Thinking about pulling the trigger

[Muskieman911]

I have been debating for months now if I should buy the 24-70mm lens. I would love to, but my biggest draw back is if It will be updated. The last thing I want to do is drop 1800 bucks then have a new version come out a week later. Now I realize the production of nikon products have been slowed due to a minor natural disaster, but I just want to know if you have heard of any rumors or if you think they will ever update it.

 

[sambo.]

unless they decide to add VR to it, i doubt it'll be getting an update anytime soon.

besides, it'll last longer than the update cycle (if any) anyways.

i'm still using 16 year old D-Series glass that's copped a beating over the years.

 

[Picturepro]

Pro gear holds value better, and if you take care of it. Dont think about it to long B.C. Nikon supplies are low. if Nikon ever gets back on-line building pro bodies and lens Radiation should be pondered. Sendai is only 50 miles from Fukushima, japan. The Second biggest Nuclear disaster April 26th, 1986 nearly 25 years ago it still uninhabitable.

17-55 on my D300 was on all the time, I had to force myself to do a lens change.
I used to have 28-70 "the Tank" was not wide enough to be a everything lens the 70mm was very useful

24-70 is on my D700 most of the time, along with a couple FAST f1.4's primes - total LOVE

GL buy NOW

IMO, VR on Nikon pro lens at 105mm is useful, VR in a 24mm would not be as useful. wide open you can handhold it at 30th sec and bump the iso if more exposure.

 

[jonh68]

If you play the game of wait and see, you will never buy anything. The 24-70 isn't rumored to be getting an update, but you never know. If you need it now, get it.

 

[camerapapi]

I have been debating for months now if I should buy the 24-70mm lens. I would love to, but my biggest draw back is if It will be updated. The last thing I want to do is drop 1800 bucks then have a new version come out a week later. Now I realize the production of nikon products have been slowed due to a minor natural disaster, but I just want to know if you have heard of any rumors or if you think they will ever update it.

George, make sure you need the lens before investing on it. Consider that 24mm is not a good wide angle with DX bodies and 70mm is also kind of short tele. The 24-70, an excellent professional lens, would be most useful in a FX body and this is my opinion.
If you do landscapes and you seem to do that often, you will be better served using your D300 and a lens with a wider view. You are well covered for FX or DX with your 70-300 as far as using a tele goes.
If you were into wedding photography and were using a FX body I would say that is a lens you need. I am afraid the 24mm side of the lens will not satisfy your landscape shooting requirements and the lens is very expensive.
Your 18-55 is pretty good. It is not a professional lens but it does a great job considering the price, especially when shooting at f8-11. It doubles as a "macro" lens since you can use it to come pretty close to your subjects. 18mm is the equivalent of a 28mm with FX bodies and for many, that is enough of a wide angle with low distortions. There are better lenses starting at around 18mm and the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor is one of them. The 17-50 Tamron VC is pretty well built and very good also considering it costs a fraction of the Nikkor. I am sure you could be very happy with those lenses.
I do not want you to misunderstand me, if a 24-70 f2.8 is what you need then that is the lens you should buy. If on the other hand you are buying the lens because of its superior optical quality only, you are wasting money.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

 

[Picturepro]

George, make sure you need the lens before investing on it. Consider that 24mm is not a good wide angle with DX bodies and 70mm is also kind of short tele. The 24-70, an excellent professional lens, would be most useful in a FX body and this is my opinion.
If you do landscapes and you seem to do that often, you will be better served using your D300 and a lens with a wider view. You are well covered for FX or DX with your 70-300 as far as using a tele goes.
If you were into wedding photography and were using a FX body I would say that is a lens you need. I am afraid the 24mm side of the lens will not satisfy your landscape shooting requirements and the lens is very expensive.
Your 18-55 is pretty good. It is not a professional lens but it does a great job considering the price, especially when shooting at f8-11. It doubles as a "macro" lens since you can use it to come pretty close to your subjects. 18mm is the equivalent of a 28mm with FX bodies and for many, that is enough of a wide angle with low distortions. There are better lenses starting at around 18mm and the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor is one of them. The 17-50 Tamron VC is pretty well built and very good also considering it costs a fraction of the Nikkor. I am sure you could be very happy with those lenses.
I do not want you to misunderstand me, if a 24-70 f2.8 is what you need then that is the lens you should buy. If on the other hand you are buying the lens because of its superior optical quality only, you are wasting money.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

