do i really need the 24-70 f2.8 not sure at all?

[splitpin]

very nearly bought a new one today cant really afford it and cant find a second hand one.
maybe i will buy on credit tomorrow but do i need it?

i have a 50mm and 85mm f1,4 a 35mm f2,24mm and a 25-105 Holiday lens

ive always used primes all my life except i got a 70-300 recently trying to capture birds.

indoors i use the 50mm mostly as the lights so bad at the concerts i go to.
but recently i did 3 outdoor festivals and a short zoom could of save me changing and carrying gear.

is the 24-7- worth purchasing its expensive in the UK?

everyon else seemed to have longer lens like 200mm zoom
couldnt be sure as mostly canon and i dont know there stuff

 

[fitzz47]

I use my Tamron for snapshots, the others for myself.In my humble opinion you don't need a24-70

 

[dwind]

Ditto
Dennis

 

[Rob T]

Only you can answer this question for yourself. You know your shooting habits and requirements better than we do.

I personally will never sell my 24-70 2.8, I absolutely love it. Amazing quality.

Here is a 100% crop from that lens (on a D700):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Mattes]

Hi,

I just sold mine and will go primes for all shorter focal lenghts (means <100 mm).

The 24-70 is excellent, but it's huge and bulky, and my Zeiss 35 mm is better anytime at any aperture setting.

I wouldn't buy something on credit that I don't really need, but it's just me. If you are looking for a used one,
they are on sale here in german forums now and then. Prices between 1,200 and 1,400 EUR for nearly new ones.
As there is no customs fee between UK and Germany, why don't look here ?

Regards

Mattes

 

[basharar]

You have lots of nice midrange primes, why not play with the wider range of the spectrum, I would consider an ultra wide angle lens , its very challenging, fun and different, I have the 24-70 and the 85 1.4, I like the 85 1.4 better for people, with the 24-70 I find myself mostly shooting at both ends of the lens, either 70 or 24, now that I think about it a 14-24 would have been a much better choice...

 

[splitpin]

thanks for the answers i guess the main reason was the 3 song rule at the festivals i thought it would give me more time.

Mattes i was in Germany in June [Berlin] the exchange rate is practically a euro to a pound its very expensive for us Brits. now you will see a lot less tourists in europe :Sad:

 

[Bukka]

If you're questioning it, then you don't need it.

 

[swmlon]

If you're questioning it, then you don't need it.

I agree with Josh. I bought the lens but have since sold it as i found it too big and heavy and hardly ever used it as my trusty 35 and 50mm did the job.

 

[Randy]

If you're questioning it, then you don't need it.

+1

that really is the rule
if you don't know beforehand EXACTLY how you will use it you don't need it which doesn't mean you shouldn't get it it just means you may not use it enough and ou may end up selling it

 

[Jeff Fillmore]

I use mostly primes also- I convinced myself I needed it also- I could not find a used one also- so I purchased new. It's nice but I never used it so I sold it after 6 months (for exactly what I paid thanks to the price increase.)

 

[tfboy]

If you're questioning it, then you don't need it.

I recently bought the 24-70. I haven't fallen in love with it yet like I have with the 85/1.4 (ok it's a bit beyond the FL of the 24-70).

I'll most likely pick up the Siggy 50/1.4 too (already have the 30/1.4 but it's a DX lens).

So in that respect, I could do without it.

Having said that, when I do use it in anger for social events where flexibility is required (parties, weddings, etc), then the simultaneous image quality and flexibility and practicality trumps the use of constantly swapping primes on the body by which time you're most likely missed the shot.

And for that reason alone, I can't see myself getting rid of it. :wink:

But if you don't use it in those circumstances and you're questioning whether you need it or not, refer to Bukka's statement :wink:

 

[Glaudus]

I would not buy it even if it is a great lens.
You already have a nice set of primes.
I asked me the same question few weeks ago and decided to stay with primes for the range 24mm to 105mm.
Maybe a 14-24 and your primes would be the best option if you want to invest in a new lens.




Arnaud

 

[splitpin]

well it was the garage that settled this in the end

£600 for new tyres it bloody hurts when i think of what i could of done with the money lens whys :frown:

 

[milkpowder]

I hope your finances recover It doesn't seem like to me you're missing out on much though. As others have already said, you have a brilliant set of primes already. If you need something with a f/1.4 aperture at events, then I can't see how you will survive with a zoom with half the aperture size. That said, the loss in light can be made up for if you have a good camera body. The benefits as far as I can see are convenience, weather sealing and AF speed, but you're paying a lot for that. The 24-70 is measurably sharper across the frame than the primes at f/2.8 but here we're entering couch theory territory. Unless you crop aggressively or require very large prints, a little bit of intelligent sharpening in post will just about make up for any differences.

 

[choco.late]

...cant really afford it

you could look into the sigma 24-70 2.8 recent HSM version, it seems really good and cheaper than the Nikon although still fairly expensive , it is smaller but heavy. it seems to get good reviews.

if that's too expensive the tamron 28-75 2.8 could be your best friend...

or wait until you get the money!

unless you sell pictures you should not consider buying a lens you "cannot really afford", thats home economics 1.01!

 

[Domdog31]

I simply adore mine. But it does get a lot of use. So if you wouldnt use it much there is no point.

24mm is pretty wide and I often find myself using the extremes of this lens 24-28mm and 60-70mm as my EXIF trends show....

Perhaps I would be better suited with a 14-24 and my 85 f/1.4? Maybe, but the flexibility of this lens and superb IQ wide open and across the frame gives me no reason to switch....

If you shoot Nikon you owe it to yourself to own at least one of the following Nikon Lenses:
1. 14-24
2. 24-70
3. 70-200

 

[Rob T]

If you shoot Nikon you owe it to yourself to own at least one of the following Nikon Lenses:
1. 14-24
2. 24-70
3. 70-200

Ideally all three! :biggrin:

 

[schwrtz27]

don't buy the lens on credit...work enough money up to give yourself time to think about it and then buy what you NEED...don't ever buy a lens on credit, that's just bad practice! then you'll end up like all of us over here in the USA...haha

 

[erewhon]

> when I do use it in anger for social events

NEVER photograph angry.