of the bunch), and the 24-70. They all have horrible distortions at their widest settings, which on the 24-70 was usually where I was shooting. For me personally I settled with the 24mm F/1.4 because it has relatively low distortions, its amazing at F/1.4, and by the time its stopped down 2.8 its on the same level as any other wide angle lens in its range. I do realize that the 24mm is out of your budget, but there are other 24mms, such as Nikon's 24mm F/2.8 which sells for around $350 at B&H, and is an excellent lens although I'll admit not quite as sharp wide open as is the 24-70, but it does offer much less distortions. Also the 20mm F/2.8 is good, but at $500 I would recommend springing for a zoom.
    So my recommendation is to go with the 70-200mm, forget the 2x tele, you won't really be happy with the results, the slower, less accurate AF, the quality loss, and the aperture loss will be a hefty price to pay (I know I've tried), much better to buy a cheap 70-300 non-vr lens for the cost of your tele converter and save $300. You will love the 70-200mm, and on the wide angle end of the spectrum I think if you found yourself shooting at 24mm most, buy a 24mm prime, you'll find a few steps back or forward will get you nearly everything your 70-200 or 50mm F/1.8 can't. One day you may wish to invest in an ultra wide angle, but for now, especially if you shoot at 24mm the most and your new to photography, you will find it perfect for most things you do. And if you were planning on getting a 70-200mm + teleconverter the good news is the 24mm F/2.8 prime costs $200 less than the teleconverter. I must warn you my recommendation is very bias. As I've already mentioned, I'm not a fan of the 50mm range. However, despite my bias, I still urge you to consider the facts, you already have a 50mm F/1.8, which is slightly faster and is smack dab in the middle of the 24mm-70 lens. If you shoot at 24mm all the time, you may find the distortions of the 24-70 annoying. With your 50mm F/1.8, and a few steps forward or backward you can already cover everything the 24-70 does, and if you want a true wide angle the 24mm F/2.8 is good, which you will find will have less distortions albeit I'll admit not quiet as sharp as the 24-70 @ 2.8. Or even the 35mm F/1.8 is excellent although not really that much wider, but it does offer the fastest, most inexpensive wide angle performance of any lens ever. If you do decide the 24-70 is a must have lens over the 70-200mm, you should consider the 16-35mm F/4 VR or the 17-35mm 2.8. Both of theses lenses will work on FX for the future, and even though they aren't as long as the 24-70, they offer equal quality optics, and both are cheaper. Yes the 16-35mm is only F/4, which I never had a problem with, except in really dark places even though the VR would allow for low light shooting the AF would have a harder time than a 2.8 or faster lens, but then again when shooting at 20mm or wider at F/4, focus isn't too hard to manually focus. Personally I settled for the 17-35 over the 14-24 because I use filters often (but aside from that the 14-24mm is the best ultra-ultra wide angle lens period), and over the 16-35mm, because I personally liked the "look" of the 17-35mm, and I personally prefer 2.8 over F/4 with VR, but that's me. If after all this consideration you still feel the 24-70 is perfect for you, then go for it! You will not be disappointed with its quality optics, which are some of the finest I've ever seen, I simply personally feel you'll get more usage out of a tele zoom and a wide angle prime.
    Best of luck to you Max, if I were in New York, I'ld let you play with my 70-200 for a while before you had to decide, but sadly, I would have to travel almost as far as you would from Europe :(.
     
  50. If i find out that i really need some wide angle for landscape or something like that. I'll probably buy it when i have some money again. But at the moment. I don't see a need for an ultra wide angle lens.
    >> Then, If that is the case Maximilian, go for the other two. You will have a great combo and the best lenses on your camera with the 24-70 and 70-200, I have not doubt about it. If I was in your position, that would be my choice and if for any reason you can not buy those 2 at the same time, I would pick the 70-200 and instead the 24-70, I would get the Nikon 16-85 mm VR which I do have, and it is a great lens, the best consumer lens in that range, so you will cover a lot of range with those two and still, the 16-85 is a wide lens at the wide end, wide enough for group of people and landscaping just in case. You are looking at around 3 thousand for those two lenses instead almost 4 for other choice ( 24-70 / 70-200 ).
     