VERY well said, that is what I wanted to say

 

[Ed-Gein]

If on the other hand you are buying the lens because of its superior optical quality only, you are wasting money.
.

how does that make any sence?

it is a HUGE upgrade over the 18-55, the optical quality of the 24-70 2.8 smokes the 18-55 on all levels, the 18-55 may have a small sweet spot where it performs under ideal conditions, but the 24-70 2.8 is just one giant sweet spot.

not to mention better build, nano coating, 2.8 vs 3.5-5.6


I think the 24-70 on fx vs dx only really matters if you are used to the focal length on FX. Ive used it strictly on DX and consider it a very handy range. I was never really happy with the range of the 18-55 which is why i went for the 24-70 in liu of the 17-55 2.8

I suppose a lot of that boils down to preference.

as far as landscape work, i dont believe he ever mentioned that as its intent?

Ive used this lens on the D90, it was awesome, on the D7000 it is just killer with that higher resolution. It is hands down my favorite lens.

 

[Muskieman911]

George, make sure you need the lens before investing on it. Consider that 24mm is not a good wide angle with DX bodies and 70mm is also kind of short tele. The 24-70, an excellent professional lens, would be most useful in a FX body and this is my opinion.
If you do landscapes and you seem to do that often, you will be better served using your D300 and a lens with a wider view. You are well covered for FX or DX with your 70-300 as far as using a tele goes.
If you were into wedding photography and were using a FX body I would say that is a lens you need. I am afraid the 24mm side of the lens will not satisfy your landscape shooting requirements and the lens is very expensive.
Your 18-55 is pretty good. It is not a professional lens but it does a great job considering the price, especially when shooting at f8-11. It doubles as a "macro" lens since you can use it to come pretty close to your subjects. 18mm is the equivalent of a 28mm with FX bodies and for many, that is enough of a wide angle with low distortions. There are better lenses starting at around 18mm and the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor is one of them. The 17-50 Tamron VC is pretty well built and very good also considering it costs a fraction of the Nikkor. I am sure you could be very happy with those lenses.
I do not want you to misunderstand me, if a 24-70 f2.8 is what you need then that is the lens you should buy. If on the other hand you are buying the lens because of its superior optical quality only, you are wasting money.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Yea, I have been thinking about either upgrading to an FX body soon. Again I am waiting to see what happens with the D700 and all that good stuff. I have not looked into those other lenses you mentioned, sound like they are worth while though. Thanks for your opinion Will

 

[Muskieman911]

how does that make any sence?

it is a HUGE upgrade over the 18-55, the optical quality of the 24-70 2.8 smokes the 18-55 on all levels, the 18-55 may have a small sweet spot where it performs under ideal conditions, but the 24-70 2.8 is just one giant sweet spot.

not to mention better build, nano coating, 2.8 vs 3.5-5.6


I think the 24-70 on fx vs dx only really matters if you are used to the focal length on FX. Ive used it strictly on DX and consider it a very handy range. I was never really happy with the range of the 18-55 which is why i went for the 24-70 in liu of the 17-55 2.8

I suppose a lot of that boils down to preference.

as far as landscape work, i dont believe he ever mentioned that as its intent?

Ive used this lens on the D90, it was awesome, on the D7000 it is just killer with that higher resolution. It is hands down my favorite lens.

No, I do a decent amount of landscape photography and range is a consideration for me. But if I needed to go extra wide, I would throw on the 18-55.

 

[Joves]

Well if you really need ultra-wide there is the 10.5. I use mine alot for wide landscapes. Though I would like the 24-70 as well when I dont need to go so wide.