Anybody swapped a Nikon 24-70 for primes?

gad-westy

gad-westy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,527
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Just pondering something. I had a Nikon 28-70 2.8 which has now been replaced with a 24-70 2.8. Both lenses are splendid and cover a huge range of uses. However, they're quite bulky things to carry around and I'm also quite aware that the value of a 24-70 could buy quite a few primes. I'm not necessarily going to go through with this but would be interesting to hear from those that have.

Have a 50mm 1.4 already so would probably go for something like a 20mm, a 35mm and an 85mm

So anybody done this? Any regrets?
 
I have mainly primes, with an 18-35 and 70-300, and TBH I'd probably swap the primes for the flexibility of a 24-70.

If you're a zoom or prime fan you know it, and only you will know if you want the flexibility of a zoom.
 
redddraggon said:
I have mainly primes, with an 18-35 and 70-300, and TBH I'd probably swap the primes for the flexibility of a 24-70.

If you're a zoom or prime fan you know it, and only you will know if you want the flexibility of a zoom.
Click to expand...

Cheers. I don't think I've quite decided which camp I sit in yet. I love using primes when I know exactly what I'm going to be shooting and I generally prefer the results. My 50mm spends a lot of time on the camera. However, I do like the convenience of a zoom as I really hate changing lenses when out and about. I like the fact that I can stick the 24-70 on and go out with just that and nothing else and know that I'm covered for nearly everything. Maybe I'm answering my own question here!
 
gad-westy said:
Cheers. I don't think I've quite decided which camp I sit in yet. I love using primes when I know exactly what I'm going to be shooting and I generally prefer the results. My 50mm spends a lot of time on the camera. However, I do like the convenience of a zoom as I really hate changing lenses when out and about. I like the fact that I can stick the 24-70 on and go out with just that and nothing else and know that I'm covered for nearly everything. Maybe I'm answering my own question here!
Click to expand...

Started with zooms, now with the exception of the 70-200 I only use primes mostly because they feel a lot less intrusive.

Try carrying 3 out of say 24/35/50/85 alongside your 24-70, and pay attention to how much you end up with the 24-70 on versus the primes and how much you get frustrated that the 24-70 isn't on. That seems the best way to decide.
 
ausemmao said:
Started with zooms, now with the exception of the 70-200 I only use primes mostly because they feel a lot less intrusive.

Try carrying 3 out of say 24/35/50/85 alongside your 24-70, and pay attention to how much you end up with the 24-70 on versus the primes and how much you get frustrated that the 24-70 isn't on. That seems the best way to decide.
Click to expand...

Cheers. Only problem is that I'd need to sell the 24-70 to buy the primes. I'm also a bit concious that the 24-70 is considered amongst the cream of the Nikon lens line up where as the sort of primes I'm looking at would all be mid/lower range. I suppose, this does have it's upsides in terms of potential wallet damage if any need repair/replacement though.

Being honest I'm pretty happy with the 24-70, but just occasionally I wish it was lighter!
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
Cheers. I don't think I've quite decided which camp I sit in yet. I love using primes when I know exactly what I'm going to be shooting and I generally prefer the results. My 50mm spends a lot of time on the camera. However, I do like the convenience of a zoom as I really hate changing lenses when out and about. I like the fact that I can stick the 24-70 on and go out with just that and nothing else and know that I'm covered for nearly everything. Maybe I'm answering my own question here!
Click to expand...

If you were talking of a 24-70 zoom with inferior credentials than the Nikon then maybe the prime route would be a consideration...but when you have a lens of this quality with its obvious flexibility then IMO its a no brainer....24-70 all the way. :thumbs:
 
Hmm I wouldnt swap the 24-70 for the cheap primes, you only gain 1 stop with the 35 f/2 but lose sharpness, and gain nothing from the 24/28 f:2.8s, and the 20mm while a wider lens is hardly exciting. I'd only swap the 24-70 for 3 of the 24/35/50/85 f/1.4s. But apart from the 50 they are decidedly pricey!
 
I use a 50 and 85 prime but also have the 24-70.
I do prefer the primes but about half the time I will take the 24-70 anyway just because its easier,especially when chasing my kids around.

I doubt i would swap it for primes unless they were the top versions i.e the 24 and 35 1.4g versions and thats not going to happen.To be honest though i cant see me getting rid off mine even if i managed to get the above primes its such a good performer and makes life simpler
 
pmac said:
I doubt i would swap it for primes unless they were the top versions i.e the 24 and 35 1.4g versions
Click to expand...

I'd second this :)
 
gad-westy said:
Cheers. Only problem is that I'd need to sell the 24-70 to buy the primes. I'm also a bit concious that the 24-70 is considered amongst the cream of the Nikon lens line up where as the sort of primes I'm looking at would all be mid/lower range. I suppose, this does have it's upsides in terms of potential wallet damage if any need repair/replacement though.

Being honest I'm pretty happy with the 24-70, but just occasionally I wish it was lighter!
Click to expand...

The 50 and 85 1.8Gs are both better than the 24-70 IQ wise, and far, far smaller. The 85 probably focuses a tad slower.

As for wider, yeah, unfortunately you're a bit screwed. The 35/1.8 is better optically, but it's DX only. The 35/2 is apparently not quite as good (no personal experience, but reviews seem to suggest so), and as much as I like the 24/1.4 (it is amazing), it alone is more expensive than a 24-70, and the 35/1.4 isn't far off.

