Recommend me a lens…

[Kewy]

I've recently upgraded my crop-sensor D80 to a FF D750.

My workhorse lens on the D80 used to be a Sigma 17-55/f2.8 – unfortunately this is a DC lens so I've had to let it go. I did manage to pick up an old D series Nikon 24-85/f2.8-4 (although the reviews for this lens uninspiringly average), which I hoped could replace the old Sigma, I've not had a enough of a chance to make my own mind up about it yet.

The obvious choice is normally the Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 24-70/f2.8 – I'm not sure how much better than the 2.8-4 this lens would be.

So my current line up is:

Nikon (D Series) 50mm F1.8
Nikon 24-85mm F2.8-4
Sigma 15mm F2.8
Nikon 200mm F4 AI

I like to use my camera to document travel and events, road trips, weekends in the wilderness, but also shoot quite a lot of sport ( see my Flickr – albeit quite out of date – to see the kind of stuff I photograph).

I'm torn between the 24-70 F2.8 or a fast prime lens (I have the fisheye for super wide and the 50mm already, so maybe somewhere between 20-35mm).

Thoughts and opinions?

[8bit]

I have the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, not the G2 version. It's fine, does a good job, not the sharpest at f/2.8 but stop it down a little and it gets a lot better. I took it (and my D610) on holiday as my only lens this year and never found it wanting for anything really but that was just a family holiday to the Algarve, not exactly travel photojournalism or anything like that. It is a bit on the heavy side but I doubt any of the 24-70 f/2.8 lenses will be much lighter.

Part of me wishes I got the Sigma equivalent as I have other Sigma lenses I really like but if I remember rightly the Sigma lens rotates for zoom in the opposite direction (like a lot of Sigmas do for some reason) and that seemed like it might mess with my brain when in use. The Nikon equivalent was simply too expensive for my budget.

To be honest I only use it really when I need convenience, like a walkabout sort of lens. I almost exclusively use primes for "proper" stuff now. I arrived at that decision while playing with the library filters in Lightroom, looking at a lot of the car shoots I've done and realising that the majority of photos taken with the 24-70mm range were shot between about 24 and 40mm, so I bought a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art which is a fantastic piece of glass. That and the Sigma 85mm are my two most used lenses now.

[Ledaig]

Take a look a the Nikon 24-120 F4 G ED VR.

I used to take a 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 to bolt on a D800E. As you can imagine this make for a heavy kit bag to be lugging around all day (holidays etc). I picked up a good clean example of the 24-120 from ebay with the intention of using it a walk about lens for holidays and the like. It has not disappointed, in terms of sharpness it gives the 20-70 a run for its money, if not equaling it.

Mine cost £300, significantly less than the 24-70, if I had purchased it first, I doubt the 24-70 would have ever appeared in my bag!

[Kewy]

8bit said:

I have the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, not the G2 version. It's fine, does a good job, not the sharpest at f/2.8 but stop it down a little and it gets a lot better. I took it (and my D610) on holiday as my only lens this year and never found it wanting for anything really but that was just a family holiday to the Algarve, not exactly travel photojournalism or anything like that. It is a bit on the heavy side but I doubt any of the 24-70 f/2.8 lenses will be much lighter.

Part of me wishes I got the Sigma equivalent as I have other Sigma lenses I really like but if I remember rightly the Sigma lens rotates for zoom in the opposite direction (like a lot of Sigmas do for some reason) and that seemed like it might mess with my brain when in use. The Nikon equivalent was simply too expensive for my budget.

To be honest I only use it really when I need convenience, like a walkabout sort of lens. I almost exclusively use primes for "proper" stuff now. I arrived at that decision while playing with the library filters in Lightroom, looking at a lot of the car shoots I've done and realising that the majority of photos taken with the 24-70mm range were shot between about 24 and 40mm, so I bought a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art which is a fantastic piece of glass. That and the Sigma 85mm are my two most used lenses now.

Yeh it was the size of the 24-70 that was putting me off a little, apparently the 24-120 is considerably smaller. Maybe I need to compare the Nikon/Sigma/Tamron lenses and see if there is much difference in size.

Part of me is wondering whether the prime option is the route to go though, seeing as I have the old 24-85 to tide me by for a while if need be in terms of midrange zoom. I'll look through my shots and see what sort of focal lengths I'm frequently shooting at. The Sigma Art range does look very nice though!

Ledaig said:

Take a look a the Nikon 24-120 F4 G ED VR.

