24-70 /2.8

[lawrie_silverberg]

<p>I have a D90 with 18-105 kit lens and Nikon 35mm 1.8 prime. I want to replace the kit lens with better lenses. I was first thinking of 70/80-200 2.8 but might get more use from a 24-70 2.8. Just wondering if the 35mm lens will do most of what the 24-70 will do. Is that correct?<br>

Lawrie</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Lawrie, nobody can really answer your question until we know what type of subjects you tend to shoot. Please either specify them or show us an on-line portfolio that represents your photo subject interests.</p>

[lawrie_silverberg]

<p>I'd use it as a walk around lens, pics in the house and a vacation lens. Sorry, I can't be more specific.</p>

[kiatchun_sin]

<p>I find the 18-105 rather sufficient, but you can also consider Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. It's a good walk-around lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd use it as a walk around lens, pics in the house and a vacation lens. Sorry, I can't be more specific.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case why do you want to replace your current lenses? The 18-105mm kit lens should work quite well as a travel lens. Are they in some way limiting your photography?</p>

<p>I happen to carry a 70-200mm/f2.8 and a 28-70mm/f2.8 when I travel, but they are fairly big and heavy lenses that perhaps a lot of people would rather not carry them around when they travel. I'll be the first one to admit that I am not your average traveler since my purpose for traveling is to photograph, and I don't travel with any children.</p>

<p>If you somehow want an f2.8 zoom, the one we typically recommend to people who use DX-format DSLRs is the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S. The 24-70mm/f2.8 is more for FX cameras, since 24mm is not much a wide angle for DX. However, opinions vary.</p>

[lawrie_silverberg]

<p>Won't the 17-55 give me a sharper, more detailed image than the 18-105? My concern also, is that the 17-55 will be somewhat of a duplication of the 35mm prime.</p>

[brent1]

<p>Do you mostly use the prime or the zoom you have now? The prime is cheap and super sharp, but not very flexible. If you use that 80% of the time, then you probably don't need to replace your zoom for the remaining 20%. If you get frustrated by the prime and usually stick with the zoom, then a replacement would yield better results. But at $1500 for the nikon 17-55, you have to figure out whether it's worth it. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Won't the 17-55 give me a sharper, more detailed image than the 18-105?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe or maybe not, depending on how you use it. Keep in mind that the 18-105 has VR but neither the 17-55mm/f2.8 nor the 24-70mm/f2.8 has VR. Therefore, for example, if you hand hold your camera at 1/30 sec to shoot some still subject, VR may kick it and makes the difference so that you get much better results with the 18-105.</p>

<p>On the other hand, f2.8 from the 17-55 may give you more accurate AF indoors and f2.8 lets you use a faster shutter speed to stop motion under dim light.</p>

<p>Remember I asked you about what type of subjects you tend to shoot? That is why.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My concern also, is that the 17-55 will be somewhat of a duplication of the 35mm prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't the 24-70mm/f2.8 also duplicate the 35mm focal length?</p>

[lawrie_silverberg]

<p>Do you mostly use the prime or the zoom you have now<br>

I've had the camera/zoom for 8 months and just bought the prime. Planned to take the prime out downtown this weekend but it's supposed to rain all weekend.</p>

<p>Remember I asked you about what type of subjects you tend to shoot? That is why.<br>

At this stage I do a bit of everything. Pics of the dogs running around, grandkids indoors and out and nature. I do all of my shooting now handheld. I understand the vr versus large aperture tradeoff. Vr gives better results at slower speed and larger aperture gives more light and lets you use faster speed. Just thought that under static conditions, the 17-55 would yield better results than my kit lens due to superior optics. I did an amateurish test of my zoom versus the prime at the same settings and distance on some woodgrain. The prime seemed sharper. Am I barking up the wrong tree?</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have never used the 18-105, but apparently the optics in most Nikon kit lenses are actually pretty good as far as sharpness goes; they typically have a lot of distortion on the two ends and some chromatic aberration, but most amateur photographers don't care about those issues. The 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX is well known for its chromatic aberration problems.</p>

