- This topic is empty.
Opinion on lenses? 17-55mm 2.8 DX or 24-70mm 2.8G
-
I hope you good people are enjoying your weekend, I just wanted to ask for some advice/opinions.
Heres the story, I have just shot my first 3 weddings in the last 2 months. Before I took on any weddings I got some wedding suitable gear, a D700 & 70-200mm 2.8 VRII. My second camera is from my previous kit a D90 & I used for weddings an 11-16mm 2.8(rarely) and the 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. The kit lens isn’t capable of producing a high enough standard of photo, especially next to a photo from a d700 & 70-200mm 2.8. If I had the funds I’d buy another D700(or D800 . . . some day) and nikkor 24-70 2.8 but I don’t so what I’m thinking of doing is picking up a lens for the cropped-sensor D90 that will make up similar coverage to 24-70 on a fullframe.
My budget is around €1,200, so do i pick up a nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 DX (or a sigma 11-50mm 2.8 ) OR I could pick up a cheaper brand/used 24-70mm 2.8 fx then put it on the D700 and use my 70-200mm on the D90.
Please feel free to advise and give your opinion, I’m really interested to hear some.
Thanks,Conor.
Conor if you eventually want to go fully full frame, then buy lenses accordingly.
No point in having DX lenses that will not be used on future bodies. Lenses stay
with you for life, bodies you will upgrade, so buy the best you can afford even if
it means waiting another couple of months.I have just got the last of my “triology” lenses so now have 14-24 2.8, 24.70 2.8 and
80-200 2.8. These will cover me for almost all eventualities. I am glad I waited until
I had the money to get what I wanted.You could do worse than buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for the D90. It’s a combination I’ve used for about 3 years now, for just about every type of photography along the way [bar sports] – I also had an 80-200 2.8 which is a wonderful lens, great alternative to the 70-200, I had a very old one. Optically it was tack sharp, heavy to hold after a while though, and no tripod collar for safer hanging on an RS-sport strap. I used to attach the strap to the D90 body!! they’re tougher than you’d think ;)
Anyway, if that doesn’t suit, I’d go with the 24-70 2.8, stick that on your D700 and the 70-200 on the D90 for distance shots. 70mm on the D90 isn’t bad, 70-100 is a great range for candids. If you plan to keep the D90, the 17-55 is a cracker. But for the money, IMHO, it’s not worth that much more than a Tamron 17-50. The end results are so similar you wouldn’t notice. You’re paying for build quality.
Ya I don’t really fancy buying something expensive and knowing I’ll be selling it on eventually.
I think I’m going to stick it out for the nikkor 24-70 2.8 and use it on the D700 with the 70-200 on the D90. I suppose I’m rushing for instant results with a dx lens over waiting it out for something more long-term and compatible like a 24-70 2.8. I have had the D90 for 3 years now and I don’t know how long its going to last so this seems to be the most logical thing to do.Thanks very much for the comments guys, congrats on your trilogy shutterbug, that sounds awesome.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
