Thinking of buying a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

[goldbergbarry]

<p>I'm thinking of buying a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G lens and want to see what the general opinion is of this lens. Here are my details:</p>

<p>- Will use on a D90<br>

- Take a lot of basketball shots <br>

- Thinking of using this as my everyday lens, replacing my 18-105mm kit lens. I know that it is a bit heavier which I'm not worried about<br>

- This will complement a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and a Nikon 85mm f/1.8, which I both love but I frequently find a need for a fast wide-angle zoom</p>

<p>Just wondering, what is everyone's experience with this lens? Is the focus speed fast enough for sports? </p>

<p>Thank you for your help!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you shoot a lot of sports, you may find yourself sticking with the same DX format you're using now. If so, you should consider the 17-55/2.8. Both it and the lens you mention are very quick to focus ... but the D90's AF system, of course, isn't going to be as nimble as the D300's (which is a great sports camera, if you don't need ISO 3200, etc). <br /><br />I'm a great fan of the 17-55/2.8 on DX. But it's not cheap either, and won't serve you if you go FX.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>+1 for the 17-55mm f/2.8 on DX. No need to spend the extra $$ on the 24-70mm</p>

<p>The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a brilliant lens that is on my D700 much of the time. For DX I'd not spent the extra money on this lens over the 17-55mm f/1.8DX, which is also a brilliant lens and is an excellent match to the D90.</p>

<p>If you're not stuck on buying Nikkor lenses than there are some off-brand 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses that get great reviews.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S has pretty good AF speed, but in this case the AF limitation will likely comes from the D90.</p>

[michaelbrochstein]

<p>I agree with the previous posters. I've owned a 17-55/2.8 for my DX cameras and thought it was great. It was my "walk-around" lens and it never let me down. When I bought a D700 I also bought a 24-70/2.8 and it also has never let me down.</p>

<p>Having said that, one advantage of the 17-55 is that it has a slightly wider zoom ratio (3.24 vs. 2.92) and is both lighter and smaller. OTOH, it does not have as much reach (70 vs.55) which may or may not be critical for you and ditto on the wide end, it has a wider perspective which might be critical for you. If you intend to one day move to and/or also use a FX body then the 24-70 will be a switch hitter while the 17-55 could not be. After owning both DX and FX bodies and 17-55 and 24-70 lenses for a while I found that I used the 24-70 on the D700 for most things that were not telephoto in nature such that now the 24-70 is on my D700 97% of the time or more (a 16-35 or 85 for most of the rest of the time) and a 70-200 is typically the lens I use most frequently with my D300. After a year or so of using the 24-70 on my D700 I decided to sell my 17-55 as it seemed to never ever be used anymore.</p>

<p>As per your specific sports-related query; I've used the 24-70 to photograph bicycle riders at close range the its focus speed was never an issue.</p>

<p>If the focal length range of the 24-70 is good for you and you don't need VR then I can't imagine the 24-70 letting you down. It also has the advantage of being a great walkaround lens if you ever get a FX body.</p>

[tpernal]

<p>I owned the 17-55 2.8 used on my D300 and sold it to get the 24-70 2.8. They are both razor sharp and I have the 12-24 f4 Nikon so the wide end is covered. My point is... The 17-55 although great did not have any reach . I am really glad I made the swap. I also have a 70-200 2.8 VR1, so I'm well covered.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>This may be a stretch but I will make the assumption that since the OP has a lens that goes to 18mm lens he knows what he will be giving up on the wide end and is OK with it.</p>

<p>Not everyone prefers the 17-55mm over the 24-70mm. I always preferred the zoom range of the 24-70mm over the 17-55 on DX.</p>

<p><em>"Is the focus speed fast enough for sports?" </em> Yes, and even with the D90 it should be fine.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>I have it on my D90 - that and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lenses are my "walk around" lenses depending on what I plan to shoot. I'm a pretty big guy so the weight doesn't bother me.</p>

<p> The 24-70mm f/2.8 is an amazing lens - you won't be disappointed with the performance - I bought it mainly to shoot my son's karate training and tournaments.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Thank you everyone for the amazing advice. I never thought of the 17-55mm f/2.8 and it seems like a great lens. After comparing the 17-55 with the 24-70, I am going to move forward with the 24-70. I'm more worried about the reach and losing a bit at the wide-end is not bothering me.</p>

<p>Of course, I wish they had a 15-400mm f/1.8 lens but since that doesn't exist, I have to compromise somewhere.</p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's input.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It's a very nice lens but a bit weak at 24mm on DX in my opinion (my DX camera is the D7000). At other focal lengths it seems fine. On 12 MP FX it's very good also at 24mm especially at typical distances used in people photography, a little weaker at long distances (infinity).</p>

<p>Now with light on this I think it's better to use the 17-55 DX on DX cameras and buy 24-70 mostly if you're planning on getting an FX camera in the near future, or if you have a separate, well performing wide angle lens for DX so that you won't need the highest performance from the 24-70 at 24mm.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Maybe a battery grip will speed up the D90 AF system. I suspect it does in the D700.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>@Jose - The AF in the D90 is actually quite good so generally it is not an issue. I will admit that I don't have experience with the pro models so I cannot compare the D90 against the D700 or anything similar.</p>

