17-35mm f/2.8 D or 24-70mm f/2.8G? I've done some research on my own, but still couldn't decide if I should choose Nikon's 17mm-35mm f/2.8D or 24mm-70mm f/2.8G?
642997
Id say pick the 17-35 if you intend to stay on DX size for another 5yrs... the 50mm covers the middle of the 24-70 so moving your feet will cover that distance, but the 17-35 will allow for group shots and landscapes/buildings... the 24 will limit that somewhat.... my2cents!
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
1413081
Get the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm f4 for less tha half the price. It's a two lens combo that is outstanding. The pictures are sharp,crisp, and saturated.
1192317
I really like the 18-140. I also have the 55-300. At the time I was researching to purchase a new lens the 18-140 appeared to be the better choice. I went to the Nikon site and did a comparison between the 18-140, 18-200, and 18-300. The 18-140 was new, with the newer technology, lighter, and cheaper. For me, 18-140 focus quickly and it has the range I use most. I usually keep the 55-300 with me, so I'm covered in most situations.
8516
Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages' advice I found here paid off.Thanks to all of you who shared your experiences with me. Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages'... » Read More Well, after considering all my fellow photographers' advice, on whether or not to switch to MK IV from 7D, I "took the plunge" and purchased three L lenses: 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-105mm f/4.0, and 70-200mm f/4.0. It is still too early to tell, but from my initial impressions shooting during the snow storm in NYC, I am very happy with all the L lenses, even though I had to sell most of my old lenses to get them. Just looking at the LCD screen after each shot, I can readily see the difference in sharpness and color. I am waiting to get a 20"x24" print and see if all the sages' advice I found here paid off.Thanks to all of you who shared your experiences with me. « Show Less
2038042
go to nikonusa.com.. look at lenses you have the ability to check a box and compare lenes, side by side.. i love my 24-85...
1773126
Nikon 85mm f/18.G is really a great lens . I really enjoy , specially in low light condition . It gives so much details . In this price its really good. I'd say its one of the best lens of Nikon if we consider Quality:price .
2061531
24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best. 24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken... » Read More 24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best. « Show Less
464452
I have both lenses and use them differently. The 23mm I mainly use when street shooting. But since I got the 23mm, I've don't use my 18-55 as much.
464455
The 18-55 is a great lens, but the 23mm prime is a magic lens. Since I've acquired the 23mm I hardly use my 18-55. Maybe it's still the honeymoon phase, but I just love the 23. It renders images in a different way than the 18-55, and the speed/DOF of 1.4 really does make a difference.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
1784428
I use my 24-70 for just about everthing, it is a great lens. I have done portraits, events, weddings and my own stuff while on vacations. Your only other real alternatives are primes. (85mm, 50mm and the 70-200mm) The pics come out of the 24-70 really sharp, the bokeh is great and the contrast is really eye opening if you have metered your shots correctly... Hope this helps..Phil
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
1872898
I ordered mine with the 24-120 f4, for a walk-around prime lens. The 24-85 is a good choice, too. As for the other zooms you mentioned, it depends entirely what type of photography you are going to do. The 80 to 200 f2.8 is a very good lens - it's expensive, tho. The other zooms are fine, but the quality seems to go up with the price. Also, go to dpreview.com and find their test info on the lenses you want. They are a great source for valid info on all things digital...both cameras and lenses. I love my D610.
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.