Is a 24-70 overkill on a D90 ?

amnesia

amnesia

Suspended / Banned
Messages
832
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I've had my D90 for almost a year now and I am finally starting to get the hang of this photography lark :thinking: I love my nifty fifty and 70-300 lenses, but find myself mostly using the kit 18-105 as my everyday lens.
However, the IQ of the other two lenses has really shown up the kit lens so I would like to replace it with something a little better.

Would splashing out on the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 be overkill on my D90 ?

I like car photography (as can be seen from my Flickr pages) so most of my shots are in the short zoom range.

Any thoughts / alternatives ?

Cheers,
Daniel.
 
Moreorless said:
The 16-85 and 17-55 2.8 DX lenses seem the most obvious alternatives to me.
Click to expand...

I had a look at those, but that would limit me moving to FX in the future. I will likely be tempted by a discounted D700 if / when its replacement is released... :shrug:
I guess I could always sell the 16-85 on when that happens.

The consistent aperture of the 24-70 appeals though... the D90 isn't the best in low light. An extra stop or two at the tele-end would be handy, but then there's no VR on the 24-70 so it's probably horses for courses.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as being "overkill" when it comes to putting top quality glass on the front of your camera.
 
amnesia said:
I had a look at those, but that would limit me moving to FX in the future. I will likely be tempted by a discounted D700 if / when its replacement is released... :shrug:
I guess I could always sell the 16-85 on when that happens.

The consistent aperture of the 24-70 appeals though... the D90 isn't the best in low light. An extra stop or two at the tele-end would be handy, but then there's no VR on the 24-70 so it's probably horses for courses.
Click to expand...

I'd guess it really comes down to whether you like the range on DX and if/when your going to upgrade to FX, if its likely to be a significant amount of time you probabley wouldnt lose too much buying one of the DX lenses used and then selling them.

I've not got much expereince/knowledge of Nikon but the 24-70 does seem to be considered the best quality standard FF zoom unlike the divided option with the 24-105 and 24-70 on the Canon side. If you got a used D700 when its replacement comes out then I'd guess the lack of VR could be less of an issue with the improved ISO performance you'd have.
 
Last edited:
I was in the same boat a year ago, using a Canon 40D with a 17-50 and aiming to move up to full frame in the near future and wondering what to do on the lens front. I got the Canon 24-70 to tide me over till I made the leap to a 5Dii and although it was a little strange at first not being able to go ultra wide the long end made up for it in many ways. Now I'm on the 5D i actually slightly miss the quality of a 24-70 on a cropped sensor.

I'd say go for it basically, just be prepared to change your shooting style a bit.
 
I have it on my D300, and certainly not overkill. A great lens, and much more useful focal length wise than the 17-55. Almost as good as a prime!
 
Cheers chaps... Sounds like I just need to make sure I don't accidentally buy a D700 at the same time :bonk:
 
amnesia said:
Cheers chaps... Sounds like I just need to make sure I don't accidentally buy a D700 at the same time :bonk:
Click to expand...

Go for it. The combination of the 24-79 f2.8 and the D700 which I can only dream about it.
 
There certainly is somthing to be said for buying FX-compatible glass to prevent the hassle of selling when the inevitable FX upgrade is made. The only downside that I can see is the lens will behave longer than it's meant to be, so your shortest equvalent focal length will be 36mm which isn't that short. And it's the combination of large aperture / short focal length that seems a lot more difficult to engineer (50mm and 85mm f/1.8 are similarly priced to 28mm and 24mm f/2.8s) so you're sort of losing that engineering advantage by throwing away the edges.

And, when move to FX after getting used to it on DX the lens will change character completely and you'll have to learn how to use it all over again - certainly it will appear quite short at the long end.

If you got a 2nd had 17-55 there would be no such confusion. And don't forget the 24-70 is an utter behemoth of a lens and would totally dwarf the D90. It actually dwarfs the D700 IMHO!
 
I's not overkill, but I'd be wanting to check how it balances on the camera, as the lens weighs a fair bit more than the body.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I's not overkill, but I'd be wanting to check how it balances on the camera, as the lens weighs a fair bit more than the body.....
Click to expand...

I always have a grip on the D90 and it's quite comfortable with my 70-300 VRII.
Will take it all along to my local indy camera store and have a play...

Hope I can resist the temptation of the D700 for a while... it would be just my luck to get one and the D800 come out a week later :bang:

Cheers all :thumbs:

Daniel.
 
I was very happy with the 17-55 f2.8 on my D300s. Compared to the 24-70, the wider end is very useful (25.5mm vs 36mm). IQ seemed absolutely top notch, the weight and size suit the smaller body and the price was better. I'd suggest you try a used 17-55 and see how you got on. Easy enough to sell it, probably at no loss at all, if you want to go FF later or you just don't get on with it.
 
amnesia said:
I always have a grip on the D90 and it's quite comfortable with my 70-300 VRII.
Will take it all along to my local indy camera store and have a play...

Hope I can resist the temptation of the D700 for a while... it would be just my luck to get one and the D800 come out a week later :bang:

Cheers all :thumbs:

Daniel.
Click to expand...

If the rumours are to be believed the D800 isnt going to be much longer anyway.

The reason I suggested the 17-55 is that you said you liked to use the wide end of the zoom for car shots, the 24-70 wouldnt give you that. That said I can see why some people preffer using 24-70 2.8's on crops, 36-105 seems like an ideal range for people shooting where the 2.8 will really help.
 
Looking at you flickr site and your exif data the 24-70 would be ideal for the car photography. I use one on my D300 and for me it provides a much more usable range than the say a 17-50. It also has the benefit of being constant aperture and once you have got use to the ease of using constant aperture lenses you won't want to go back to variable aperture.
 
cambsno said:
A great lens, and much more useful focal length wise than the 17-55.
Click to expand...

I always wish I could go wider than the 17mm on my 17-55, rather than I wished I had longer - I just whack my 70-300mm on when I need longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top