17-35mm f/2.8 D or 24-70mm f/2.8G? I'm a hobbyist, I own a Nikon D90 and a 50mm f/1.4G lens. I would like to get a new lens so I can use for traveling (that means taking photos of my friends who will go with me and landscape) to shoot people and buildings. I've done some research on my own, but still couldn't decide if I should choose Nikon's 17mm-35mm f/2.8D or 24mm-70mm f/2.8G? I do have in mind that about 5 years from now, I want to upgrade my camera body from D90 up to at least D300s level. Can anyone please give me some advice? Thank you!Catherine 17-35mm f/2.8 D or 24-70mm f/2.8G? I'm a hobbyist, I own a Nikon D90 and a 50mm f/1.4G lens. I would like to get a new lens so I can use for traveling (that means taking photos of my friends... » Read More 17-35mm f/2.8 D or 24-70mm f/2.8G? I'm a hobbyist, I own a Nikon D90 and a 50mm f/1.4G lens. I would like to get a new lens so I can use for traveling (that means taking photos of my friends who will go with me and landscape) to shoot people and buildings. I've done some research on my own, but still couldn't decide if I should choose Nikon's 17mm-35mm f/2.8D or 24mm-70mm f/2.8G? I do have in mind that about 5 years from now, I want to upgrade my camera body from D90 up to at least D300s level. Can anyone please give me some advice? Thank you!Catherine « Show Less
642996
Hello, for the Nikon D90 (a DX camera) the Tokina 11-16 mm lens is a far better choice. The 17-35 mm Nikkor is a waste since it is designed for FX sensors. for more information, please read Ken Rockwell's review on the Nikkor 17-35 mm lens. He can be found by googling his name. His website is KenRockwell.com (it is a free website)
642997
Id say pick the 17-35 if you intend to stay on DX size for another 5yrs... the 50mm covers the middle of the 24-70 so moving your feet will cover that distance, but the 17-35 will allow for group shots and landscapes/buildings... the 24 will limit that somewhat.... my2cents!
108097
This represents approximately 1/2 stop of light. That may not sound like much but in low light it can make a difference. Also, Nikon doesn't make a 24mm 1.8. the closest is a 28mm 1.8 which is obviously a different focal length. It is a very good lens however. If you don't need the 1.4 and 28mm is an acceptable focal length then go for that as it is much cheaper.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
1919509
This is an awesome lense but it is not as wide as the Nikon 35mm f1.4 or the Nikon 50mm f1.4 which would give you more room in your picture. it is a good lens but more for portraits. The 70-200mm f2.8 is the best for sports and all around pictures, but a bit more money and worth every penny. I personally would not get the 85 for any sports even with how great the shots are your picture would crop in to small to catch a full play.
2236918
It's ok but not great, for daily use i would recommend a 24-105mm, for landscape 17-40mm or 16-35mm, or course your gonna add a few hundred bucks for those lenses but it's worth, I have one of these (28-135) I rarely use it... I don't even know where it is right now... but i have one. If you're really gonna do photography try to invest on a few good lenses...
794540
The 24mm no matter what D series camera you have. You can find cheaper and equally good alternatives to cover the 35 mm range or just grab a 50mm 1.8. But you can't find anything as wide with a large aperture and as sharp as the 24mm. And then get the 85mm 1.4g as well and you'll be all set.
1381521
That's a bit like asking what length of string should I use? First question; what is the application? Second question; crop or full frame (FF)? Third question, what focal lengths do you already cover? On FF the 24mm is generally a better landscape lens than a 35mm and 35mm is generally better for journalistic type photography, or just walking around. On a crop, 24mm is about the same (a little longer) as the view one would get from 35mm on a full frame. I love the 35mm on a crop as well, which is closer to the classic "standard" lens (50mm), which will be generally better for street. When I say generally, I mean that it is often more appropriate to use one focal length in these situations that others, but I have seen portraits with wide lenses and telephotos used for landscapes to great effect. Sorry, I dont believe a better answer can exist without additional information.
1173524
I've owned both, heres my opinion: the 24-105mm is best for a travel lens when you dont wanna be annoyed by changing lenses. The 24mm f/2.8 is more if you want the best sharpness and contrast with less destortion. It is in the pro league of prime lenses. The zoom lens is just a good but not great all arounder that does a lot though.
794544
i would get 24mm, wider angle is more useful and it's sharper than 35mm, also try the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, bokeh is irritating, quality, built not up to Nikon's, but it's sharper and cheaper.
928326
If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're looking for an ultrawide for DX, take a look at the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24. If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're... » Read More If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're looking for an ultrawide for DX, take a look at the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24. « Show Less
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
1856383
It is a hell of a great lens for its price. If you have extra money you can consider other lenses such as: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-17-35mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOS) again, if you have extra money. I have used both but I was happier with this 18-35mm lens because it's so light weight. Unless you have an old camera with not-so-great ISO performance or you like to do astrophotography, I think this lens can make many people happy.
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
1111390
I would just buy the 18-140 as it is the one you would use the most. Later you could consider what additional lenses you would like to buy. A 50mm is a mild telephoto on a DX body so you might be better off buying the 35mm f1.8 instead. The 70-300mm VR is a better lens and there is less overlap with the 18-140. You see quite a few good used 70-300mm VR's for sale at reasonable prices because a lot of people buy them and then later discover they don't have much need for a lens that long.
1247240
hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one... » Read More hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. « Show Less
342704
No lens question can be answered accurately without knowing the intended subjects and lighting conditions. But if one needs a mid zoom on a D7000 and do not need wide angle, the 24-70 is the best of the lot. It is not wide on a crop sensor so you will need a wider lens for interior architecture, landscape, street etc. If your main subject is portraiture, general walking around, product, environmental lifestyle portraits, short telephoto etc, it is very good lens. I prefer it on the D7000 to my 17-55 2.8 which is DX only.. I use my 24-70 daily on a D800 and D7000 with excellent pro results for group portraiture, events, glamour etc. If you have plans on adding full frame to your collection, this lens can serve both the short telephoto and normal mid zoom functions on the DX or FX respectively. On FX it has a field of view that makes it a good architecture and landscape lens. If your primary purpose is portraiture, consider the 85 1.8G as an excellent lens for 1/4th the price however.
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.