24-70 on DX?

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Just out of the blue.<br>

I know how you guys say that the 24-70 f/2.8 is not wide enough to use on a DX camera. Uhmm! Well, I do agree with that coz once, I was using my friend's, and it was really too long on the wide end but the 70 mm on the long end was, what I think, I miss on my 17-55, even though it is easy covered with a few steps.<br>

Uhmmm! I think there was a question to be asked?<br>

Oh! Yeah! Also, everyone says to buy the glass before the body, otherwise you end up with a camera and not appropriate glass. that could also back fired coz you could end up with the glass and not the body to use it.<br>

So let's say if I was moving into FX but I couldn't afford a D700 (D3) and a 24-70 at the same time, would it be wise to sell the 17-55 and buy a 24-70 first. But at the same time you could cover the wide side with an 11-16.<br>

So maybe some of you out there have experienced this and can tell me how awkward it is to have a gap between 16 to 24.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p> </p>

[dpbours]

<p>It totally depends on what you are shooting...</p>

<p>The 24-70, will you be using it mostly on the 70mm end, or more around 24 - 35mm on your DX.<br>

If the answer is on the 70mm end, go for it;<br>

If the answer is around the 24-35mm, get the 17-35mm 2.8.<br>

Still, it depends on what you are shooting. Architecture and landscapes, you don't want a lot of distortion. Cityscapes and street shooting, I would not care that much about it.</p>

<p>And whatever you shoot, I would not care about an 8mm gap.<br>

If you wonder about the 24-70, get a second hand Sigma for 250,- and see how the range of 24-70 works for you.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you only have a 11-16 and 24-70 for DX, I think that 8mm gap is very significant. That is roughtly the same as the range from 24mm to 35mm for FX; at least I use that range a lot, far far more than anything wider than 24mm.</p>

<p>Rene, I would keep the 17-55mm DX until you move out of the DX format completely.</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>Try it. You'll love it... speaking from experience... the question is, how often do you use a wide angle? For myself, I've had a 10-22 before (on DX) which eventually I sold again because I did not use it too much. I didn't like the tilting lines and found a two-image-panorama much more appetizing. (Probably because I just love panoramic formats). Guess that also depends on your subjects - people in panoramic format? Hardly...)</p>

<p>For the rest, save up a bit for the 14-24.... I'd die for that one, really. Though I'd probably never use it. Ha! :-)))</p>

[dpbours]

<p>I'm actually surprised how my I use my 14-24mm...</p>

<p>But you're right. A decent landscape I'll either do with multiple portrait mode shots and my 24-70, or on 6x6 film...</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Rene',<br>

I haven't tried it, but I thought long and hard about getting the 24-70 for my D300 (after parting with my 18-70). I have the Tokina 12-24, so the gap for me would even not be there. I was drawn to the extra long end, mostly.<br>

However, apart from price and weight being serious objections for me, I checked a lot of my photos and found I was actually quite a bit in between 18 and 24 on the 18-70. The "not overly dramatic but still quite wide" end is practical for so many sorts of photos that it would be quite a serious gap indeed, to me.<br>

I also checked under which circumstances they were made and what kind of pictures preceded them, or followed them. As it turns out, the Tokina could not fix that 18-24 gap properly either, since the 24mm upper limit of that one would mean much much more changing lenses; since I also use the 24-35 range a lot, it is mighty nice to have that covered in one lens. It makes the standard lens the versatile tool it should be, I think.</p>

<p>So, that's just my experience, maybe it's of some use... I am positive the 24-70 is an awesome lens, but to me it is just short of being the tool I'd need it to be.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`m also with Shun. Although I had with the D300 a 24-85AFS (I can`t remember if the 24-70AFS too), I got rid of the 17-55 after selling the D300.</p>

<p>That 24 to 35mm range (FF speaking, 17 to 24 in DX) is my most used range indoors, but I shoot mostly indoors. Outdoors, the D300 + 24-85 was right to me for most ocassions, but I always had the 17-55 if needed. My most used prime at that time was the 24AFD (mostly used on weekends and trips).</p>

<p>On the D700, I don`t use the 14-24 so often, just because the longer end is too wide for my "everyday" use (amongst other reasons). I`m waiting for the 16-35VR reviews.</p>

