Nikon 24 70

[oveisi]

Hi Dears;

I have Lens 18-200 from Nikon and it is sort of fine lens. I am thinking of

buying Nikon 24-70 and I am wondering if it is a good decision to make.

Thanks for your time

Ehsan

[ShunCheung]

The 18-200mm is a DX lens. The 24-70 is best on an FX or 35mm film body.

[raymond_ocampo]

As always, this decision will depend on your own needs as a photographer. I used to have the 18-135mm kit lens and it was okay to bring all-around especially if I wanted to save on space. However, the lens isn't as sharp and distortion is horrible (which is okay since I end up using DxO software anyway). There is vignetting even for DX standards, but I leave it as is more often for feel of the photo.

 

I am now using the FX 24-70mm which is obviously built more for a full frame. However, whatever limitations and distortions that arise albeit very minimal is now gone when using it for the D300 DX body that I pair it with.

 

I now have sharp images with unnoticeable distortion which I don't have to bother correcting anymore. The cool vignetting is now gone.

 

The trade-off by upgrading to this lens is weight, size and versatility to be an all-around lens. However, I'm a mid-range shooter so I already evaluated this limitation in place of the lens distortion that I will be getting if I patronize one of the kit lenses.

 

I am planning to purchase the 14-24mm FX lens to supplement the 24-70mm, but I still don't find the need to use a wider angle than at 36mm (1.5 crop factor of 24mm). Even if I want it I guess the purchase will go to waste just as my 105mm lens purchase (although fun to have) didn't give me enough reasons to use it as I thought I would.

 

For fun family events, I think the 18-200mm should be best. The size, weight and cost factor is perfect to bring all-around without fear. I'm just waiting for a revised version before I decide to purchase one in the far future.

 

So how will you plan to use either lens?

[doccamera]

Usually when buying a lens, you should justify the need by the application. All fast 2.8 Nikkor lenses are great. Justifying the purchase of a pricey PRO quality lens is usually based on two criterion: 1-Your ability to tap into your abundant cache of disposable income or 2-Your ability to earn the money back by having the lens pay for itself with the fine photographic imagery work you can accomplish with it and your cunningness to keep your sale prices high and trendy with your customers so you can buy more.

Based on meeting the standard of either of the two conditions above, if you NEED it...get it.

[phototransformations]

An alternative is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. If you like the IQ of the 18-200, you'll really love the IQ of the Tamron, though if price is no factor you will probably like the slightly wider end of the 24-70 better (and, though I have no complaints about the Tamron's build, I imagine the Nikkor lens must be better built at twice the price).

[Peter_in_PA]

24-70 isn't wide enough for practical use on DX imho.

[ellis_vener_photography]

on an APS-C( like the Nikon DX cameras) size format , 24-70mm translate as moderate wide angle to sort telephoto, so for me it is a practical elns but I would also look at the 17-55mm f/2.8G if you want to go wider.

[jose_angel]

The 24-70 could be a good portrait lens for DX cameras, also good for outdoor use. IMO not so good as a one-lens-for-all use. If you don`t mind to be pushing the walls indoors with your back trying to fit all into the frame, this one looks to be the best available.

[oveisi]

Thanks all for you reply. Mainly I take indoor photos and I'd like to avoid using flash as much as possible. That is why I am interested on buying Nikon 24-70 since i think this is a faster lens. Also in terms of quality i assume I'll get better pictures with more details. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Mike D]

I use a D200 and sometime soon a 24-70 will nicely compliment the 12-24 Nikon and 80-400 VR I already carry in my camera bag.

[arso]

Hi Ehsan,

24-70 is excellent lens. I am using it on D300 together with 14-24 and 70-200VR. It is good investment because sooner or later we will go on full format. According to me only investment in excellent full format lenses is smart investment.

[greg_lisi]

<p>FWIW I used to have the monster 28-70 2.8 and thought the IQ could'nt be matched.....wrong!!<br>

I just recieved a new 24-70 2.8 (after practically selling everything except my soul)....good Lord what a difference. The IQ w/this lens is just stunning. I'm shooting with a D700. I do portraits on the side and although I was seriously considering an 85 2.8 investment, I'm glad I pulled the trigger on the 24-70. Yes, it is heavy, yes it is expensive, but most of all...it is one of Nikon's best pro-grade lenses. Don't get me wrong, I was getting VERY good results with the older 28-70, however, this 24-70 is in a league of it's own. I will not be selling this lens....period!! If you can swing it....don't wait.</p>