Nikon AFS AF 24-70 mm f/2.8 F2.8G ED on a cropped body

[seventythree]

Am i correct in thinking that if i fit this to my d90 it will not fit snugly between my other two DX lenses which are the 10-24 and 70-300 ?

if fitted to a d90 it will give the DX equivalent of 36-105mm?? or do i have the wrong end of the stick?

even if its correct should i really worry about not having anything between 24 and 36mm?

and finally is there a better suited equivalent of the above lens for a D90?

cheers Al

 

[V8burble]

On a crop body all your lenses (whether DX or otherwise) will be affected. So will fit perfectly between

Edit:
The Nikon 24-70 is a beautiful lens

 

[seventythree]

thanks for clearing that up V8.

i'de have to offload my kit lens, a 50mm 1.8 , my old velbon tripod and possibly a kidney to get this lens.

I have recently bought a 35mm f1.8 which i absolutely adore, do you think that i should sell that too, or will the speed of the 1.8 make it a keeper?

cheers, Al

 

[Mud]

Am i correct in thinking that if i fit this to my d90 it will not fit snugly between my other two DX lenses which are the 10-24 and 70-300 ?

if fitted to a d90 it will give the DX equivalent of 36-105mm?? or do i have the wrong end of the stick?

even if its correct should i really worry about not having anything between 24 and 36mm?

and finally is there a better suited equivalent of the above lens for a D90?

cheers Al

The 70-300 isn't DX is it? I believe all versions of this lens are FX capable, but could be mistaken.

Your main Nikkor alternative for a fast mid-range zoom on DX is the 17-55mm f/2.8. I have this lens and it's excellent, but I prefer longer lengths so if buying again would consider sacrificing wide-end width for long-end length. That, and the 17-55mm isn't much cop on a body with FX sensor, limiting body upgrade potential. 17mm at the wide end is very useful and may save you the bother of constantly changing lenses...but this is down to you. I originally thought I'd be a wide-angle junkie, turns out I'm not. The 17-55mm can be had very reasonably second hand as they get traded once people decide they want an FX camera. I got mine for £560 and it's minty.

There're 3rd party alternatives in this zoom range that offer better value for money, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the Nikon offerings are the best.

 

[V8burble]

My advice would be to hire one from Stewart and see how you get on with it. It's a heavy lump, which may be fine for you or it may be a huge problem. It's great IQ and focus may well be your only concern however. I would keep your fast prime, they are small and simple lenses and f/1.8 that a f/2.8 just isn't... if you need f/1.8.

 

[seventythree]

The 70-300 isn't DX is it? I believe all versions of this lens are FX capable, but could be mistaken.

Your main Nikkor alternative for a fast mid-range zoom on DX is the 17-55mm f/2.8. I have this lens and it's excellent, but I prefer longer lengths so if buying again would consider sacrificing wide-end width for long-end length. That, and the 17-55mm isn't much cop on a body with FX sensor, limiting body upgrade potential. 17mm at the wide end is very useful and may save you the bother of constantly changing lenses...but this is down to you. I originally thought I'd be a wide-angle junkie, turns out I'm not. The 17-55mm can be had very reasonably second hand as they get traded once people decide they want an FX camera. I got mine for £560 and it's minty.

There're 3rd party alternatives in this zoom range that offer better value for money, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the Nikon offerings are the best.

aye, sorry the 70-300 isnt a DX lens. Cheers for the tips

My advice would be to hire one from Stewart and see how you get on with it. It's a heavy lump, which may be fine for you or it may be a huge problem. It's great IQ and focus may well be your only concern however. I would keep your fast prime, they are small and simple lenses and f/1.8 that a f/2.8 just isn't... if you need f/1.8.

yeh, i've really taken to the 35mm 1.8 and i would find it hard to let go of. hiring would be the sensible option, can you point me in the right direction of Stewart, or is that his username? Why would focus be a problem?

Al

 

[Jaz]

Lenses For Hire - Run by Stewart.

 

[cowasaki]

I have the 24-70 f2.8 bought for use with the D700 but have tried it on the D300 and D200 where it really shines. It is a superb lens and well worth the kidney :nuts:

 

[jonnyjogpants]

i have this lenses aswell

wow i thought i loved my 70-200mm F2.8

this is like my best lens now

 

[seventythree]

Lenses For Hire - Run by Stewart.

cheers for the link.

i'm unsure as to whether a d90 (or me) can do this lens justice or if it will be a big clumsy thing for carting around. i guess if i hire it these questions will be answered.
the fact that these are not very common second hand says more to me about the quality than the rave reviews.

one thing that strikes a chord is that the lens is for life , not just for christmas. It will be able to handle any future body upgrade

cheers, AL

 

[Mud]

cheers for the link.

i'm unsure as to whether a d90 (or me) can do this lens justice or if it will be a big clumsy thing for carting around. i guess if i hire it these questions will be answered.
the fact that these are not very common second hand says more to me about the quality than the rave reviews.

one thing that strikes a chord is that the lens is for life , not just for christmas. It will be able to handle any future body upgrade

cheers, AL

I think the thing to remember with the 24-70 is it's the best (money no object) compromise lens. Its flexibility and convenience makes it popular amongst wedding photographers. Ask yourself if you think you're going to use the range between the extremities (or indeed, hire and find out). As said, it is massive! The 17-55 is slightly less massive.

When I use my 17-55 the vast majority of shots are at 17mm or 55mm. This could easily be covered by a better, cheaper and lighter pair of primes...with a bit of ball-ache swapping lenses as necessary. There's an argument for having a wide and tele zoom, and a single cheap and fast prime between them. Wish I had the self-control for that approach...:bonk:

 

[seventythree]

When I use my 17-55 the vast majority of shots are at 17mm or 55mm. This could easily be covered by a better, cheaper and lighter pair of primes...with a bit of ball-ache swapping lenses as necessary. There's an argument for having a wide and tele zoom, and a single cheap and fast prime between them. Wish I had the self-control for that approach...:bonk:

if i think about it i have only recently used my 10-24, 70-300 and my 35mm prime. which fits in with your statement above. the Kit lens has all been forgotten about. I have the 50mm prime which is up for sale imminently which i personally found totally impractical for the majority candid shots and really only think its suited for pre arranged portrait work. I found myself constantly backing into walls and reversing into things. the 35mm on the other hand i find much more practical and the results are fantastic. Do i have the self control to stop there? :bonk:

probably not !

cheers, Al

 

[cowasaki]

I think the thing to remember with the 24-70 is it's the best (money no object) compromise lens. Its flexibility and convenience makes it popular amongst wedding photographers. Ask yourself if you think you're going to use the range between the extremities (or indeed, hire and find out). As said, it is massive! The 17-55 is slightly less massive.

When I use my 17-55 the vast majority of shots are at 17mm or 55mm. This could easily be covered by a better, cheaper and lighter pair of primes...with a bit of ball-ache swapping lenses as necessary. There's an argument for having a wide and tele zoom, and a single cheap and fast prime between them. Wish I had the self-control for that approach...:bonk:

If you have a D300 and were only using those two extremes it is actually cheaper to buy another D300 plus a AF 50mm f1.8D or AF 85 f1.8 as a 24-70 and have both extremes on TWO bodies !! Plus they are quicker!