Enter the ePHOTOzine Christmas Prize Draw extravaganza!

Nikon 24 - 70mm

Nick_Hilton 14 575 2 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 12:18PM
Does anyone own a Nikon 24 - 70 F2.8, if so how do they find it? I am upgrading as such from a 17 - 55mm F.28



Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

geniehawk 13 181 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 12:23PM
Fantastic lens, virtually lives on my D300, glad I traded up to this lens. HOpe others will confirm this for you. If you change you won't be sorry.

thewilliam 11 6.1k
11 Aug 2010 12:30PM
Good lens, it's standard issue for professionals who use Nikon and I use it for a lot of my studio work. It performs a lot better than the 28-70 lens that it replaced.

The 17-55 is also a fine lens, but only covers DX format. Unless you've switched to full-frame, there seems little point in trading it in unless you need the focal length range.
peterjones 17 4.9k 1 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 1:26PM
My 24/70 is a stunning performer on my FX cameras; if I had DX solely I wouldn't rush to upgrade a 17/55 a superlative performer I read.
cameracat 16 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
11 Aug 2010 2:28PM
Fabulous lens, Never fails to amaze me everytime I use it, Tends to live on my D700 most of the time......Smile

My copy is super sharp at f/2.8 throught its focal range, Stays that way as you stop down too .....Grin

Many reviews say that its as good as any " Prime " within its focal range, A view I would not argue with, Makes my old Nikon 50mm look soft....!!!

Daffy1 12 390 Ireland
11 Aug 2010 2:50PM
Always stuck to my D700 does brilliant portraits & landscapes. Damian
paperboy 10 208
11 Aug 2010 3:21PM
Why the "upgrade" on a D300 dx.? The 17-55 on a d300 equals the 24-70 on a FX (approx.) , unless of course your keeping both.
Nick_Hilton 14 575 2 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 3:59PM
Thanks for all the comments. I am upgrading as this is my last DX lens so I can in the future buy an FX camera plus I also have got a decent exchange value for it against the proposed new lens. I always found 17 - 55 just a bit short which was annoying!
thewilliam 11 6.1k
11 Aug 2010 4:05PM
If you find the 17-55 is too short on DX, you won't like the 24-70 either.

If you scale for sensor size, the 24-70 on FX would do the same job as a 16-47 on DX.
Nick_Hilton 14 575 2 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 4:23PM
But on my DX camera it will be 35 to 105?
paperboy 10 208
11 Aug 2010 4:41PM
Nick, looked at your gallery, much of which is excellent and very well suited to the 17-55. That said, if going soon to FX, go for it, ......doubtful you will be disappointed in the 24-70. If your waiting a bit for the FX, consider keeping the 17-55, plus the 24-70 and when you do go FX trade the former for a 70-200 2.8, or a 14-24.......your new 24-70 will present the same dilema on a FX so far as being short, that you currently have with you 17-55. All said, google nikon 24-70 2.8 and try to find a bad review, few and far between.
Enjoy much when it arrives.
Nick_Hilton 14 575 2 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 4:52PM
thanks for the information however I have been offered around 600 in part exchange for my 17 - 55. I already own a 70 - 200 f2.8.
Im a little confused about why you suggest I get a 14 - 24? I thought getting the 24 - 70 that means it would be a 35 - 105 on my D300 and then a true 24 - 70 on an FX camera which would still be longer than the 17 - 55?
paperboy 10 208
11 Aug 2010 5:23PM
I tend to confuse people easily, try again.. meant today D300 17-55 plus 24-70, as many of your gallery shots lend themselves nicely to the 17-55.
Later..FX 24-70 plus 14-24 (trading in 17-55) to maintain the look of your gallerys' perspectives.
The 600 would be tempting.
A later trade of the 17-55 would give you the so called Nikon FX Trinity. 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, all 2.8.
I need to have my nap now,...my head hurts.
LenShepherd 11 4.1k United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 8:14PM
Having looked at your portfolio why upgrade to FX?
OK a couple of night shots might in theory benefit from the noise advantage of a D700 - but you are obviously stopping down. With DX you get the same DOF as FX (same viewfinder crop) 1 shutter speed faster, canceling out most of the D700/D3 noise advantage at high ISO's.
At low ISO's FX (other than 24 MP D3x) does not give you any more sharpness or resolution than a D300s/s Grin
Whether you need another lens regardless of DX or FX is another topic
Nick_Hilton 14 575 2 United Kingdom
11 Aug 2010 9:43PM
I might upgrade to FX in the future. If I did the 17 - 55 would be useless and is dropping in value all the time. I considered the 24 - 70 as it was FX so in theory would work on both systems while giving me a little bit more reach on my current D300.
The lens after the 24 - 70 is the 70 - 200 which I already have. The solution is to have a 17 - 150 F2.8 but there is nothing.
Len if you read the thread, being offered half the price for the 17 - 55 is something always worth considering

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.