If I put on 24-70 on my D90, am I crazy?

[ChrisMike]

Hello,

Ok, first is first, sooner rather then later I will go FX, that is why I did not invest in the 17-55. Till then I am thinking of getting the 24-70.
I am at around 3800 clicks and I looked at FL stats = to 35mm.
50% of total I am at 30mm to 80mm and most of that is around to 50 to 80.

I am desperate in trying to get along with my 17-35, but it is just not happening, maybe I need more time. I do enjoy landscape but I keep reaching for my only Dx lens which is the 16-85.

So, let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[powaq]

You've already made up your mind so why ask us
If you got the funds then, yes why not? But I would never do it, if getting a 24-70 involves selling that 17-35 (but that's just me wideangle > longer lenses, for me).
Either way you can't go wrong with that purchase... So why even bother asking. Just buy it already! Especially If you're goint to full frame in the near future.

 

[flatech]

I use my 24-70mm on my D90 all the time.

 

[ariel777]

I use the 24-70 on my D90 far more than the 18-50; If I want to go wide, I'll use the 10-20. In fact, I have my 18-50 for sale as its use is infrequent. It depends upon your specific shooting habits and needs. What's good for one may be undesirable for another.

 

[Mike Savage]

I use the 24-70 on DX and it works great in larger rooms or outside. Most of the time inside the house it is not wide enough for me.

Mike

 

[D90Shooter]

my main lens is the 24-70

 

[soxOZ]

No your not... Before there was FX in Nikon, I choose the 28-70 over the 17-55 and loved it, as I always tended to shoot long than short.
And if your thinking in the future to go FX, well IMO the way to go is the 24-70...

While waiting to go FX, get a 18-70 for under $200 or a Tokina 12-24 to use for those times you may need a wider angle...
The good thing about the Tokina is that you can still use it on FX in FF between the FL's of 17-24 if you get one...

 

[fao91]

While waiting to go FX, get a 18-70 for under $200 or a Tokina 12-24 to use for those times you may need a wider angle...
The good thing about the Tokina is that you can still use it on FX in FF between the FL's of 17-24 if you get one...

I agree 100% with the statement above.
Get the 24-70.

 

[56 Chevy]

The 24-70 is a GREAT lens -- I use mine all the time
Get one.....

 

[clbd39]

i'd love to have one, so you're not crazy in my view

 

[georgevee]

24-70 on DX is 36-105 why not that is a good range. DO IT.

 

[photographer 1234567890]

Why do people want 3rd party acknowledgment? If you like it and it is in your budget, go for it!

Nikon 24-70 is a fantastic lens and would take great pictures on any body! Just remember that it is a relatively ( to the D90 ) large and heavy lens, so I'd go to a camera store and put it on your body and make sure that it feels well balanced before buying it. Personally, I never liked the 17-55, perhaps because I was already in love with "N" coating which it does not have. For that alone ( IMO ) the 24-70 is superior.

 

[CraigH]

Well, now. Buying a 24-70 f/2.8 now then considering a FF later might be backward in that the cost of that lens is not that much less than the cost of a new or used D700. I see them selling around $2600 new, $2300 refirbished and around $2000 used. Might not be that the way to go first. Just a thought. Selling the D90 would fund the difference.

Of course you'd still need the 24-70 f/2.8. LOL. That's the trouble with these guys and gals at Nikon Cafe. They perpetually fuel my NAS.

Since you have a 17-35 f/2.8, Nikon's slightly older 35-70 f/2.8 AFD might fit the bill perfectly and for a third the price. I love mine. I originally purchased it on the advice of many here because I'd just bought the D700, was heading on vacation to the Tetons, and couldn't afford the 24-70 or 28-70. I thought the 35-70 f/2.8 was an excellent idea for a smaller lighter lens to tide me over. It's turned out so nice that I'm not sure I'm in the market anymore for the more expensive zoom. This was the fro-level mid zoom until it was discontinued in 2006.

The downside is that it's a push pull and the front rotates.

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

 

[ChrisMike]

Ok, cool!!

Did not make a final decision but your comments do help a great deal.
I do not have that much experince with digital but I did notice most scape pics I take are not very wide at all as equal to 35mm format.

I am not sure if I will be selling my 17-35, but if I willl not use it then no reason to keep it, perhaps another person can enjoy it more then me.
Most pics I took with 17-35 are at the long range any way, 30/35.

Cheers,
Chris