# Nikon 24-70 2.8 or 50 1.8 & 85 1.8?



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

I've been debating whether I should sell my 24-70 and pick up two primes to replace it. The reason for selling it is because I don't find myself using it as much as I used to, so it just sits in its case and it's too heavy to carry everywhere. I shoot with a d7000. Anyone make this switch?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 28, 2013)

It is one heavy $#%^ but i still carry and use mine


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

there's a few people here that are VERY partial to prime lenses. (im actually starting to prefer primes myself)
It really depends on what  you need out of your lenses. there's really nothing you can do with a zoom that you cant do with some primes. it comes down to how convenient you need your gear to be, and if you NEED to be under f/2.8 or not. If you really aren't using your 24-70, and you don't feel you need wider than 50mm (unless you already have wider primes or a wider zoom) then a 50mm and 85mm is a pretty good combination.  if you want to go just a little wider, you can go with a 35mm and 85mm. 

its a tough call to make. its hard to determine whether someone other than yourself should use a zoom or primes. we have both. 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 as well as nikkor primes 35, 50 (1.4 and 1.8) 85, and 180.  different situations call for different lenses. only you can really determine whether you should go with one over the other. especially when it comes down to selling one type to fund another.


----------



## haha101 (Mar 28, 2013)

sell it to me, ill  buy it


----------



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> It is one heavy $#%^ but i still carry and use mine



Yeah, I just want something that I can take anywhere and not realize its there. I mainly use it for more important events.




			
				pixmedic said:
			
		

> there's a few people here that are VERY partial to prime lenses. (im actually starting to prefer primes myself)
> It really depends on what  you need out of your lenses. there's really nothing you can do with a zoom that you cant do with some primes. it comes down to how convenient you need your gear to be, and if you NEED to be under f/2.8 or not. If you really aren't using your 24-70, and you don't feel you need wider than 50mm (unless you already have wider primes or a wider zoom) then a 50mm and 85mm is a pretty good combination.  if you want to go just a little wider, you can go with a 35mm and 85mm.
> 
> its a tough call to make. its hard to determine whether someone other than yourself should use a zoom or primes. we have both. 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 as well as nikkor primes 35, 50 (1.4 and 1.8) 85, and 180.  different situations call for different lenses. only you can really determine whether you should go with one over the other. especially when it comes down to selling one type to fund another.




I tried out a friends 50 1.8g and I liked it a lot. It's small, light weight and I could use it for anything. The 85 would come in for indoor sports like basketball, volleyball, etc. if I needed the extra reach. I don't want anything above a 2.8 which is why I figured primes would be good since they're so small and great to use.


----------



## ghache (Mar 28, 2013)

From personal experience, i would keep the 24-70.

I had one, along with a 70-200 and sold them both to buy primes. i ended buying a 24, 50, 85 and kept the left over money and bought another body. 

Sometimes i just wish i would have kept the 24-70. i am shopping for another one right now. I am thinking on getting the tamron 24-70 VC.

If you shoot kid portraits or any portrait in unusual locations., fashion, events or any other thing the required you to move around, the 24-70 is the ultimate tool.

I will always keep those 3 primes lens because because they are my all time favorite. Once calibrated to your body, these little lens are top notch and no zoom lens equals them IMO. but sometimes, practically, a 24-70 is going to make your life alot easier.


----------



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

haha101 said:
			
		

> sell it to me, ill  buy it



Send me a pm and we can work something out


----------



## nmoody (Mar 28, 2013)

You are basically debating the two main mentalities of accumulating and using lenses. 

First mentality and common with those who have been in the game a long time before zooms had decent IQ:
Purchase a handful of primes which have excellent quality and light weight but you need to either physically move to get the shot or change a lens potentially causing you to miss things. (Speculation is very dependent on the type of photography)

The second:
Buy only a couple of lenses that cover the ranges you need. You will sacrifice some quality (some say its negligible) but have a significantly easier time getting the shot.

As long as you invest in decent lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 this is what I think is the best option, but can totally understand the other mentality and it is still a great option. There is no wrong way of doing this.


----------



## Patrice (Mar 28, 2013)

poke said:


> I've been debating whether I should sell my 24-70 and pick up two primes to replace it. The reason for selling it is because I don't find myself using it as much as I used to, so it just sits in its case and it's too heavy to carry everywhere. I shoot with a d7000. Anyone make this switch?



A lens that does not get used is not much use, so if you are thinking of selling it then just do it. You could get a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 to cover the range and have money left over.


----------



## rickmarquez (Mar 28, 2013)

I just upgraded from a DX camera to an FX frame and I'm still on the fence about having a mid-tele lens in my kit for the new camera. I have the 17-55 &#402;/2.8 for my backup body which sits in my bag most of the time. I've thought about selling that and putting the cash towards a 24-70. However, for the last 4 months I've been getting along just fine with a 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, and 70-200mm set of lenses for my FX body.


----------



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

Patrice said:
			
		

> A lens that does not get used is not much use, so if you are thinking of selling it then just do it. You could get a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 to cover the range and have money left over.



I'd just need a 50 and the 85, maybe a 35.




			
				rickmarquez said:
			
		

> I just upgraded from a DX camera to an FX frame and I'm still on the fence about having a mid-tele lens in my kit for the new camera. I have the 17-55 &fnof;/2.8 for my backup body which sits in my bag most of the time. I've thought about selling that and putting the cash towards a 24-70. However, for the last 4 months I've been getting along just fine with a 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, and 70-200mm set of lenses for my FX body.



How do you like the primes compared to the 17-55?


----------



## Mully (Mar 28, 2013)

Old primes are great...if you can live with manual.  The glass can be very sharp and prices are good.  On Nikons just remove the old meter clutch and you are good to go.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 28, 2013)

I'll trade you my 24mm prime, and 50mm prime for your 24-70mm


----------



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> I'll trade you my 24mm prime, and 50mm prime for your 24-70mm



I don't want a 24mm but if you want to work something out for the 50mm + cash then just shoot me a pm


----------



## HerkFE (Mar 28, 2013)

The big thing here is if you are shooting outdoors in a dusty environment and need the focal length but can't risk switching lenses. If you are doing mostly controlled shooting and not much on the fly photography where you adjust your focal length then you will be happy with primes. The first time you need to swap your 50 for your 85 and don't have a dust free environment to do so you will likely wish you had your 24-70mm.


----------



## rickmarquez (Mar 28, 2013)

poke said:


> rickmarquez said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm doing Ok shooting mostly primes. There was one occasion where I needed to go pretty wide on a small location movie set last month. That's when the 17-55 came in real handy. That was probably the only time I've used that lens in over 4 months.


----------



## TheLost (Mar 28, 2013)

It it was me...  I'd do a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4G) and a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.


----------



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

rickmarquez said:
			
		

> I'm doing Ok shooting mostly primes. There was one occasion where I needed to go pretty wide on a small location movie set last month. That's when the 17-55 came in real handy. That was probably the only time I've used that lens in over 4 months.



So the primes get the most use then and the 17-55 sits until you need it?


----------



## poke (Mar 28, 2013)

TheLost said:
			
		

> It it was me...  I'd do a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4G) and a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.



Thats not a bad set up. Someone offered me the 50 1.4g & $900 but i heard the 1.8g wasn't that far off from the 1.4 performance wise. As for the 70-200, the same guy has the VR1. I'm mainly looking for light weight and versatility so the 70-200 might be out of the question


----------



## rickmarquez (Mar 29, 2013)

poke said:


> rickmarquez said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pretty much. I imagine if I had a 24-70 the 17-55 would never see the light of day. I think I'm starting to talk myself into selling my 17-55 after this thread.


----------



## poke (Mar 29, 2013)

rickmarquez said:
			
		

> Pretty much. I imagine if I had a 24-70 the 17-55 would never see the light of day. I think I'm starting to talk myself into selling my 17-55 after this thread.



And I've decided to get a few primes lol. Shoot me a pm if you want my 24-70


----------



## RyanJ7 (Mar 29, 2013)

This is what I am thinking with a D600 or D800

Primes:
Samyang 14mm F2.8 
Sigma 35mm f1.4
Nikon 85mm f1.8

Zooms:
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR2

[h=1][/h]


----------



## poke (Mar 29, 2013)

RyanJ7 said:
			
		

> This is what I am thinking with a D600 or D800
> 
> Primes:
> Samyang 14mm F2.8
> ...



What do you shoot with now?


----------



## TheLost (Mar 29, 2013)

poke said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For me... i can live with 50mm and use my feet to zoom... but for 'image isolation' and sharpness once you use the 70-200 f/2.8 you'll forget about the weight 

The 85mm 1.8G is amazing but for portraits you need something longer.   Just my opinion.. I fall under the 'you can have my 70-200 f/2.8 when you pry it out of my cold dead hands' crowed though.