<p>Are you sure about the 24-70? If you`re not in a hurry... what about the new 16-35VR with your FX in a future? An updated 17-35/2.8? A 24-105VR? If you can wait, I bet this lenses will be announced not too far from here.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Personally I think 24-70 is a good range for people photography on DX. The 24-70 is a lens which performs its best in close range and if you shoot at long distances at 24mm, it's fairly soft and DX due to its smaller sensor area effectively results in this softness being magnified in the final print. However, in close range (typically used for people or architectural images with such a lens) the 24-70 has better wide aperture sharpness than the 17-55 and also much improved resistance to flare and ghosting. I don't see an issue with buying the lens first and the FX body later when you can afford it. In fact I'd find a 35-105 on FX quite useful; 105 is great for head and shoulders whereas 70mm is too short. For me, a 28-85 or even 35-105 would be a better match for my event photography but since Nikon doesn't make such a range in a fast high quality zoom, I use the 24-70 and pair it with something like an 105 prime. If I did have a 35-105/2.8 I would then use the 25/2.8 more often, I guess, but the 105 end is very important to me. Some people keep talking how great it would be to have a 24-105/4 but for what I do with the 24-70, f/4 is just too slow. Some lens switching involved with either format when using the 24-70, not a big deal to me. What range works for you is all in what kind of images you want to make.</p>

<p>As for a gap between 16 and 24, that's equivalent to 24 and 36 on FX. I have to admit I have a bunch of lenses greater than 24 and less than 36 in focal length and I especially enjoy 28mm but if necessary I could work without them. I am certain I'd enjoy having a 36-105/2.8 equivalent though. Before they started making the standard zooms wider, 35-105 was a popular range. I hope Nikon gets around to add some variety in the zoom ranges for FX also; they have very many different ranges for DX users.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>My experience is the same as Ilkka's. When I only had the D300, the 24-70 was for me the perfect range for normal shooting. I used it a lot at 70mm for people and pets. For anything wider than 24, my brain had to switch to wide angle mode (thinking about distortion at the edges, near-far effects, etc.), and I didn't mind swtching lenses at the same time. (I used the Nikon 12-24.) Similarly, anything longer than 70 was getting into specialty telephoto range, and I could switch lenses for that too.</p>

<p>Now, with a D700, the 24-70 isn't as usful to me. I don't espcially like or need the 50-70 range, so it's kind of a wide-angle-to-normal only zoom. It's not so good for portraits now. For those I switch to an 85 f/1.4 or 105 f/2.5. (Maybe not such a bad thing—those are really nice lenses.)</p>

<p>For FX use, I would trade the 24-70 for a 35-105 of equal quality in in a heartbeat. But for DX, I thought it was wonderful.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>I use the 105 DC for such portraits. It is slow, but it's not that with that type of photography I need a fast lens. If I need to isolate people in a crowd, I would still use the 24-70. I don't mind that much to be close to people. I still love the 50 1.4 as a portrait lens on the D700. But it's a small lens, not so in the face of your subject.</p>

[dwight200]

<p>There's a freeware program called something like ExposurePlot, that will take all the photos in a directory (and subdirectories thereof) and read the EXIF data and plot the distribution of focal lengths. That will give you an idea of what focal lengths are most important to you and can help you decide where the gaps are or which end to try to extend.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>@Dwight</p>

<p>That is an interesting little programme! Though I'm not sure how to interpret the data.<br>

If i'm shooting my 70-200, I use it 95% in the range 160-200mm.<br>

If i'm shooting my 80-400, I use it over the entire range...<br>

Hmmm... I probably use the 70-200 more in combination with the 24-70, so change lenses. And when I go with the 80-400, I normally put two small primes in the bag... What does that tell me? :-)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Whether or not you miss the gap and whether or not a 24-70 on DX works for you totally depends on what you shoot. I would not want to live with a 11-16/24-70 solution.<br>

<br /> I tried to hold out with a 12-24 and 24-85 on DX and finally realized that the break at 24mm didn't work for me - always had to carry both lenses and was constantly changing from one to the other. Finally bit the bullet and bought the 11-16 and 17-55. Now I have what I always enjoyed on film, a walk-around lens that is wide enough at the wide end (but a tad short at the long end - a 16/17-70/2.8 would be ideal).</p>

<p>I also realized that FX is a ways off for me - simply because of the $6K+ involved for the "upgrade". That's serious money I rather spend on a long tele like the 500/4 - which I would be using on DX anyway.</p>