  51. Skyler Proctor:
    Thank you so much for your reply! It was the best one yet. I sadly don't have a FX body. So the 24mm prime will be the same as a 35mm prime. And nikon don't make an affordable 24mm prime as i've seen so far. The only i've seen costed around 2000$. So that's not an option at all. I wish you were in NY the same time as me :(. Would've been great to teast the beasts out. But i can try them in the store after all! But they probably won't let me go out and shoot with it outside ^^. But these lens choices. Damn, it's really stressfull to try to find the right lens. Owning a 70-200mm or a 24-70mm would make me want to go out and shoot all the time, because i know the results will be stunning. The 70-200mm seems like a better choice. Because the 24-70mm is more like the normal dull zoom range. But 200mm opens up a whole new world of photography. I could start going on trips to special places in my country to photograph moskus. or special birds and such. Even birds in the park look interresting with a 200mm. But then there is that 24-70mm which everyone seems to love and praise. And a lot of the reviewers on B&H say they have it on their D7000 (which i have) or on their D300, and they say it works great! But on the other hand. A lot of people on the interrnet say that buying that lens for DX is an overkill, because it's not wide enough. But i think 24mm is more then wide enough. And if i use a 70-200mm i probably have to switch lenses all the time, because i want to take some wide shots too. I have almost no idea of what to get by now.
    Maurice:
    I can't buy the 70-200mm AND the 24-70mm. that's way to pricy for me. And i don't want to buy a 16-85 lens when i already have a 18-105mm which is basicly the same thing. I can only buy the 10-24mm AND the 24-70mm because it's the same price as only the 70-200mm. So i can either buy 10-24 + 24-70 or ONLY the 70-200mm.
     
  52. Max,
    Your welcome. Well, I actually don't have an FX body now either. I told you, I bought and sold a lot of gear, and in order to get the lenses I wanted, I had to sell the FX bodies, but then again for general photography I really don't miss the D3s. I'll admit its the best camera for photography ever, but for the most part, the D7000 is a mini version of the same thing, minus a few features, and in my personal opinion it has better pictures at ISOs 800 and lower (not just more MPs, it has richer colors, more detail, its truly an amazing sensor). Once you get up into the high ISO, the D3s is king bar none, but presently I shoot a 24mm & the 70-200mm on my D7000, and love the results, I could not be happier. Admittedly, there are times I want to go wider, which is what I have the 17-35mm for, but most of the time, 24mm is wide enough, for me. Yes, occasionally I wish I had something crazy wide, like a 11-16, 12-24 or the 10-24mm lenses, and someday I will probably pick one up. As you yourself said you checked your pictures and most of them were at 24mm, that's still on a DX sensor, so if you get a full frame 24mm it will look about the same as the 24mm on your 18-105mm. So if you do most of your shooting around 24mm, then maybe the 24-70 is the ticket for you.
    If you are looking for a cheap wide angle prime, there is the Nikon made 24mm ($350) & 28mm F/2.8 ($280).
    Links below:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/131063-GREY/Nikon_1922_Wide_Angle_AF_Nikkor.html
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66980-GREY/Nikon_1919_Wide_Angle_AF_Nikkor.html
    I know that they only equal a 35mm prime on a cropped sensor, but there is another thing you should consider, the mm of a lens denotes an angle of view, but it mostly denotes a way of seeing things. Meaning there are certain properties that comes from shooting with a 24mm that you can't get even if your shooting a 35mm on a full frame vs a 24mm cropped sensor. Because the lens itself has a "wide angle" property that isn't as present as in a 35mm. My point is, a 24mm is still wide on a DX sensor, and more importantly it still gives that "wide angle" feel. Just food for thought.
    Yes, changing lenses can get a bit annoying, but to honest isn't that why we all bought DSLRs? That way we could choose the right lens for right photograph. Naturally we may have to try all of our lenses until we settle on that "right lens" but that's why we got all of them, otherwise wouldn't it make the most sense to go back to another type of a camera that has an all inclusive lens? One day I hope to buy a second body so I can keep my wide on one and my tele on the other, but as it is I'm happy enough to change the lenses when I need to.
    For what ever its worth, I realized you've got the kit lens, which covers everything from 18-105mm, so you've already got the range of the 24-70 F/2.8 covered. Admittedly, not the same quality level, but almost all lenses including your 18-105 and the 24-70, look pretty close by F/8. Because lenses get sharper stopped down, the huge advantage of the 24-70 isn't because its quality is so better in general, its because its already perfect at 2.8, for which people who buy them shoot (and of course the extra resources that go into the glass that is required for a 2.8 aperture). Personally I like shooting wide open, because I'm a big fan of background blur, so even in situations in which most sane photographers stop down I'm shooting wide open, so I like to pick lenses which are sharp wide open, but even with the exotic lenses like the 24mm F/1.4, its much better at F/4, its just that its plenty sharp enough to use at F/1.4, while at F/4 its so sharp its scary. So if you already love the 24-70 setting on your current camera, then awesome! Get the 24-70, you'll be able to do what you already do (minus some on the wide end and tele end of course), but your quality level will be outstanding even wide open, which will open up possibilities for some background blur (not much though, even at 70mm). You will notice a faster AF system, much better low light performance with high shutter speeds, but the flip side is no VR, may limit your low light abilities for non moving subjects. You will also notice the huge weight of the lens, Personally I've always liked a heavy lens, but I'm in the minority here, most people having to carry the 70-200 all day complain of back aches from the weight, and the 24-70 isn't far behind. Either lens will swallow your camera and some people may not even notice there is a camera attached! Ok that is exaggerating a bit, but the point is, its big!
    So don't think of the 24-70 or the 70-200 as a difference in quality because they are both quite awesome, the only major differences being that the 70-200 has VR (which makes it slightly better than the 24-70, but the 24-70 has natural shutter speed advantages) and the 24-70 has more distortion at the wide end (which is totally normal for all wide angle lenses), think of it like where you would like to take pictures at. If you put your lens between 70-105 and you like what you see, then maybe the 70-200 is for you, but if you put your lens between 24-70 and you find yourself there more often, then go that way. You see the 24-70 and the 70-200 both work awesomely on the D7000, they are both amazing, the question isn't which one is better, its where you do more shooting at. Listening to what you've been saying, it sounds like the 24-70 maybe the ticket, because it sounds like you do most of your shooting in that range. If you simply want to try out 70-200, then get the 24-70, and rather than the ultra wide, pick up a 70-300mm F/4-5.6 VR, its slower than the 70-200, but its also smaller, it will work on FX, it has VR and its pretty amazing image quality except at 300mm wide open where it would be best to stop down and the quality bounces right back.
    Check it out here:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-GREY/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html
    Lol, well there is a feast of thoughts for you brain going on! Let me know which seems most appetizing.
    And when do get the lens, I would love to hear what you think of whatever your choice is, keep in touch.
     
