Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 vs 70-200mm 2.8?

Dear Friends:

I've decided on the D300 but am trying to arrive at a decision regarding these two lenses (Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8 or the 70-200mm 2.8). I can't afford both right now, although that would certainly be a treat, and I look forward to that later.

Most of my shooting will be done at the 24-70mm range, so it makes sense to purchase that one, and I am so inclined. However, I wonder if anybody here has both, or has used both and can tell me about either of these for some Portrait (outdoor or studio) work at the 70mm end of things (105mm in 35mm terms).

The reason for my indecision so far has more to do with wanting to go with the most versatile lens for me right now. Going for the 24-70mm means my kit will top off at 70mm. Again, most of my shooting takes place within that (and wider). However, since I already have an 18-70mm, a 50mm 1.8, and perhaps soon an 85mm 1.8, I wonder if it might just be best to go with the 70-200mm in order to cover a wider range. I can see myself using either quite well, but keep coming back to the 24-70mm as the most versatile range ultimately because it can stay on the camera and cover street, candids, kids, and portrait.

This Summer I will drive across the U.S. twice, and will be making stops at Yellowstone, Rushmore, Jackson Hole, the Badlands, etc. I will also travel to Bermuda by cruise. I will have a wide angle, and the rest above, as well as whichever of these two lenses I decide upon. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated as to versatility and/or your experience with either of these lenses on a D300.

Best,

NK

I own both .

I did an event this past weekend, and other than family shots , the 70-200/2.8 was used most .

You can't go wrong with the 70-200 , and it seems that you have the other focal ranges taken care of
--



http://wildwally.smugmug.com/

Thanks R. Yes, that 70-200mm 2.8 is apparently from all I keep reading the King of Nikon lenses. I like the fact that it has VR, but wonder how much use I'll put it to given my usual shooting. Right now I've been spending a lot of time documenting street rallies and social protest. Some folks have recommended the 17-55mm 2.8 but... am not so enamored of it. I'll reconsider that one as well.

The 28-70mm 2.8 (the Beast) might also still be an option, albeit a heavier one, and with not a wide end on a DX camera, but... I keep hearing about softness at 24mm in the 24-70mm 2.8.

Well, let us throw in the 28-70mm 2.8 in the pile also. Any others with experience with all three?

Thanks again,

NK

I am sure the 70-200 AF-S VR is one great lens but I would not rule out the much less expensive AF 80-200 2.8D. I bought one today and it is super. the AF is fast on my D300 -- Almost as fast as the 18-200 VR. The lense is tack sharp and is lighter and shorter than the 70-200. Hand holding is a snap.

Mine was $920 from ePHotocraft in Burke VA. B&H has them for $915 for the USA version and $809 for the import.

Worth a look.

You bring up a good point.

For slightly more than what the OP would spend on a 24-70/2.8, he could get, quite possibly, a used 28-70/2.8 and used 80-200/2.8 AFD and have two pretty solid lenses. The only downside is the lack of VR on the tele, and therein lies the potential that the OP would have to "buy twice" since he at some point might get the 70-200 and/or 24-70 again, but if he's on a budget and needs the length now, this could be an option.

-m

From a practical standpoint, I'd almost say the 70-200/2.8, since it will fill out your kit the best, and offers quite excellent image quality.

As far as your specific question - you know, I own a pair of 24-70's (which should tell you what I think of the lens in general) and a 70-200, and used to have a 28-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8, and I've honestly never done a controlled comparison between the 24-70 at 70 and the 70-200 at 70. I can tell you the 70-200 at 70 beats the old 28-70 at 70, but the 24-70 definitely beats the 28-70 at 70 too, so it might be a tough one. 70mm on either lens is very, very good - I probably have shot more, recently, with the 24-70 and it's staggeringly good at that range, but so was the 70-200 when I used to use it there.

Ultimately though you need a fuller range, so I'm leaning towards the big zoom. It's not a lopsided opinion though - it would be a tough call if I had to do it myself.

-m

I shoot both and if I had to give one up it would be the 24-70.

I find it is my least used of the three with the 70-200 spending the most time doing duty and the 14-24 second.

If it were I, I would shoot the 18-70 and the 50 and add the 85 and 70-200 to my kit and call it a day.
As a matter of fact I was really wishing for a 85/1.8 the other day!

Depends on your shooting needs. If I could only have 1 lens - the 70-200VR would be the clear winner. When I go out and want to travel light, I take the 70-200 and a small Lowepro bag. Light and easy. In the one small pocket I take a TC for extended reach with little weight. With that one lens, and one TC I can go from 70-400mm (or 70-340).

If you decide you shoot under 70mm more, then get the 24-70 and a TC to push you out further for the times you need it - until you can afford the other lens.

--
'Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.'
===============
Nikon D300 - MB-D10 - SB800 - TC-20EII - TC-17EII
Nikon 17-55(2.8), 24-70(2.8), 105VR(2.8), 70-200 VR(2.8), 300(2.8)

24-70 is by far the most versatile.
Live with it for awhile and then get the 70-200.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

FYI - I don't think the Nikkor TCs are compatible with the Nikkor 24-70 2.8.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2129/AF-S%20Teleconverter%20TC-14E%20II.html

As some others have stated, I'd buy the 70-200 2.8 VR. That's what I did and I absolutely love it (well, except for the size and weight). You already have the wide end covered and I consider the stock 18-70 to be a very decent lens to get by with until you can afford another major lens purchase.

From a timing perspective some have suggested the 70-200 2.8 VR is probably due for a minor upgrade in 2008.

Given that you have the other ranges covered with good glass, I'd opt for the 70-200.

You'll definitely appreciate having the longer lens for your vacation trip.

j.

I know that the 17-55 2.8 has lost some of its luster since the release of the 24-70, but its acually quite a good lens... mine is sharp across the full range and I use 17mm on the wide end much of the time, especially for indoor shots.

I certainly love mine - it gets the job done with ample flare. For event/people photography it's the best.

I can't get excited with only 24mm on the wide end on a DX camera - just not wide enough. The 24-70 is a beautiful lens, but I find 24mm just a tad too long on the D300.

The color and contrast of the 17-55 are amazing.

j.

NikonianConvert said:

From a timing perspective some have suggested the 70-200 2.8 VR is
probably due for a minor upgrade in 2008.

Click to expand...

I would consider this in your decision! Although I can't possibly see how the 70-200 could be improved, I couldn't see the 28-70 f2.8 being anything less than stellar compared to the 24-70. The fact is the size, IQ (although not significant it is there), slightly wider end, and lens flare are all improvements with the 24-70.

Just something to consider IMO.

I have both the 24-70 and the 70-200

I had expected the 70-200 to be the weapon of choice, but am actually finding the 24-70 to be the one that's on my d300 by default!

I don't want to give either one up.. but at the moment the 24-70 wins!

I will add the wide angle at a later date.

jlf said:

I certainly love mine - it gets the job done with ample flare. For
event/people photography it's the best.

I can't get excited with only 24mm on the wide end on a DX camera -
just not wide enough. The 24-70 is a beautiful lens, but I find 24mm
just a tad too long on the D300.

The color and contrast of the 17-55 are amazing.

Click to expand...

I have to agree I have the 17-55 24-70 and the 70-200 The 24-70 is my weapon of choice on my D3 but that's because it's the same field of view of the 17-55 on the D300. 24 is an effective field of view of 36mm on FX. For portraits the 50 or 85 will do you very well. For street rallies you will miss the wide end of the 17-55. You will also get a lot of use out of the 70-200. I'd plump for that first to compliment what you have then really consider the 17-55 to replace the 18-50.

--
Pierreleon