(Nikon, this is why you need to make a 24/1.8 and an FX 35/1.8 :bang:)
 
I had this though some time ago, though I only used a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8.

I was travelling and opted for a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm set of primes. The first three are small and enable me to travel light which is great. I lent out my 24-70mm and shot a wedding, I found myself restricted on primes because when catching candid pictures you cant always control the situation.

Much of my work is studio based and nearly always use primes.

I did get a 35-70 or something like with a film camera, its nothing special but a zoom that is about the same size as the 85mm. Not ideal as it sticks over f/8 and leaks light but from f4-8 its good enough for family snaps.
 
Well, I think you have all answered this for me. I get the feeling that the grass might not be greener on the other side. I think the 24-70 will be staying for the time being.
 
About a year after buying my first 24-70 AF-S I decided to sell it and go all primes, it was primarily the weight the got me.

I set myself a goal of getting the primes with the same price of the 24-70 I was selling, ended getting the 35/2 AF-D and the Voigtlander 58/1.4

As has been said, the 35/2 isn't as sharp as the 24-79, but what you lose in sharpness, you'll gain in versatility!

I've since realised that you can't get equally good quality prime lenses that cover the range of the 24-70! Went and bought another 24-70, only to have it back on sale a couple of years after buying it!

I now use primes predominantly: -

20/3.5 Voigtlander (for abstracts)
24/3.5 PC-E (for architectural)
35/1.4 AFS ( for street)
45/2.8 PC-E (my landscape workhorse and macro)
50/1.4 AFS (general all round yumminess)
58/1.4 Voigtlander (another general all round yumminess)
85/2.8 PC-E (portrait & macro)

I don't see the need for the 24-70, for me anymore; but it was heavily used and is amazingly sharp and versatile.
 
I predominantly use 35 and 85 primes but I do have the 24-70 as well. TBH I've only kept my 24-70 because I do not have a wide prime but if it's speed and flexibility you need, I would keep the zoom. I guess it's down to preference too, personally I prefer to shoot and move-shoot and move, especially for something like a wedding.
 
ausemmao said:
(Nikon, this is why you need to make a 24/1.8 and an FX 35/1.8 :bang:)
Click to expand...

Somehow missed this post earlier. Aint that the truth. What was putting me off the prime route is that Nikon really don't seem to offer anything particularly amazing at the wide end for sensible money. I don't even want wide apertures, just high quality. The 35mm f2 has quite mixed reviews. It's a shame as I loved my dx 35mm 1.8. Of the wider primes, I've had a couple of the 28mm 2.8's and they're ok at narrow apertures but the results from my 28-70 were miles better. The 20 and 24 seem to be better regarded but not exceptional. Unfortunately the 1.4 primes are big bucks, I'd be happy with a bag full of those but they're quite heavy and obscenely expensive, though I'm sure they're worth it.

I think the path to satisfaction for me right now is to keep the 24-70 and to save for an 85mm prime to satisfy my prime lust! I had a 1.8 until recently and in hindsight should have probably kept it. I wouldn't mind taking a look at the new 1.8 AFS version or the Sigma 1.4 or even one of the Nikon AFD versions but none of them are cheap either so it may need to wait a while.

Thanks all again for the input.
 
I don't think I would ever give up my 24-70 but I do find myself using my 50mm 1.4 more and more (but not so much the 85mm). Incidentally the Nikon 50mm 1.4G is dead slow so if you shoot action type of stuff or where you are constantly changing focus from min distance to infinity it can be a little frustrating (hence I switched to the fast AF Sigma).
 
I've got a K-5 and a DA* 16-50 but I also have a 21,40 and 70mm primes. I wouldn't swap the primes for the zoom and I wouldn't swap the zoom for the primes. I had the primes first and some times just can't be bothered to swap around so I bought the zoom. However the zoom makes the kit a bit heavy so there are plenty of times when I will just take some or all of the primes. Combined weight less than half the zoom and fit in jacket pockets.

My point? Do not sell your zoom. Just find which of the ranges you use consistently more and gradually add those primes for when you want to go light.

Alternatively buy a smaller body like an MFT something like an EP3+20mm or 45mm (fantastic lens for very reasonable price).
 
I sold my 28-70mm and replaced it with the 24-70mm and have since added the 50mm 1.4G and tend to use this more in the studio due to weight and it produces quality results, my 24-70 is sat in its box in my studio... I am going to pick up the 85mm 1.8G from the Nikon store in Bangkok when I am over in a couple of months so may well part with the zoom..
 
gad-westy said:
Somehow missed this post earlier. Aint that the truth. What was putting me off the prime route is that Nikon really don't seem to offer anything particularly amazing at the wide end for sensible money. I don't even want wide apertures, just high quality. The 35mm f2 has quite mixed reviews. It's a shame as I loved my dx 35mm 1.8. Of the wider primes, I've had a couple of the 28mm 2.8's and they're ok at narrow apertures but the results from my 28-70 were miles better. The 20 and 24 seem to be better regarded but not exceptional. Unfortunately the 1.4 primes are big bucks, I'd be happy with a bag full of those but they're quite heavy and obscenely expensive, though I'm sure they're worth it.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what effect the D800 might have on this, seems to me it opens up a potential market for primes that arent espeically fast but are very sharp like the old Nikon 20mm lenses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top