Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens

[william1872]

Hi all,

I just recently bought this lens, although it's a cracking lens I feel 24 mm isn't a wide enough angle for some landscape shots, considering selling this one and buying a 17-55mm f2.8 lens instead?

opinions please, am I wrong in changing the lens? I'll be buying a Nikon micro 105mm lens for Macro photography and plan on using this for portraits to. Do other people who do lanscape snaps feel 24mm is wide enough?

[peterst6906]

The 17-55 is a DX lens, so as long as you are using an APS-C sensor body, then you'll have a wider field of view with the 17-55 than you do with the 24-70.

If you are using an FX body, then the 17-55 will have the same field of view as the 24-70 because the camera will automatically switch to crop mode when you attach the lens.

Both are cracking lenses from the shooting I have done with them.

I don't own a 17-55 myself, though I have shot with it.

There is sometimes a complaint of a little too much distortion at 17mm, especially considering its price, however the ones I've used haven't been any problem at all.

Regards,

Peter

[william1872]

Originally Posted by peterst6906

The 17-55 is a DX lens, so as long as you are using an APS-C sensor body, then you'll have a wider field of view with the 17-55 than you do with the 24-70.

If you are using an FX body, then the 17-55 will have the same field of view as the 24-70 because the camera will automatically switch to crop mode when you attach the lens.

Both are cracking lenses from the shooting I have done with them.

I don't own a 17-55 myself, though I have shot with it.

There is sometimes a complaint of a little too much distortion at 17mm, especially considering its price, however the ones I've used haven't been any problem at all.

Regards,

Peter

oops, just noticed it was DX

[Nikonfreak]

A couple of options...

14-24 (expensive) f/2.8 No complaints about that lens whatsoever ... period.

or the 18-35 .... Actually the 18-35 isn't a bad lens at all. Some distortion will probably bug you but it's a cheaper alternative.

[Bonner]

Originally Posted by william1872

Hi all,

I just recently bought this lens, although it's a cracking lens I feel 24 mm isn't a wide enough angle for some landscape shots, considering selling this one and buying a 17-55mm f2.8 lens instead?

opinions please, am I wrong in changing the lens? I'll be buying a Nikon micro 105mm lens for Macro photography and plan on using this for portraits to. Do other people who do lanscape snaps feel 24mm is wide enough?

Got both and I have to admit the 17-55 is now my standard lens for the D300. I took it to Europe this last summer and found it worked very well for interiors with low light.



Paris

But keep in mind that the 24-70 is one of the best lens you will ever own.

[william1872]

Originally Posted by Bonner

Got both and I have to admit the 17-55 is now my standard lens for the D300. I took it to Europe this last summer and found it worked very well for interiors with low light.



Paris

But keep in mind that the 24-70 is one of the best lens you will ever own.

I'll be sticking with it, I'm still learning everyday and greatfull for the advice I've had off PC cracking photo - I've a D700 and never noticed the 17-55 was a DX lens

[INSOMNIAC269]

The 14-24mm was mentioned, but remember you can't put a filter on it for landscape shots because of it protruding from element. From what I hear it's an amazing FX lens though.

[Jeff Perry]

Most landscapes will not be shot at the wide-open end of aperture range so a f/2.8 may be a waste. I used the 14-24 on a trip to Utah/Arizona, etc, and never opened it wider than f/8. In that case, you can consider the Nikon 12-24 f/4 and save yourself about $800 over the price of the 14-24, or better still look at the Tokina version of the 12-24 and save $1000 over the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.

Don't get me wrong, the 14-24 is a remarkable lens, and fits nicely into the line-up with the 24-70 and 70-200 (all 2.8s). But if money is a serious consideration (and frankly, when is it not?) then consider your other options.

Jeff

[william1872]

Thanks for everyones advice, much appreiciated

[cannockwolf]

i second the cheapish 18-35mm i bought this for when i want to use filters (i have a 14-24mm as my main lens) and it is a pretty damn nice lens, i use it on my DX IR converted D200 all the time.

the other thing would be to get a siggy 10-20 or the tokina 11-16 all these options let you keep the truly excellent 24-70 which is my main lens for landscapes now i have the fx d700, 24mm is very wide on that beast