One lens to rule them all (24-70)

[mjcneat]

Currently debating an upgrade in lens.

I have a Nikon D7200 along with various lenses, including the Sigma 17-50 2.8, Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX and Nikon 50mm 1.8G.

I am looking to trade in the above and put it towards a 24-70 2.8. The options are:

Nikon 24-70 2.8 (non VR version)
Sigma Art 24-70 2.8
Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2

The Sigma and Tamron are both £1,099 on Wex with the older Nikon lens £1,359.

I can get the Nikon on the grey market (Pamanoz) for £950.

Does anybody have any experience with either purchasing from Panamoz or using the third party lenses? Online reviews suggest there are some minor niggles with both the Sigma and Tamron lenses, from focusing issues, bokeh issues and just plain luck as to if you get a good copy delivered. Whereas the Nikon seems to be a workhorse that will just do the job, albeit with no VR.

What would you go for? I'm leaning towards the grey market Nikon at £950.

[DavidY]

Isn't the D7200 a crop sensor, at 24mm thats a 35mm FF equivalent field of view which isn't deperately wide for a one lens solution.

Anything you've shot at between 17mm and 24mm on the Sigma you won't be able to directly replicate

I'm not going to get into the grey v non-grey debate, as that usually descends into a tax evasion discussion!

[mjcneat]

DavidY said:

Isn't the D7200 a crop sensor, at 24mm thats a 35mm FF equivalent field of view which isn't deperately wide for a one lens solution.

Anything you've shot at between 17mm and 24mm on the Sigma you won't be able to directly replicate

I'm not going to get into the grey v non-grey debate, as that usually descends into a tax evasion discussion!

Sorry I should add I do have a 10-20mm that looks after my landscape/wide angle needs.

The D7200 is a crop sensor but I want to invest in full frame glass as next body will be full frame.

I vary rarely go below 24mm on my 17-50 but always find I would like a bit more reach which the 24-70 would give me.

[Simpo Two]

I'd go for the Nikon, it's not much extra. Or less if you go grey. You don't really need VR on a fast lens of that length, you've got aperture and decent ISO performance to help.

[rich888]

I've purchased from Panamoz in the past and have encountered no problems whatsoever. That and outstanding fast delivery makes for a very happy customer. Highly recommended if you want to go down that route.

Having said all of that I ought to mention that I have noticed that it is sometimes cheaper to buy from UK sellers (including Amazon) so keep an eye out on the price differences. Also take a look at www.camerapricebuster.co.uk for some of the best UK trending prices which can sometimes be a bit of an eye-opener.

[driver67]

I'd be keeping your Sigma 17-50 2.8 for a wider angle on DX.

I have the Nikon lens you are looking to get but mainly use it on full frame.

Your 'effective' crop will be 36mm-105mm.

I also have an older 35mm-70mm f2.8 push pull, amazing bit of glass though not keen on the push pull. Available at bargain prices though !. Maybe save the more expensive Nikon glass for when/if you move full frame and get a VR copy of the 24-70?

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/35-7...

Dougie.

[RobDickinson]

For a one lens walk round I would stick to the 17-50 tbh on crop

[Gad-Westy]

I've always been an advocate of buying the right lens for your current camera rather than speculate on future usage. The 24-70 is a fantastic lens but it's designed for full frame hence it's huge and expensive. And on a crop sensor gives you a kind of weird short telephoto kind of range.

Personally I'd prefer a Sigma 18-35 1.8 or Nikon 17-55 2.8 but since you have a decent 17-50 already I'd be more inclined to hang onto your cash and if you do end up going full frame, think about a 24-70 then.

[itsnotarace]

As above, for a crop sensor the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 is the best option and cover the most useful range for a daily walkabout lens. 24mm isn't wide enough

Second hand they are an absolute steal

[Simpo Two]

itsnotarace said:

As above, for a crop sensor the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 is the best option and cover the most useful range for a daily walkabout lens. 24mm isn't wide enough

Second hand they are an absolute steal

Yes indeed, my general purpose lens. But I'm not planning to change to FX.

If the OP spends money on a DX lens now, then when he's ready to change camera he'll have to (a) sell the DX lens he recently bought (b) buy the 24-70 AND (c) buy the FX body - all in one hit. Getting the FX lens now - I agree he'll lose wide angle - spreads the cost.

Actualyl OP, just get the FX body now, it will be much simpler

[itsnotarace]

I went to D810 + Nikkor 24-70 2.8 as a kit when that was released. I sold the 24-70 about 6 months later.

I felt the IQ did not justify its weight so I bought a couple of Sigma primes instead and very much happier now. Very rarely I would take all of these with me, mostly one or occasionally two.

Sigma Art 24 1.4
Sigma Art 35 1.4
Zeiss Planar 50 1.4 manual focus (carried over from crop kit)
Nikkor 85 1.8

I wish the 24-70 was as good on full frame as the 17-55 was on crop format but to me not even close on edge to edge sharpness, right across the zoom range - i didn't even think the 24-70 had a sweet spot tbh, maybe around 40mm it gave acceptable results but im trying to be kind about it - I guess because the camera is capable of high pixel count it highlights issue further

Cheers

[Simpo Two]

itsnotarace said:

I wish the 24-70 was as good on full frame as the 17-55 was on crop format but to me not even close on edge to edge sharpness, right across the zoom range - i didn't even think the 24-70 had a sweet spot tbh, maybe around 40mm it gave acceptable results but im trying to be kind about it..

I'm surprised, as together with the 12-24 and 70-200 it's one of the famous three.

But there you go - as you upgrade your kit, there will always be a new weak link, just like hi-fi.

[itsnotarace]

12-200 is a big zoom range to be covering every mm of. But yes if you needed 3 lenses to do that then yes I concede it would likely be those three you mentioned

But in terms of IQ, primes are the way to go:

DXO mark score of 28 for the 24-70 on D810

vs

DXO mark score of 42 for the Sigma 35

and

DXO mark score of 38 for the Sigma 24

and

DXO mark score of 43 for the Nikon 85

[mjcneat]

Thanks for the various responses. Having done some more online research I am now swaying against replacing the 17-50 with a 24-70. It seems like a foolish move without getting an FX body.

I have toyed with getting a D750 as they are quite reasonably priced now since the D780 has been released. However, the D750 is older than my D7200 and my only FX lens is the 50mm 1.8. I'd have to get rid of everything else and start fresh. If I was going to start fresh, I think I would want to go mirrorless but that's a whole other debate! Although the Sony A7iii does look quite well specced...

[Simpo Two]

mjcneat said:

However, the D750 is older than my D7200...

I wouldn't judge it just by age. I haven't used either camera but you may find the 750 is more 'pro' than the 7200. It might still beat the newer camera in some respects, and the ergonomics/buttonage more useful. Compare them both at www.dpreview.com, and try to get your hands on a 750 because pictures on the net only go so far.