<p>I was asking about the focus speed since some lenses are very slow focusing. For example, when I bought my 85mm f/1.8, I first looked at the 85mm f/1.4 but from everything I read, the f/1.4 was way to slow focusing to use in sports while the f/1.8 is actually much better at that aspect.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Is the focus speed fast enough for sports?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>like shun said, you'd be more limited by the camera than the lens in terms of AF speed. the d90 has a basic AF module and you don't get any more fps or faster focusing abilities by adding the grip, like you do with the d300s/d700. but as long as you stick to the center AF point, you should be ok. i've used the 24-70 on both DX and FX and haven't noticed any problems at 24mm. btw, it's great for hoops.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>24-70 sample...</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I know, for me, that if my "general lens" started at 24 on my D90 it would drive me truly crazy. And I think even with a grip (which does not, as far as I can tell, speed up AF at all) the 24-70 would be a huge out-of-balance lens on that camera imho.</p>

<p>You can shoot sports with a D90 if you must (and in good light) but I sure wouldn't do it professionally.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>@Peter - why would the D90 matched with a 24-70 be out of balance? Would love to learn why would this be a concern.</p>

<p>I understand the crop factor and I typically don't shoot a lot of wide angle shots. I'm also not a pro and I'm at the point, do I invest in good glass or a higher-end body? I figure that the 24-70 is a lifelong lens that I will long keep after I move up from the D90 to the D4. </p>

<p>Thanks for teaching me.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>barry,</p>

<p>the weight of the lens is so much greater than the weight of the camera that many would find it out of balance. I sure would.</p>

<p>For me, when you shoot DX, you buy DX lenses. When you move up to FX, then you sell those lenses (there will almost certainly always be a market) and get the FX lenses.</p>

<p>You can hedge your bets by buying used. My used lenses are all worth the same or more today than I paid for them when I got them.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I figure that the 24-70 is a lifelong lens that I will long keep after I move up from the D90 to the D4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you got that right. i see peter's point, and as a d90 and d300s owner i should probably say my 24-70 hasn't yet been mounted on the d90. but while that combination might be a leetle awkward, it would probably only come into play in field-relevant conditions if you are using a tripod, since there's no tripod collar on the 24-70.</p>

 

[daverhaas]

<p>I've shot the 28-70 f2.8 on both a D700 and D7000 (which is similar to D90) and can honestly say that it feels better on the D700. Not that it feels "bad" on the D7000 - but the 17-50 f2.8 (Tamron) balances much better. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I figure that the 24-70 is a lifelong lens</em></p>

<p>Well, don't bet on that. I don't think it is built to last a lifetime, far from it. Buy it for use now and in the near future (10 years) but I would not have hopes high for the next decade or the one after that.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Ilkka - Do you have a complaint about the 24-70's build quality? Or do you have some concern about future compatibility? I still have a working 28-70/2.8 from circa 1998. Repaired once for a ring motor replacement.</p>

 

[tom_boston1]

<p>For basketball shots on a DX body, I'd prefer the 24-70 over the wider 17-55. Depends on how you are shooting. Sure, you won't be able to do shots like Eric's sample above, but to capture individual players, the 24-70 is much better. I even use the 70-200 a lot (with an FX body) and that's from behind the baseline.</p>

<p>However, since you already have a 70-200, I'd recommend the 17-55. It's a spectacular performer and saves you a few bucks too.</p>

 

[bikealps]

<p>I have a 24-70 f2.8 lens and shoot sports with it. I shoot 90+% bicycle racing and use a D90 and a D3.<br>

My comments on the lens:</p>

<ul>

<li>big and heavy, more unwieldly than I expected</li>

<li>really sharp, unquestionably as good as my 70-200 f2.8 VR2</li>

<li>nice bokeh, better than other lenses of its focal length that I have used</li>

<li>very fast AF... it even seems faster than my 70-200 f2.8 VR2 which is an amazingly fast AF lens</li>

</ul>

<p>all in all, I'd say it is a GREAT lens. I do wish it had VR and I wish it wasn't such a brick, but if you're looking for performance, this thing delivers!</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>After thinking about the decision to buy either the 24-70 or the 17-55 and going back and forth at least a dozen times, I decided to go with the the 17-55. </p>

<p>The main reason I went with the 17-55 was that I decided that if I wanted to make this my primary lens, that I did not want to lose the wide angle side.</p>

<p>Plus I got a really good deal on a used lens and figure that if I change my mind, that I should be able to resell this lens at what I paid for it.</p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's help and advice.</p>

[mike_puraty]

<p>Personally once Nikon came out with FX camera bodies in digital I decided I would get a FX body when affordable to my budget.. Once the choice was made I only bought FX compatible lenses. So when I got the D700 ALL my current lenses work on EVERY CAMERA I own. Plus you always lose so much reselling most camera equipment..Like some respected evaluators say... You'll spend hundreds or more less if you begin buying equipment you hope to be using someday...Good example are the 5 tripods I went through until buying a real professional grade tripod I'll use as long as I am taking photographs..</p>