<p>So for me, there will always be a need a for DX camera - and frankly, at this point I would only want an FX camera for the one special purpose of using it at low light for its better high ISO capabilities. And would probably go for a set of large-aperture primes rather than the holy trinity of 14-24/24-70/70-200. And for FX as a walk-around the one lens I envy Canon shooters for is the 24-105/4 IS USM.<br /> <br /> Since you mentioned on many occasions how much you enjoy the 17-55 - why make a change now?<br /> <br /> If 24-70 was right for you on DX - then you would want a 35-105 later on FX.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I've spent a year oscillating back and forth on this topic, and finally gave in. It's the 17-55/2.8 - 70-200/2.8 combo for me. I recognize that the 17-55/2.8 can be sold for a substantial chunk of its purchase value, and its utility in the meantime (before an I'm-not-sure-I'll-even-go-there move to FX) will be worth far more than the difference in purchase/sell price.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, I only had to honestly look over what I've been shooting and how often to realize that I'd frequently be on both the wide and longer ends of that 17-55 on a regular basis. No doubt Nikon will spank me by producing a Super Duper Nano Wonder GPS X-Ray Titanium version of the 17-55/2.8 five minutes after I submit this post, but I'll be fine!</p>

[sim_m]

<blockquote>

<p>I was using my friend's, and it was really too long on the wide end but the 70 mm on the long end was, what I think, I miss on my 17-55, even though it is easy covered with a few steps.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Rene,<br>

If you mean that you can compensate the missing 70mm by going forward, flash lighting covering would be less, causing facial shadows. The farther the better especially when bouncing a flash mainly in portraits. I would opt for the 24-70mm. The wide angle focal point missing can be compensated if you still have the Tokina, by the way you get more bokeh on a 70mm than on a 55mm. Just my opinion.<br>

Simon.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>If 24-70 was right for you on DX - then you would want a 35-105 later on FX.</em></p>

<p>I don't think it's a question of either range being "right" or "wrong"; both ranges have advantages and disadvantages.</p>

<p><em>why make a change now?</em></p>

<p>Image quality, of course. Being able to get high quality images from f/2.8 to f/8, instead of the narrow truly sharp range of f/4 to f/5.6 on the 17-55. Better tones, nicer color separation, better results at high ISO, a large viewfinder image from which it's possible to actually see the subject clearly, possibility of using a PC wide angle for architecture, generally better definition at short and medium focal lengths, ability to use the full image circle of most lenses in the way they were intended to be used. A more future proof lens lineup (all new high-end lenses are FX, whereas e.g. the DX primes are designed with smaller apertures; compactness and lower price are the aims there). It is quite clear that if you want the full access to a comprehensive array of lenses for a wide variety of specialized applications, which format is the way to go.</p>

<p>Something for bird photographers to consider: if Nikon hadn't put an FX sensor in the D3, it would be DX, right? And that means that Nikon would not have put the Multi-CAM 3500 in the D300, instead they'd ask the usual 5000 USD for the top AF. So because of FX, you actually get a better camera for less money than you would have, if Nikon were a DX-only brand.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>BTW, IMO the choices for Nikon FX mid-range zooms will likely expand within a year or two. After the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, Nikon themselves have all but leaked that f4 versions of the 70-200 AF-S VR and a mid-range zoom will be added. See the last paragraph in this DPReview interview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022304nikonbalance.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022304nikonbalance.asp</a></p>

<p>If there is going to be something like a 24-105mm/f4 (similar to the Canon) or 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, I think it may be a better choice than the current 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. I usually find that 70mm is not long enough for FX for people/party type photography, and I typically close down to f4 anyway for better optical quality and a little more depth of field. The 24-70 is also on the large side.</p>

<p>If you don't already have an FX body, IMO it is never a good idea to get a 24-70 in anticipation of the future. By the time you get that FX body, lens choices can easily expand and you'll regret locking yourself into a lens that is no longer the best choice by then. Well, it is not exactly locking, but you'll be spending even more money to sell it and buy something that is better.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Quite like this quote in the article that Shun cited:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>'if customers want it, we will provide.'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thinking of the long list of lenses that the customer is still waiting for - does this indicate a shift in thinking at Nikon?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If 24-70 was right for you on DX - then you would want a 35-105 later on FX.</em><br>

I don't think it's a question of either range being "right" or "wrong"; both ranges have advantages and disadvantages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Didn't say it was right or wrong, but if I was happy with a 24-70 on DX, then it wouldn't feel right on FX and I'd be looking for a 28/35-105 instead. Or even better, a 24-105.</p>

<blockquote>It is quite clear that if you want the full access to a comprehensive array of lenses for a wide variety of specialized applications, which format is the way to go.</blockquote>

<p>The fact that Nikon (like Canon) isn't providing high-end lenses for DX is actually beginning to worry me a bit. I sure hope that the D300/D300s does not mark the end and pinnacle of higher-end DX bodies. Looks like they finally get to the point to provide alternatives to the 14-24/24-70/70-200 for those not willing to pay their price or simply don't need the f/2.8. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Some of you may recall this thread from earlier this month: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00ViJu">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ViJu</a><br>