  53. just to add even more color to this discussion, i've owned or currently own: nikon 18-70, 24-70/2.8 & 70-200 VRII; tamron 17-50/2.8 & 28-75/2.8; and sigma 17-50/2.8 OS & 50-150/2.8.
    my.02 is this: the 24-70 is awesome on FX and DX, but the 70-200 is still the one i'd get if i could only get one. it does have better build than the 24-70, but more importantly, the third-party options for DX are better in the standard zoom class than the telezoom class, especially since the 50-150 was discontinued. there's really not that much of a difference IQ-wise vs. the 24-70 and the tamron 17-50, for instance, and @24mm the tamron has less distortion than the nikon at that same focal length. the nikon is faster-focusing and has better bokeh, but if you really want awesome bokeh, tele lenses are better because of the compression effect.
    owning both, i would say i probably use the 24-70 more, but i'd miss the 70-200 more, if that makes any sense. before i got the 24-70, i used the tamron 28-75 extensively, which is an excellent optical performer for the price. i found it too short for DX, which is why i got the 17-50, which was my most used lens on DX. i'd say the times when the 28-75 wasnt wide enough were more than the times when the 17-50 wasn't long enough. the 70-200 is indeed a bazooka and isn't always practical to carry. but when it does see stick time, it's. just. awesome. as long as you do have something a little wider, you'll be ok. but the main reason i'm recommending it is because IMO it'll make you grow as a photographer more than the 24-70, which is definitely not as "sexy," if size matters, that is. i love the 24-70's pics, but it's kind of a boring lens to use. i feel more inspired by the 70-200 to have a photographic adventure. i also think you're better off with a DX camera with a more compact 2.8 standard zoom for street/casual shooting. and, let me put it this way: i use the 17-50 a lot more on my DX bodies than my 24-70. plus i get stabilization for when i need it.
    00ZLH4-399009584.jpg
     
  54. Without advocating purchasing one or all three of those lenses for the D7000, I have all three and get great use out of them, and have not regretted purchasing any of them for my D7000. However I know that I will be transitioning to FX format soon, and that I will get even more out of the 24-70 and 70-200 VRII lenses at that time. The DX format 10-24 lens is a joy to shoot on the D7000.
     
  55. Thanks for more replies. The more the better :)
    Eric: Yes you're right. The 70-200mm is probably much more interesting to use. And that's why i want it. But the 24-70mm and a 10-24mm seem more practical to use. It seems kinda limited on what subjects you can shoot with a 70-200mm. Especially on DX. It's like walking around with binacoulars. But wildilife photography has recently drawn my attention. It seems really fun to shoot wildlife. And a picture of a special bird or special animal when it's close and sharp. Seems automaticly like a good photograph :D If you know what i'm saying. But this will be a hard descision to make. And i will probably try to buy the one i didn't buy i NY next year here in Norway.
    Skyler: How much did you get for each of the D3s bodies? And yes i will maby consider buying on of those 24mm primes, if i don't buy the 24-70mm that is. Do you have skype? Then we could talk over skype. Which one of the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm do you use more on DX, and which is more fun to use? Telephoto lenses have alway fascinated me. Especially when i was a kid. I always wondered how they took photos that looked like they stood 2 meters from the subject, when they were 100 meters away from the subject. And a telephoto lens would open up a whole new world of photography to me. So i'll probably talk with my father, and ask him about what he thinks is the better choice for me.
     
