Who's getting a 14-24/2.8 and/or 24-70/2.8 then?

Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
3,497
Location
South SF Bay Area, CA.
I'll be watching reviews and what not, but depending on the new lenses pricing, I may let go of a Tokina 12-24 and a 17-55, if I am upgrading to the D3, that is. If I decide to go for the D300 instead, I see no reason to shuffle lenses. :wink:
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
3,497
Location
South SF Bay Area, CA.
Pricing are out. Well, not sure if they are final, but take a look at http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9085

14-24mm f/2.8G ED is $1799.95 and 24-70mm f/2.8G ED is $1699.95.

I was holding out for the release, was going to get a 17-55 f/2.8 DX and a 12-24 f/4 DX. Now I'm positive I will drop $1800 on this new 14-24mm, and eventually, the 24-70. :smile:
Thanks for the pricing info, Walter! It looks like my choices are:

* D3 + 14-24 + 24-70 = $8.5K
Subtract $1.3K (for my used 17-55 + Tokina 12-24) for a grand total of $7.2K. Getting a used 17-35 instead of the 14-24 would save $800 or so...

* D300 = $1.8K

Big difference indeed!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
452
Location
Los Angeles
Thanks for the pricing info, Walter! It looks like my choices are:

* D3 + 14-24 + 24-70 = $8.5K
Subtract $1.3K (for my used 17-55 + Tokina 12-24) for a grand total of $7.2K. Getting a used 17-35 instead of the 14-24 would save $800 or so...

* D300 = $1.8K

Big difference indeed!
You're welcome. Nikon sure made lots of us having dilemmas, "problems" or "issues" figuring out what combo to get. Now you got me thinking, maybe to save some dough and get a used 17-35 instead? I need a better wide-zoom!
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
go for the 17-35, it is an amazing lens. it can be a wide angle zoom on the D3, while also be a walkaround normal lens on a DX camera. At f/4 and beyond, the MTF50 results of this lens is unrivaled.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,688
Location
So Fla
exactly what I plan Phil
wait for the fallout of used 17-35 and 28-70 lenses
still both great lenses, no matter what comes out
 
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
715
Location
Atlanta, GA
I don't think I'll be trading in either the 17-35 or the Beast anytime soon. Both are excellent lenses. The New Beast is a little(.2") smaller in diameter, which is nice but it's a little longer(.3") and adds another almost half an ounce to an already hefty lens. The 14-24 is even larger than the New Beast!

And there's still a few of us who need the aperture ring to work with our old dinosaur bodies :wink:

Although if I didn't have either I'd probably be standing in line come November!

Bill
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
739
Location
St. Louis
I just bought a 28-70 and have no regrets. I paid less than $1200 vs. the $1700 the 24-70 will cost. I'd still like a wide angle zoom, but will probably get either a used Nikon 12-24/4 or the Tokina. $1800 for a lens I won't use that much (since I mostly do motorsports) can't be justified.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,688
Location
So Fla
of course the new big lenses are great for the people that need them and can afford them
the D3 is way out of my finances
the 24-70 doesn't seem much diff. than the beast without having VR

the 14-24 does sound nice
and maybe now I will grab a D200....
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,808
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
I could consider the 24-70 but not the 14-24. I already have the 17-35 and to me fits better, no needing for . Surely, a 14-28 or 14-35 would have been much more interesting. I'm still interested in FF camera and lens combo. Kudos to Nikon to have been able to use them both (FF and DX) on the same camera, even if darkening part of the viewfinder.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,868
Location
Sudbury, Massachusetts
As of right now...

I'm going to pass on the 24-70. I prefer the focal range of the 17-55 on the DX bodies. That said, if it had had VR, it would have been very tempting. When/if I get a FF body, I'll trade the 17-55 for the 24-70.

The 14-24 is a possibility. The 12-24 is ok, but I rarely go all the way down to 12mm, but have frequently missed it not going to f/2.8.

The D300 is a guarantee. I want one!
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
272
Location
Athens, Greece
I don't care about high ISO performance. At all. I don't do reportage or sports either.
I need to spend $6800 -which will be much more in Europe- to replace my D2X+17-55mm combo with a D3+24-70mm one.
Now, if i could find a decent reason why should I do this...:confused:
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
I don't care about high ISO performance. At all. I don't do reportage or sports either.
I need to spend $6800 -which will be much more in Europe- to replace my D2X+17-55mm combo with a D3+24-70mm one.
Now, if i could find a decent reason why should I do this...:confused:
it's not just high ISO performance but also color depth and dynamic range. it also has a new AF and metering system that is supposed to be far superior. and a bigger, brighter viewfinder, 3" live LCD, etc.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
272
Location
Athens, Greece
it's not just high ISO performance but also color depth and dynamic range. it also has a new AF and metering system that is supposed to be far superior. and a bigger, brighter viewfinder, 3" live LCD, etc.
Yeah, Phil, I don't disagree with you, goodies are always welcome and I would be happier with a wider dynamic range and a live histogram of course...
But from my experience, most people's pictures (mine included) would be much more improved from better PP and printing instead, not to mention composition and imagination :rolleyes:
I believe that 95% of us have not exceeded their equipment's capabilities (not even come close).
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
830
Location
I can see London from the bathroom window
(How much more BS will I write before I admit that I bloody want one?) :tongue:
WANT!

The magic word, well sort of. About as good in here as the word NEED!

That's the killer. Ask me today if I'd swap my 6 week old D200 with a D300, yep. Ask me if I need to pay the extra $s price difference, not sure, think on balance I'd still be getting the D200.

Back to the lenses. I don't want either of them. But its a realistic thing for me, I've only just built my system and the D200 and the crop of lenses I have are wonderful. I just like to see that given that they went to FX they will still be FX lenses for me to take advantage of the sweet spot from.

Gotta say, its switcher fodda though! D3, D300, 14-24/2.8 24-70/2.8 70-200/2.8 VR ... plus the other good stuff too. To anyone not deeply engrosed in a.n.other system - this stuff is might attractive. The fac tthat in the Nikon camp we also have access to 3x different 12-24 zooms is also pretty cool.

Must admit, having read all the good stuff on the 17-55/2.8 ... these two new zooms are different. I can't imagine too many people will ADD the 14-24/24-70 to their 17-55. It looks a lot like an either/or. For the same reason I have a problem looking at 12-24/17-55 waaaay too much overlap.

Lens wise, if I was allllll prime, and wanted zooms - and could justify it, that set of three is pretty killer and its been a long time coming:
- 14-24/24-70/70-200 ... 14-200 in three zooms, just need 3x D300s really :biggrin:

... add me to the "looking forward to seeing a few more 17-55/2.8 on the used market" list. Happy as a pig in the muck with the DX sensor.

... very interested to find out the plans for the D200, like will it price drop to clear, will it dual run at a lower price. I can get a lot more done with 2x D200 than I can with 1x D300. Neat though the D300 is, the D200 is already a big step up for me - and absolutely love it. D300 has improvements, but not enough to make me buy one on day 1, ask me when my D200 is a year old if I still have it (Jul-08), maybe/maybe.not
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
452
Location
Los Angeles
go for the 17-35, it is an amazing lens. it can be a wide angle zoom on the D3, while also be a walkaround normal lens on a DX camera. At f/4 and beyond, the MTF50 results of this lens is unrivaled.
We shall see if this new lens (Nano Crystal Coat and Super Integrated Coating) provide any better results/samples on sharpness and overall IQ. If it is indeed "better," then it will be a keeper. :cool:
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom