Obvious choice - or something else?

[Ari]

I've got a Nikon D7000 which came with the 18-105 kit lens.

Since then I've got a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR and a Nikon 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX, both of which seem much better quality than the kit lens.

So it strikes me I need to plug the gap between these two lenses, and the obvious choice seems to be a Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-...

Just wondered whether there were any better, or different, or better value options I should be considering?

[GetCarter]

That's the lens that is permanently on my D800. (does 90% of my photos) - It's fab.

[Ari]

Well recommendations don't get much better than that!

Only mild concern is that it's a bit overkill on a DX camera (it's slightly dearer than the actual camera!), but saying that at least it won't become obsolete if/when I ever trade up to FX.

[K12beano]

The DX alternative you might consider is the 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX. Simpo Two swears by it he's a DX stalwart

Personally I found 17-35mm (FX) (secondhand purchase c£700 from Grays five years ago) a good all-rounder on a DX - and having changed to FX it is now definitely my favourite lens. Although I haven't the luxury of the 24-70mm, but you could look secondhand for this or the 28-70mm it replaced.

[Ari]

That's interesting, but it looks to be about 50% dearer so the 24-70 probably makes more sense.

[K12beano]

Ari said:

That's interesting, but it looks to be about 50% dearer so the 24-70 probably makes more sense.

[Ari]

Weird. When I checked earlier is was £1,500. Just checked again to post you a link and it's £950...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000144I2Q/ref=...

The other one is £1,195

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-...

[Ari]

Ah, here's the one I found earlier...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-17-55mm-2-8G-ED-IF-N...

£1,626!

[K12beano]

Ari said:

£1,626!

indeed!

My favourite dream way to spend a lottery win is still: http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/products/secon... I know that you can all criticise me for paying premium prices but purchases I have made there have generally come with the sort of peace of mind you don't get with the adrenalin of Fleabay!

[Simpo Two]

Ari said:

Ah, here's the one I found earlier...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-17-55mm-2-8G-ED-IF-N...

£1,626!

And on the same page, one for £950: www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-17-55mm-F2-8G-AF-S-IF-ED-le...

[ian in lancs]

Ok so you have the Full frame equivalent of 18-36 and 105-450. The 24-70 (or 36-105 in your case) would plug the gap perfectly but I agree with others it is a massive overkill. I'd be thinking of a FF 35mm (52mm) or maybe a FF 50 (75mm). Out of the two the 35 would be a supersharp walkabout lens and the 50 more head / shoulder portrait. Save the money to fund the upgrade to FF and its only the 12-24 you'll need to get rid of.

[dxbtiger]

My shooting buddy has this also couple with a D7000, lovely combo and if in budget it will certainly bridge the gap very, very well.

FX comparability is a bonus.

[Ari]

ian in lancs said:

Ok so you have the Full frame equivalent of 18-36 and 105-450. The 24-70 (or 36-105 in your case) would plug the gap perfectly but I agree with others it is a massive overkill. I'd be thinking of a FF 35mm (52mm) or maybe a FF 50 (75mm). Out of the two the 35 would be a supersharp walkabout lens and the 50 more head / shoulder portrait. Save the money to fund the upgrade to FF and its only the 12-24 you'll need to get rid of.

I've got both of those, but I photograph a lot of moving stuff so the ability to zoom in such circs to get the shot at the best moment is very important.

[ian in lancs]

24-70 then if you need a zoom

[andy-xr]

If you have the cash, then sure, go for it. I didnt, though I tried it and ended up with the Sigma 24-70 2.8 instead. It's not got the same IQ as the Nikkor, but hasnt got the price tag either. I couldnt tell the difference at screen res anyway to be honest, there's enough PS going on that colour rendition and sharpness from RAW data isnt really an issue.

[Ari]

That's an interesting option, thatls. Although if I'm spending that much I'd probably go the whole hog and get the Nikon.

[Ari]

Bought the 24-70 at the weekend, Only had a quick go with it so far, but seems to be a very sharp lens!

[raptor600]

Simpo Two said:

And on the same page, one for £950: www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-17-55mm-F2-8G-A...

This is the one I would go for - great choice

[Ari]

raptor600 said:

Simpo Two said:

And on the same page, one for £950: www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-17-55mm-F2-8G-A...

This is the one I would go for - great choice

I considered that one but it's DX only and I'm planning to go full frame eventually.

Apart from that, other than being slightly cheaper, I couldn't see any advantage over the 24-70.

As an aside, the first review on that lens says:

If you bump into a press photographer who uses Nikon, chances are that they have this lens on their camera. If not, they probably have it in their bag.

Surely a press photographer would use full frame cameras, not crop sensor?

[GetCarter]

Ari said:

I considered that one but it's DX only and I'm planning to go full frame eventually.

Apart from that, other than being slightly cheaper, I couldn't see any advantage over the 24-70.

As an aside, the first review on that lens says:

If you bump into a press photographer who uses Nikon, chances are that they have this lens on their camera. If not, they probably have it in their bag.

Surely a press photographer would use full frame cameras, not crop sensor?

It's a very old review (8 years old in fact) of a very old lens! I had one about 8 - 9 years ago - great lens for a DX body, but I sold mine when I went FF.