I used to take a 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 to bolt on a D800E. As you can imagine this make for a heavy kit bag to be lugging around all day (holidays etc). I picked up a good clean example of the 24-120 from ebay with the intention of using it a walk about lens for holidays and the like. It has not disappointed, in terms of sharpness it gives the 20-70 a run for its money, if not equaling it.

Mine cost £300, significantly less than the 24-70, if I had purchased it first, I doubt the 24-70 would have ever appeared in my bag!

Not the first person I've heard say this! As above, the size of the 24-120 is meant to be much more travel friendly too.

Are you looking to sell the 24-70/2.8 then?

[GetCarter]

Kewy said:

I've recently upgraded my crop-sensor D80 to a FF D750.

My workhorse lens on the D80 used to be a Sigma 17-55/f2.8 – unfortunately this is a DC lens so I've had to let it go. I did manage to pick up an old D series Nikon 24-85/f2.8-4 (although the reviews for this lens uninspiringly average), which I hoped could replace the old Sigma, I've not had a enough of a chance to make my own mind up about it yet.

The obvious choice is normally the Nikon/Sigma/Tamron 24-70/f2.8 – I'm not sure how much better than the 2.8-4 this lens would be.

So my current line up is:

Nikon (D Series) 50mm F1.8
Nikon 24-85mm F2.8-4
Sigma 15mm F2.8
Nikon 200mm F4 AI

I like to use my camera to document travel and events, road trips, weekends in the wilderness, but also shoot quite a lot of sport ( see my Flickr – albeit quite out of date – to see the kind of stuff I photograph).

I'm torn between the 24-70 F2.8 or a fast prime lens (I have the fisheye for super wide and the 50mm already, so maybe somewhere between 20-35mm).

Thoughts and opinions?

24-70 F2.8 is a really good lens. Had it for many years.

If you want the 50mm 1.8, get the 1.4. Proper fast and sharp.

[Kewy]

GetCarter said:

24-70 F2.8 is a really good lens. Had it for many years.

If you want the 50mm 1.8, get the 1.4. Proper fast and sharp.

I think 50mm is too narrow for me to be a 'daily', I do use my 50mm but not as much as some of my other lenses.

If I were to upgrade my 50/1.8 it would be to a newer AF-S version I think, and great value. Supposedly leaps and bounds above the D version I have.

[8bit]

Kewy said:

I think 50mm is too narrow for me to be a 'daily', I do use my 50mm but not as much as some of my other lenses.

If I were to upgrade my 50/1.8 it would be to a newer AF-S version I think, and great value. Supposedly leaps and bounds above the D version I have.

Maybe rent a 35mm prime for a weekend and see how it works for you? If you were to upgrade your 50 then do look at the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art. After getting the 35mm I'm tempted to upgrade my Nikon 50mm f/1.8G to that.

[Andy M]

Sigma Art 35mm

[Turn7]

The 24-70 is considered one of the holy trinity of Nikon glass....

[RobDickinson]

Love my 35/1.4 the sigma art is cracking example.

Never been a fan of the f4 zooms but modern ones are OK

[eltawater]

I have the 24-120 f4 as my daily on my D610. It's a great lens, very light relatively speaking and works really well.

I chose it over the 24-70 2.8 as I found the equivalent range 17-50 on DX just a little too short right when I needed it most, which meant I was shuffling back and forth between that and a 70-200.

The reach to 120 on FX is just enough for my needs when crowd spotting and I find that on FX, f4 is nowhere near as limiting in lower light conditions compared to on DX when the high ISO compensation really starts to degrade image quality. To me, it's a good trade off between cost and the aperture differential between f4 and f2.8 which I was happy to sacrifice for the additional reach.

Edited by eltawater on Monday 17th December 19:23

[Nigel_O]

I have a handful (bagful?) of decent Nikon glass - 16-35, 70-200, 200-500 and a 50mm prime. However if I was going out with just one lens and not quite knowing what I was going to shoot, I’d probably take the worst of all my lenses - a 28-300.

It’s not much good if the subject is moving quickly or if the light is poor, but in the right conditions, it can generate some quite acceptable results on a good ff body.

That said, my son has a 24-120 as his go-to walkabout lens and he doesn’t often find he’s short of reach and it’s a better lens than the 28-300 in just about every other way

[Heres Johnny]

I’ve the Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 on a D850 and it’s good, heavy though. But it depends what you want to spend as you can pick up a couple decent and faster primes for the cost of the lens.

I still like using my cheap 50mm f1.8 D that are around £100

[Kewy]

8bit said:

Maybe rent a 35mm prime for a weekend and see how it works for you? If you were to upgrade your 50 then do look at the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art. After getting the 35mm I'm tempted to upgrade my Nikon 50mm f/1.8G to that.

