The zoom lens that made me understand I prefer primes for landscape and portraits

For full frame I have pretty much turned to an all prime kit. I still use zoom for m43, as the good ones deliver excellent sharpness and contrast across the frame. That said, I will alway use a prime when I can.

I already sold my 70-200 f2.8 VR.... Didn't use it much. Huge. Obnoxious. Lousy for candid's because it was like pointing a bazooka at someone... They're gonna notice.

Now I'm debating about getting rid of my 24-70 f2.8 for the same reasons you are talking about.

I'm seeing some fantastic third-party primes with fantastic reviews that are comparatively dirt-cheap. I once bought in to the whole gotta-buy-branded-glass thing, listened to the sage advice of the people who live for these forums (I don't see much photography from them though.... just posts.....), bought all kinds of Nikon brand crap: flashes, lenses, bodies.... Spent a small fortune.

But recently thought a lot about when I first learned photography back in the early 80's, when none of this stuff existed, most people didn't buy top-of-line anyway, and there was tons of great photography from all kinds of creative people.... Noticing that, yeah, the bokeh has improved, and I suppose the pictures are sharper to the -nth degree, but is the _photography_ any better?

Every time I think I want some other focal length I find myself caught up in this how-will-I-afford-it thing when I find myself sucked in to the expensive lens mindset. But the more I think about it the more I'm thinking of selling my 24-70 f2.8 and just using some third party primes that have great reviews.... Like I did when I first learned photography... And took some pretty cool stuff.

I'm glad you posted this, because to say anything negative about a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 (or any other branded wide aperture lens) is considered blasphemy around here, but you came out of the closet and spoke up, and I'm joining in. Interesting timing. Great timing. I'm going back to adorama to take a more serious look at third-party fast primes.

Thanks!!

Interesting post - not sure if you're taking broad swipes at a large segment of people, or not, but I do have some thoughts - even if I'm one of those who posts a fair bit but doesn't show his work here (for both legal and privacy reasons, for what it's worth).

First off, I'm not sure photography hasn't gotten *worse*. The craft of it certainly is still the weak spot. Far too many over-saturated images, over-sharpened images, and too much use of the "one click" presets like those (damned) VSCO presets everyone who uses lightroom like to pull out, and a lot less ability to truly think about the post processing and how to get a really good image technically as well as artistically. Artistically, we might be a bit better because there are simply more people shooting and digital allows for freedom to explore without film costs, but surely, there is a lot of banal work out there too.

As for lenses - the thing I see is that people don't want to think. With the higher rez bodies of today, I believe we have to be more *aware* of matching tool (lens) to task (what we tend to shoot), because we now are using bodies that are capable of much better than 35mm film quality, and they will show weaknesses/strengths/differences in lenses much more easily than when we were shooting film in 1980. Take the 24-70 zoom, the object of a few of you folks ire. Pull back from brand names and what you like or don't like and objectively think what a 24-70 professional mid grade zoom is typically used for, it's use cases. I would submit that it's mostly a general purpose/photojournalist/event shooters lens - because it might be asked to do fairly well at a large number of tasks, as opposed to being fine tuned to perfection for one task. And that's what most pro grade 24-70 lenses (from anyone) are - good at many things, but excellent at none, multi-purpose lenses. And that makes sense. So when I hear of a landscape shooter low-ranking a 24-70 because it's not sharp in the corners at 24mm on a D8xx body - duh - given even the best 24mm primes need to be stopped down a bit to get sharp corners, I think it's reasonable to expect a wide zoom is going to have a bit more of a struggle. It wasn't designed to be an a$$-kicking 24mm lens; that's why one buys a prime. So I think people need to get clear in their head what the pro zooms are meant to be - not "prime replacements" in terms of "I can meet the quality of a prime for the most critical work I would do" but rather, professional tools for those who need very good (but not "perfect") image quality because WHAT they shoot doesn't require (and may not present) optimum quality. So a sports shooter, theater shooter, music shooter, dance photographer, wedding photographer - those are the people likely using a 24-70 or 70-200. Because the tool (the pro zoom) matches up better with the task. The landscape shooter working on a tripod or studio shooter with models doesn't need the best AF tracking performance that the pro zooms and the branded lens options give you (I have a lot of non-Nikon glass, but I keep a 24-70 around just because I know if I'm in a situation where *getting the shot* is possibly going to be difficult and I need the best odds, that this lens is going to be my best bet because of it's real life AF performance when things get tricky - and then obviously when I am not in those situations, I'll use a lens that is a better tool-to-task match). So the landscape shooter is better off with a prime,and likely so is the portrait shooter. That's honestly kind of basic, I think, yet we have the OP kind of slamming the 24-70 when he doesn't quite "get" what a pro zoom is used for. I'd rather see someone rank or review the lens within the *context* of what it was designed to do. But that's just me.

As for the 70-200, I sold mine. Not because of anything to do with it's quality, but because my current tasks don't match up as well to that tool as my multi-brand mid telephoto prime collection does. But I guarantee you that if I end up needing that zoom range and that kind of focus accuracy and acquisition speed, I'll get another one.

As for the third party lenses: I think only within the past few years have they really become a viable option - Sigma with their art series and the latest Tamrons are nice. Zeiss always has been nice. With Nikon (in particular) being very slow to introduce lenses, the only option to get better (for the more demanding new bodies) has been in many cases to venture off brand - I know I certainly have, owning a mix of Sigma Art, Nikon, and Zeiss glass with an oddball Tamron thrown in there. That wouldn't have happened 10 years ago - the quality of the third tier players wasn't as good.

-m

Bought this lens in 2010 love it the size is fine for me love the weight, resolution is fine on my D3s and D700, the D700 with grip and D3s are big anyway so you can't be too discrete anyway. I'm sure on D800/810 etc it's limitations might be exposed.

I'm about in your situation. Opted against the "best available DX zoom" 16-80 f/2.8-4 with my D500 and bought two Sigma's instead: 17-50mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/1.4. Was disappointed of the 30mm prime for portraiture and got the 50mm f/1.8G in addition -- love its results -- as long as zooming by foot is feasible.

Whenever zooming by foot is no option (events), I made a lot of good pictures with the 17-50mm f/2.8 so far. The best pictures were zoomed around 30mm and I'm asking myself why I did not put more trust in the 30mm f/1.4 prime. Promise to do that in the future.