24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8?

P

pm79

Suspended / Banned
Messages
166
Edit My Images
No
I know you must be thinking that it's a crazy title as both lens have got completely different focal length. Actually I'm looking for a lens for portrait and general use at home. I'm more of a hobbiest photographer who likes portrait photography and sometimes landscapes and occasionally sports (if I get chance). At the moment I have got following gear
Nikon D90
Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro
Nikon 35mm f1.8
Nikon 18-105mm kit lens
Sigma 70-300mm f4.5 -5.6
Nikon sb600 and sb400

I love 35mm f1.8 and 105mm macro lens. When i'm taking pictures of my daughter with nikon 105mm (which I love) I have to stand quite far back and because of that reason sometimes can't get full body in pictures and with 35mm I struggle with her because she reaches out and keeps on touching the front glass!!:eek:

I've been contemplating 70-200mm f2.8 for a long time and replacing sigma 70-300 which i hardly use now. But then recently I started reading about 24-70mm f2.8 and got more confused. Now prob is you can still find 70-200mm being sold on forums but you hardly see 24-70mm being sold 2nd hand. so that would mean either I go for 24-70mm new or 70-200mm 2nd hand.

So my dilemma is out of these 2 lens which one do you think would serve my purpose more and why? I know most of you will probably go in favour of 24-70mm but I don't know why I'm very much fascinated by 70-200mm for some reason!!:p
 
Which focal length do you use most often?
 
consider a 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 either ? They would be a lot cheaper than a 70-200 !
 
arad85 said:
Which focal length do you use most often?
Click to expand...

I mainly use the 35mm f1.8 and 105mm f2.8 lens at the moment. haven't used the 70-300mm and kit lens for quite a while. could be because I like shooting in wide aperture.
 
Eth said:
consider a 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 either ? They would be a lot cheaper than a 70-200 !
Click to expand...

50mm wouldn't give me a big advantage on 35mm.. i'll look at 85mm f1.8 thanks (that means more research and more confusion probably :thumbs:)
 
If you are shooting indoors, I'd consider the 24-70. The 70-200 is a bit long on a DX body for anything other than head and shoulders - unless you live in a warehouse!
 
I think for photographing children or indeed other portraits I'd go for the 24-70 F2.8, most people don't because they can't afford it but if you can I wouldn't hesitate. I know people say you can zoom with your feet etc but especially when photographing kids I think the zoom is just that more flexible and quicker. On a crop sensor the 24-70 will make a great portrait lens.

The other thing to note though is that the new 70-200 VR II breathes when the subject is close so it's actually got a shorter effective focal length which is actually quite handy if you want to use it for portraits of kids running around in a bizarre sort of way.....
 
Last edited:
its hard, working on a budget never makes life easy. Have you thought about getting a 2nd hand Nikon 80-200 2.8 ? You have the 18-105 which will cover the middle range. mpb photogrpahic are great so are grays of Westminster
 
I'd be thinking nifty fifty here - perfect indoor portrait lens. Don't forget the crop factor, 50mm on a DX format sensor is pretty much the sweet spot for most portraits (in my opinion of course). If you had the luxury of being outside with space, then I'd encourage you to go longer, but 50mm is the sort of lens everyone should have access to at least once!

Cheers,
James
 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...w--test-report if it helps
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. On a 2nd thought I think i'll be better off with a zoom lens. I have already got a prime lens. Although they are great lens IMHO but sometimes I feel lack of zoom can limit me sometimes.
If you are shooting indoors, I'd consider the 24-70. The 70-200 is a bit long on a DX body for anything other than head and shoulders - unless you live in a warehouse!
Click to expand...
:thumbs:
I think for photographing children or indeed other portraits I'd go for the 24-70 F2.8, most people don't because they can't afford it but if you can I wouldn't hesitate. I know people say you can zoom with your feet etc but especially when photographing kids I think the zoom is just that more flexible and quicker. On a crop sensor the 24-70 will make a great portrait lens.