<p>The main problems with kit lenses is that they tend to be f5.6 on the long end, thus making them difficult to use indoors. Auto focus will have a tough time under dim conditions when your maximum aperture is only f5.6.</p>

<p>Additionally, most of those affordable kit lenses have a plastic mount and generally lower-quality construction. We have had a number of reports that some modest amount of impact will break those lenses apart and/or knock the elements out of alignment. But if you are careful with your equipment, perhaps you'll never run into such problems.</p>

[laurence_nyein]

<p>i own 24-70 f2.8 on my d700 and it's a fantastic lens. but on your d90, your kit lens is sufficient to get nice images apart from f2.8 factor. But after investing significant amount of money on that lens, u won't get significant different then your kit lens. And 24-70 f2.8 is a general lens, not wide enough for landscaper and not tele enough for portriate and other tele works. I recommand thinking 14-24f2.8 if u want more of great landscape or 70-200 if u want to do great portriate. And u can keep your kit lens or travelling around and taking pictures as u said. sorry for my english and if my answer is not your needs.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lawrie,<br>

Possibly it will sound a bit rude, but if you do not know if a (very expensive) lens will actually solve any problem for you, then don't buy it.<br>

I've played with the 18-105VR a few times, and while build quality may not be the best, optically the lens is hard to flaw. Yes, f/5.6 is a serious downside, but if you do not know for your own photography whether it is or not, then it isn't.<br>

So, you may be barking up the wrong tree. Maybe not. I think you will be much better served by first learning to really describe for yourself in which way your current lenses are not sufficient for your needs, and then, with that specific list of requirements start shopping for something else. Also to know whether 24-70, 17-55 or after all 70-200 will fullfill your need.</p>

<p>And it's not said that a lens will buy you sharpness immediately. Good technique and or a tripod make up for something too. And, whichever lens you get, you need to take some time to learn when it performs optimal (tip: think f/8), what it's good points and bad points are. For example, one thing not really mentioned yet, but having a "walk around lens" of 1 kilo can also be a big pain in the rear end... There are more trade-offs than aperture, price and size :-)</p>

[lawrie_silverberg]

<p>Sorry I can't be more specific about my needs etc. I don't normally dwell on equipment quality (play golf with a knock-off set) but I thought that photography was different. I thought that you needed a really good lens plus skill to get nice looking images. I'm not a pro who spends his photo time taking pics of just mountains or weddings. Just an average Joe that likes taking pics of everything. I just want the best quality I can get. Don't want flat boring stuff. Right now my pics are taken handheld as that's what suits my style and that makes it tougher to get long zoom shots in not great light. I'm reading books and will take courses to learn as much as possible. Maybe the best option is to hone my skill and worry about lenses later. If the 18-105 lens is the best lens for me now, in it's range, then great. I'll leave well enough alone. </p>

[benjaminm]

<p>For traveling with an DX body I would suggest: 12-24/4, 18-200VR and 35/1.8 lenses. I would avoid heavy lenses while traveling. Some weeks ago I've seen a guy on the peek of island La Palma with D3 body, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8VRII lenses. His wife was very occupied with their little boy while he was 100% occupied wearing his heavy photo equipment. It was quite funny to look them.</p>

[alex_y1]

<p>I was in a similar situation about a year ago. Started with a D90 and 50 f/1.8. Personally I don't think you need a super expensive lens, but it is nice to have. I opted for the 70-200 vr2 as it fit my style more since I was shooting sports mainly for my college newspaper. A year later my 24-70 is currently on it's way. I think if you're going to replace your kit lens then the 24-70 would be the better fit since at the wide end it'll be the same as shooting a 36mm f/2.8 on a full frame (35mm is one of my favorite focal lengths) to a 105 f2.8 which should be fine for most portraits. However you have to keep in mind that it is a pretty large lens and much heavier. But if you want the best quality it's either fast primes or fast zooms.<br>

For traveling I would probably travel with a set of primes. 35mm 50mm 85mm. I'm just waiting for Nikon to finally announce a 35 f/1.4, then I'll probably make the jump to full frame.<br>

For now though I would suggest you grab that 35 f/1.8 and see what you can do with it. Whatever you end up with get to know your equipment.</p>