  56. the 24-70mm and a 10-24mm seem more practical to use.​
    on paper, this is true, but... in terms of value, the 70-200 is more practical. let me explain: the 10-24+24-70 combo is good, but IMO not worth $2500 USD for use on DX, since for a whole lot less, you can get near-equivalent or better performance. the 8-16 and 11-16, for instance, both have better IQ than the 10-24, and the 11-16 is $200 less. i personally use the tokina 12-24/4 on DX, which is only $400 USD, and the sigma 10-20 is also very reasonably priced. IMO the nikon can't really justify its price in the face of this competition. also the 10-24 is a DX lens, so you would have to switch anyway if you ever went FX. as i've previously stated, the tamron 17-50/2.8 is only $450, has less distortion than the 24-70 @24mm, and gives you decent wideness on top of being better for street/casual use due to its compactness. you could get that and a 12-24 or 10-20 for under $1000. and even if this remains a future upgrade choice, in the meantime, you still have the 18-105.
    It seems kinda limited on what subjects you can shoot with a 70-200mm. Especially on DX. It's like walking around with binacoulars.​
    yes and no. granted, it's not super-ideal as a walkaround lens (neither is the 24-70 IMO), and not that great for indoor candids either. but the kit lens is fine for that. and with a DX body, you can always just get a 35/1.8 for $200 USD. i think what happens after owning the 70-200 for awhile is that it changes your perspective on photography. it's a "money shot" lens, even moreso than the 24-70 IMO.
    for instance, i was just shooting a concert with both last night with my D3s, and was really glad i brought the 70-200. the venue was packed, and it was impossible to get to the front of the stage, which made the 24-70 less useful (there was no photo pit). with the 70-200, i was able to get shots of the band with the audience from a staircase, which would not have been possible with the 24-70. and, when i spied a little walkway which afforded a clear line of sight to the stage, was also able to get some nice tight 'n' close shots of the headliner. again, this would not have been possible with the 24-70.
    granted, if you aren't shooting events regularly, the 70-200 might seem less useful. but in real-world terms, i kind of have to disagree. as a portrait lens, it holds its own with the expensive fast primes, which is saying something. also it sews up the telephoto range, which you don't currently have past 105. honestly, if you have that, you don't need a 24-70, just maybe a 35 or 50 plus a wide-angle option, and you're good.
    the thing is, it's a pro lens, designed for pro use, which might be overkill for casual photography. but the same could really be said of the 24-70. i mean, is there a reason you have to spend $1700 USD on a pro lens if your main usage will be walkaround shots and candid snappage, when a 2.8 zoom lens costing 1/3rd as much (or even the kit lens, to be honest) will do the same thing? OTOH, the 70-200 adds capabilities your current setup doesnt allow for. to me, it's just a smarter purchase in the long run, since you will certainly grow into it.
    00ZLU0-399253584.jpg
     
  57. Eric:
    Yes, i recentely made up my mind. And found out that the 70-200mm would open up a whoole new world to me. I could go photograph my little brother when he's playing soccer or photograph my little sister when she's dancing ballet. And for me, that seems really joyfull. I could also go out on a motocross track a little out by my town, and photograph motocrossers. I could also go in the park and photograph animals that i find, or go to a zoo and photograph rare animals. I could go to a aquarium really close from where i live and photograph penguines and rare snakes that they have atm. So the 70-200mm is where i'm heading now! The fact that it looks extremely sexy is just an added bonus. My father also thinks this ^^. If i want to take wider shots of NY, i'll just throw on my 18-105mm kit lens and take those photos. No problem! So i'm getting the 70-200mm. Thank you for all your help! I appreciate it.
    Wish me good luck! :)
     
  58. Good luck Max! ;)
     
  59. Good Luck Max & Happy shooting! :)
    IF you get the chance... Empire State & Rockefeller Centre both at night & day if you can!
    Regards
    Finlay
     
  60. Good choice with the 70-200, it's a very versatile lens. Only drawback is size and weight but you are young so it shouldn't be an issue.
    Add a TC-14e or TC-17e converter and you can tackle some wildlife shots such as bird in flight photos.
    Add a close-up lens (you will need a step-down ring) and you have a nice macro lens.
    I don't know how long you will stay in NY but it might be worth checking the local Craigs<remove>list. The US is great for used products in like new shape and it saves you a lot of money.
     

Share This Page