That was like a day or two before the announcement of the 24mm/f1.4 and 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR. At the time I was under photo.net's NDA so that I had to be a bit vague, but Akira Sakamoto reported in that thread that Nikon's General Manager for Marketing pointed out that some fast primes and high-quality compact zooms were forth coming. That is essentially the same message Nikon is providing to DPReview, apparently at the PMA.</p>

<p>You don't even need to read between the lines to figure out roughtly which lenses are coming.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that Nikon (like Canon) isn't providing high-end lenses for DX is actually beginning to worry me a bit. I sure hope that the D300/D300s does not mark the end and pinnacle of higher-end DX bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I pointed out in another thread, Canon finally introduced the 7D to compete against the D300/D300S, and the 7D is selling like hot cakes.</p>

<P>

How quickly have you forgotten that Nikon has just added a 35mm/f1.8 DX and a 85mm macro DX last year?

</P>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2301406">Rene' Villela</a><br>

"I know how you guys say that the 24-70 f/2.8 is not wide enough to use on a DX camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't say that personally. A lens equivalent to around 35mm-70mm on a 35mm film or FX format would suit most of my needs. But I must acknowledge that expectations among photographers have increased tremendously in the past decade. So a lens that would have been considered perfectly satisfactory during the 1990s and early 2000s would now elicit mostly yawns.</p>

<p>A 24-70/2.8 on my DX format dSLR would offer the same equivalent focal range (and speed) as my now-old favorite P&S digicam, an Olympus C-3040Z with a 35-105mm f/1.8-2.8 equivalent zoom. For my purposes, that's nearly perfect. It lacks only VR, which I really need now to offset shaky hands for candid photography. If Nikon made a 24-70/2.8 VR, I'd seriously consider selling every other lens I own to get that one zoom. But lacking VR it has no real appeal to me.</p>

<p>A hypothetical 24-120/4 VR with a few improvements over the predecessor would be an acceptable compromise for my purposes. That had been a useful focal range when I owned the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR and have occasionally regretted selling it. In retrospect I should have sold the 18-70 DX and kept the VR zoom. The 24-120mm focal range is comparable to another very handy camera from an earlier era, the Olympus iS-3 ZLR with a 35-180mm variable aperture non-interchangeable zoom. </p>

<p>That type of lens was considered quite a respectable achievement back in the day but, again, expectations have changed and it appears more and more photographers now prefer ultra wide zooms, tho' I can't say I've seen a significant increase in the quality of compositions and subject matter as a result of the proliferation of those wider, faster lenses.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Didn't say it was right or wrong, but if I was happy with a 24-70 on DX, then it wouldn't feel right on FX and I'd be looking for a 28/35-105 instead. Or even better, a 24-105.</em></p>

<p>I can understand that. For me, the exact range is not so critical. I'd prefer 35-105/2.8 or 28-85/2.8 to 24-70/2.8 but this is not a significant enough issue that I'd actually trade in my 24-70 to purchase such a lens (or the other way around). I augment the range I have with other lenses (in this case I add a 105 prime); any given lens doesn't have to be a perfect match to all my needs.</p>

<p>For a landscape and/or travel photographer, I imagine the f/4 zooms would be great. I have seen very nice results from Canon's f/4 zooms, which seem to be very popular. But if someone needs to also photograph people outside of a studio/controlled light environment, f/4 is quite problematic.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've used a 28-70 lens on DX quite a while back. Yuk. BUT, for "people pics" I really liked the 35-70 on a full-frame (the old Kokak), so for that kind of stuff I think I'd like the 24-70 on DX, but not for a lot of the stuff that you shoot, Rene.</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy the glass till you can get the body to go with it. And for me, I'm glad that Nikon keeps coming out with DX lenses, because I want to stick with DX a while.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>If you are determined to move to FX in the future, 24-70 will be the way to go...At least, this was what I did : DX>24-70>FX>and other lenses for FX. It's a great lens , and 36-105 on DX is not so bad.<br />I'm really sorry that the "smell" of D3s+500/4 just fade away .</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><em>"If Nikon made a 24-70/2.8 VR, I'd seriously consider selling every other lens I own to get that one zoom. But lacking VR it has no real appeal to me... "</em><br /> Mmmm, it seems that VR systems carry with some commitments... I understand that on certain long lenses, or zooms with longer ends it could be acceptable. There are different opinions about this topic. Nikon engineers have decided not to add VR for any reason.</p>