*edit*.. if size is an issue.. DXOMark says the 70-200 f/4 is a great-smaller-option.


----------



## Patrice (Mar 29, 2013)

rickmarquez said:


> I'm doing Ok shooting mostly primes. There was one occasion where I needed to go pretty wide on a small location movie set last month. That's when the 17-55 came in real handy. That was probably the only time I've used that lens in over 4 months.



Rick,

If you don't absolutely need to sell the 17-55 for extra funds you could still keep it around for the occasional times you'd like to have a mid range zoom. The 17-55 can still be used on your fx camera, either in crop mode or with a 3rd party teleconverter.

The 17-55 does not play well with nikon tc's but works really well with a Kenko TelePro 300 1.4x TC. I quite like a midrange zoom for the type of shooting I often do so when I went to fx I paired my 17-55 with the Kenko tc and it worked very well as a midrange fx zoom but at f/4 instead of f/2.8. I have since sold that lens to finance a telescope purchase but have kept the Kenko tc to use with my 70-200, my 300 and sometimes with my 85 f/1.4 to get a bit more 'reach' at f/2 when shooting dance.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 29, 2013)

TheLost said:


> For me... i can live with 50mm and use my feet to zoom... but for 'image isolation' and sharpness once you use the 70-200 f/2.8 you'll forget about the weight
> 
> The 85mm 1.8G is amazing but for portraits you need something longer.   Just my opinion.. I fall under the 'you can have my 70-200 f/2.8 when you pry it out of my cold dead hands' crowed though.
> 
> *edit*.. if size is an issue.. DXOMark says the 70-200 f/4 is a great-smaller-option.



The VR1 is close to the f/4 price. Curious what will perform better. I know the VR is better.


----------



## shadowlands (Mar 29, 2013)

I like both... my 17-55 F2.8 is my golden child, but I'm still amazed with the $100.00 nifty fifty also....


----------



## TheLost (Mar 29, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> The VR1 is close to the f/4 price. Curious what will perform better. I know the VR is better.



Take a look at the DxOMark scores... and you'll see the f/4 is a bit better (and smaller... and lighter..).. However, it doesn't go to f/2.8 

DxOMark - The Nikon D800 and telephoto lenses

I absolutely love my Nikon VR1.. and the only thing that has stopped me from upgrading to the VRII is the focus breathing issue.. but if i didn't need f/2.8 i'd probably pick up the f/4


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 29, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Take a look at the DxOMark scores... and you'll see the f/4 is a bit better (and smaller... and lighter..).. However, it doesn't go to f/2.8
> 
> DxOMark - The Nikon D800 and telephoto lenses
> 
> I absolutely love my Nikon VR1.. and the only thing that has stopped me from upgrading to the VRII is the focus breathing issue.. but if i didn't need f/2.8 i'd probably pick up the f/4



It looks good.


----------



## kendalltristan (Mar 29, 2013)

I have a 24-70mm f/2.8 and for primes I have a 35mm f/2.5, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8. For the most part the 24-70mm and the 50mm are the two lenses that stay on the camera the most and the 50mm only because I shoot an awful lot of very low light stuff. I wouldn't trade my 24-70mm for anything as it's easily the most versatile lens I have, regardless of what primes I have. That said, I wouldn't be too quick to get rid of a 24-70mm, even if you are happy with primes as there could always be situations where the zoom will be a lot handier than having to change lenses.

Regarding the 70-200mm lenses, I'm quite happy with the f/4. It's much smaller than the f/2.8 and the VR is fantastic.


----------



## poke (Mar 29, 2013)

kendalltristan said:
			
		

> I have a 24-70mm f/2.8 and for primes I have a 35mm f/2.5, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8. For the most part the 24-70mm and the 50mm are the two lenses that stay on the camera the most and the 50mm only because I shoot an awful lot of very low light stuff. I wouldn't trade my 24-70mm for anything as it's easily the most versatile lens I have, regardless of what primes I have. That said, I wouldn't be too quick to get rid of a 24-70mm, even if you are happy with primes as there could always be situations where the zoom will be a lot handier than having to change lenses.
> 
> Regarding the 70-200mm lenses, I'm quite happy with the f/4. It's much smaller than the f/2.8 and the VR is fantastic.



I'm starting to consider keeping it if it doesn't sell and just grab a 50mm & 85mm. Any recommendations on either d or g versions? 1.8 would work so the 1.4 isn't too big of a deal


----------