Yeh that's a good idea actually. And you'd prefer the Sigma 50/1.4 over a Nikon 50/1.4??

eltawater said:

I have the 24-120 f4 as my daily on my D610. It's a great lens, very light relatively speaking and works really well.

I chose it over the 24-70 2.8 as I found the equivalent range 17-50 on DX just a little too short right when I needed it most, which meant I was shuffling back and forth between that and a 70-200.

The reach to 120 on FX is just enough for my needs when crowd spotting and I find that on FX, f4 is nowhere near as limiting in lower light conditions compared to on DX when the high ISO compensation really starts to degrade image quality. To me, it's a good trade off between cost and the aperture differential between f4 and f2.8 which I was happy to sacrifice for the additional reach.

Edited by eltawater on Monday 17th December 19:23

Ah see I found the 17-55 on my DX the perfect focal length for my style, became my workhorse and to be honest it rarely left the camera.

You're right about the ISO capabilities of FX – I've barely touched the surface with my new camera, but what I will say is that with my old camera I would shiver at the thought of shooting over ISO400. Now I'm happily shooting at ISO3200+!

Nigel_O said:

I have a handful (bagful?) of decent Nikon glass - 16-35, 70-200, 200-500 and a 50mm prime. However if I was going out with just one lens and not quite knowing what I was going to shoot, I’d probably take the worst of all my lenses - a 28-300.

It’s not much good if the subject is moving quickly or if the light is poor, but in the right conditions, it can generate some quite acceptable results on a good ff body.

That said, my son has a 24-120 as his go-to walkabout lens and he doesn’t often find he’s short of reach and it’s a better lens than the 28-300 in just about every other way

Yeh I definitely need something a bit wider and lots of other lens itches to scratch before I start looking at 300mm+!
The 24-120 is high on my list due to the size and weight, but the 'holy trinity' 24-70 is also very tempting!

[Kewy]

Heres Johnny said:

I’ve the Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 on a D850 and it’s good, heavy though. But it depends what you want to spend as you can pick up a couple decent and faster primes for the cost of the lens.

I still like using my cheap 50mm f1.8 D that are around £100

The size of the 50mm/1.8 D is perfect, if I could another prime in the 20-35mm range that was a similar size then I think I'd snap it up.

[8bit]

Kewy said:

The size of the 50mm/1.8 D is perfect, if I could another prime in the 20-35mm range that was a similar size then I think I'd snap it up.

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is about the same size as the 50mm isn't it? Saying that, the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 isn't exactly massive, nice size for handling.

[eltawater]

8bit said:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is about the same size as the 50mm isn't it? Saying that, the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 isn't exactly massive, nice size for handling.

If you're referring to the nikon 35 afs then that's a dx lens and has a very promininent outer black vignette when mounted with an fx sensor.

[8bit]

eltawater said:

8bit said:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is about the same size as the 50mm isn't it? Saying that, the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 isn't exactly massive, nice size for handling.

If you're referring to the nikon 35 afs then that's a dx lens and has a very promininent outer black vignette when mounted with an fx sensor.

I was referring to the FX version:

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-FX...

EDIT to add - so yes, I knew there was an FX version and I assumed that was the only one (like the 50mm) and the only pictures I'd seen of either were of the DX version, which is smaller, about the same as the 50mm, my bad. For the asking price though you'd get a nice SIgma Art 35mm f/1.4 on mpb.com or similar.

Edited by 8bit on Thursday 20th December 15:07

Edited by 8bit on Thursday 20th December 15:07

[toohuge]

Kewy said:

The size of the 50mm/1.8 D is perfect, if I could another prime in the 20-35mm range that was a similar size then I think I'd snap it up.

Nikon do a 20, 24 and 35 prime in a small ‘d’ series style. Great lenses. I’d avoid the 28, I found 35 isn’t that wide on ff and if I was going to get a wide prime it’d be either the 24 or 20

[GravelBen]

Kewy said:

You're right about the ISO capabilities of FX – I've barely touched the surface with my new camera, but what I will say is that with my old camera I would shiver at the thought of shooting over ISO400. Now I'm happily shooting at ISO3200+!

Thats not just the FX difference but also a much newer sensor - I went from D80 - D7000 - D7200 and was amazed at the ISO performance each time too. While the FX sensors certainly do produce much cleaner images at high ISO, I've had grainy but tolerable results from the D7200 at ISO 12800!

Edited by GravelBen on Saturday 22 December 10:53