The other thing to note though is that the new 70-200 VR II breathes when the subject is close so it's actually got a shorter effective focal length which is actually quite handy if you want to use it for portraits of kids running around in a bizarre sort of way.....
Click to expand...
its hard, working on a budget never makes life easy. Have you thought about getting a 2nd hand Nikon 80-200 2.8 ? You have the 18-105 which will cover the middle range. mpb photogrpahic are great so are grays of Westminster
Click to expand...
Is it true that 24-70 is best used on FX body? On DX body I have heard people saying that there are better lens for a cheaper price (I don't which one they mentioned)
70-200 VRII is defnitely a better buy than VRI for the reason you mentioned but my other half won't be very happy if I spend £1500 on a lens. Budget is not really a prob but I don't want to spend too much on a hobby which I am still developing. I think I'll stick to under £1000 range. Moreover I can sell my Nikon 105mm macro for approx £500 so effectively would be spending only £500. ;)
 
Moos3h said:
I'd be thinking nifty fifty here - perfect indoor portrait lens. Don't forget the crop factor, 50mm on a DX format sensor is pretty much the sweet spot for most portraits (in my opinion of course). If you had the luxury of being outside with space, then I'd encourage you to go longer, but 50mm is the sort of lens everyone should have access to at least once!

Cheers,
James
Click to expand...

But would it give me any extra advantage over my 35mm F1.8?
 
pm79 said:
But would it give me any extra advantage over my 35mm F1.8?
Click to expand...

Depends on your style I think. Maybe use your kit lens a couple of times at 50mm and see if you like it?

Personally I really like the 50 mm for portrait on my D7000. One of the great advantages of a crop over full frame camera is how much cheaper the 50 mm lenses are....it pretty much does the same job as an 85mm on an FX sensor and about a quarter of the price.

On my D7000 I almost exclusively use my 50mm 1.4G and 70-200 VRII. Don't really have much call for anything wider.
 
Last edited:
pm79 said:
....I've been contemplating 70-200mm f2.8 for a long time and replacing sigma 70-300 which i hardly use now. But then recently I started reading about 24-70mm f2.8 and got more confused. Now prob is you can still find 70-200mm being sold on forums but you hardly see 24-70mm being sold 2nd hand. so that would mean either I go for 24-70mm new or 70-200mm 2nd hand.
Click to expand...

Instead of the 24-70have you thought of the "Beast" aka Nikon 28-70 2.8:shrug:

Its a lot less than the 24-70 & is a cracker of a lens - althou being slightly on the heavy side.....

Still a cracker thou :thumbs:
 
Trig's said:
Instead of the 24-70have you thought of the "Beast" aka Nikon 28-70 2.8:shrug:

Its a lot less than the 24-70 & is a cracker of a lens - althou being slightly on the heavy side.....

Still a cracker thou :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I'll definitely have a look at that. Thanks for it.

I just tried taking some pics using my sigma 70-300 lens in focal lengths between 70 & 200mm to see which focal lengths are best suited for me. now I think 70-200 may be ok for me. I just need to check the focal lengths between 24 & 70mm.

How's the bokeh on 24-70mm as compared to 70-200mm?
 
The Bokeh is going to be different because they are 2 diff lens's at different focal lengths, not sure how many aperture blades both lens's have so can't comment on that.
 
Another vote for the beast, sorry The Beast.
Sharp as a pin, great colours and contrast, and you'll save a fortune on Gym membership
You'll get a free workout every time you use it !!
 
trevorbray said:
Another vote for the beast, sorry The Beast.
Sharp as a pin, great colours and contrast, and you'll save a fortune on Gym membership
You'll get a free workout every time you use it !!
Click to expand...

Did u mean 24-70 or 28-70?
 
I've reading on all the options you guys suggested and came across nikon 17-55mm f2.8 which has quite good reviews as well. Just wondering what do u guys think of that?
 
Nikon 17-55 is great; heavy(ish) compared to the like of the Tamron 17-50mm, but built like a tank - a true pro-spec DX lens. Optics are great and focussing is good. I have a Tammy 17-50 but rent a 17-55 every now and then and TBH, there's not that much in it optically, well not twice the difference if price is to go by, but there's something reassuring about the Nikon when you are working quickly. The Tamron is no slouch but in terms of AF and build, the Nikon is ahead by a few noses.

Used 17-55s are between £600 and £750 - MPB usually have one or two for around £650. I'm currently looking for one myself but £650 is my top end - just prefer the build quality, as I'm a bit of a clumsy brute when it comes to my gear :)
 
pm79 said:
I've reading on all the options you guys suggested and came across nikon 17-55mm f2.8 which has quite good reviews as well. Just wondering what do u guys think of that?
Click to expand...


For the same money as Trev said - go for "the beast" as that will suit a FF body if you ever upgrade to FF....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top