Rethinking 24-70 2.8 G Purchase. Primes?

[jonshonda]

I recently bought a used 24-70 2.8g to partner with a 70-200 VR2. Let's just say the condition of the lens is not what the seller deacribed, so i am thinking about primes.

I am just getting back into photography and was hoping to "easily" cover the 24-200mm range. Now I'm reconsidering the purchase and thinking a few primes might be the way to go.

No specific use, general photography of anything that catches my interest. Thinking 20 1.8g and 60 2.8d macro, paired with the 70-200? Eventually 105 2.5, maybe the 85 1.8g later too. Or just find a good 24-70 and move on?

 

[Clix Pix]

I've been starting over with a new system (Sony) and have been buying primes first rather than zooms, although I do have one zoom, the 200-600mm. I have found in the past that with zooms I tend to use whatever the longest reach is anyway, so why not just go with primes instead? Right now I've got a 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/2.8 (macro), 85mm f/1.8, 90mm f/2.8 (macro) and 135mm f/1.8. So far these have all done what I've needed in various situations. Eventually I will add an all-purpose 24-105mm for travel and such, and perhaps a 20mm or 24mm prime. My main interest is macro, which is why I've got the two macro lenses.

 

[rick_reno]

I have the 24-70 non VR version, it gets a lot of camera time. I also have the 20mm and 85mm, both in f/1.8, they get very little use, I can’t remember the last time I used either one of them. My go to macro lens is the 105 f/2.8, I use it quite a bit and really like it. I have the 200 f/4, it’s a very nice lens but rarely sees any camera time. If my 24-70 suddenly broke, I’d be looking for another one.

 

[Butlerkid]

Are you disappointment with the cosmetics or the IQ? Most 24-70's (I have the non-VR) are simply excellent for IQ. Personally, I would hate to be switching lenses all the time. The only time it makes sense for me to use a prime is for macro, wildlife or extremely narrow DOF (like 1.4 or 1.8 primes, of which I have none because my subjects don't require it.)

 

[jonshonda]

Butlerkid, the zoom was not smooth from 24-50mm, but improved when the camera/lens was rotated to portrait orientation. There was evidence of oil leaking based on streaks on the inner barrel when zoomed to 24mm, and a large spot of corrosion on the mount. So just a few issues.

 

[Butlerkid]

Do you have the option to return it? Reputable sellers should (but don't always) accept a return like this.

 

[jonshonda]

Do you have the option to return it? Reputable sellers should (but don't always) accept a return like this.

Yeah the seller has been great to work with. Not a seller on NC.

 

[nuclearjock]

Can I ask how much you paid for the lens?

 

[jonshonda]

Can I ask how much you paid for the lens?

If it was listed as a 9/10, does the price matter? After I received the lens the seller initially tried to claim the reason he accepted my lower offer was "to cover some of the issues he may have missed". Numerous times I had asked about the condition, none of the issues were mentioned.

$660

 

[acnomad]

Thinking 20 1.8g and 60 2.8d macro, paired with the 70-200? Eventually 105 2.5, maybe the 85 1.8g later too. Or just find a good 24-70 and move on?

Since you state "general photography," I think it would be hard to go wrong with good copies of a 24-70 and 70-200.

I have owned three of the four primes you mentioned and never thought I needed a 24-70mm lens until I got one. Twelve months ago I purchased the 24-70mm f/4S and find myself keeping it mounted most of the time. That lens plus a good 70-200mm f/2.8 covers the lion's share of what I do.

Counterpoint: I do still use a manual focus 55mm Micro-Nikkor for closeup work. After all these years, that lens still never disappoints me. Also, the 85mm f/1.8G is a wonderful optic which is handy when desiring agility while shooting portraits, but it is largely redundant in my kit.

 

[nuclearjock]

If it was listed as a 9/10, does the price matter? After I received the lens the seller initially tried to claim the reason he accepted my lower offer was "to cover some of the issues he may have missed". Numerous times I had asked about the condition, none of the issues were mentioned.

$660

Lens doesn't sound like a 9/10 to me. $660 sounds reasonable for what you got assuming the focus motor is ok. You could contact someplace like APS to see how much they would want to bring the lens into tip top shape or you could pursue a return and start over. I own the lens and would not want to be without it.

 

[jonshonda]

acnomad: that is what I am thinking too.

Nuclearjock: yeah the condition does reflect the price paid I guess. But I thought I was getting a 9/10, not a 6/10. Beauty was only skin deep, and even then there was a wart on her butt.

On the prowl for a great 24-70 again.

 

[nuclearjock]

On the prowl for a great 24-70 again.

Best of luck. It'll be worth it in the end.

 

[Ann_JS]

Damaged helicoid? Probably a $350 repair job.
It was a good thing that you were able to return that particular lens but if you can buy one in good condition it may become your most-used lens.
It is the lens which I always keep on the camera, and at the ready, between shoots.

 

[jonshonda]

Ann_JS: I don't know enough about lenses to provide intelligent info as to what is wrong, I only know what ain't right!

I was on cloud 9 yesterday after I found a nice 70-200VR2 for less then what I paid for the 24-70. Thought i was all set for our trip to Florida

 

[Mike Buckley]

I think the most important issue is to determine whether you'll enjoy using prime lenses, as it's not for everyone. The easiest way to do that is to secure a zoom at a particular length and don't change it for at least several hours of constant use. Then do the same at a different focal length.

With the exception of a 12-24mm zoom, I used exclusively prime lenses at 35mm, 85mm, 180mm and 300mm for the last 15 years and just loved the almost Zen-like process of getting my compositions. After all that time I'm finally ready to make the switch entirely to zoom lenses except for my 90mm macro lens.

 

[jonshonda]

I followed up on another 24-70 for sale on a popular board, and I must have asked the seller too many questions about the lens and it's condition, as he "declined my offer" on the lens. "My offer" was a price that was set by the seller, which was the full asking price. Yikes.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

There are lots of reputable stores selling used Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 G lenses. I would do some searching and see what's available. FM has lots of good deals, but sometimes regular brick stores do have some decent prices!

 

[acnomad]

If you're on a budget, the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G might be an interesting option. I used one for a couple trips one summer and found it to be quite sharp. And assuming you're going to get a 70-200mm f/2.8, you'll still have shallow depth of field capability in that lens, with walk around "f/8 and be there" utility in the short zoom.

 

[TDM]

I recently bought a used 24-70 2.8g to partner with a 70-200 VR2. Let's just say the condition of the lens is not what the seller deacribed, so i am thinking about primes.

I am just getting back into photography and was hoping to "easily" cover the 24-200mm range. Now I'm reconsidering the purchase and thinking a few primes might be the way to go.

No specific use, general photography of anything that catches my interest. Thinking 20 1.8g and 60 2.8d macro, paired with the 70-200? Eventually 105 2.5, maybe the 85 1.8g later too. Or just find a good 24-70 and move on?