Walk around lens - Both FX and DX

Swame_sp

Hey all,

I own a D7000+ 35f2.8, 12-24/f4 (Tokina), 70-200 f2.8. I'd like to buy a lens to cover my range between 24 to 70. Though the 24-70f/2.8 could be a perfect for the range, literally it tears up my wallet into pieces.

Since photography still a hobby, I'd like to stay within a decent budget or $400-600 and prefer to be a Nikon lens. Are these the only choices I have or anything that you would suggest?

- 24-85 f/2.8-4
- 24-120 f/4

Purpose: General walk around.

Have other lenses for low light and wide angle situations.

Will be migrating to FX sometime in the future, would be nice to start collecting lenses for it.

Thanks!!

shawnino

24-120 f/4 is well over budget I think.

Swame_sp

Yeah, think so. Just now checked on Ebay

sevencrossing

when comes to banges for your bucks the 24 -120 f4 is very hard to beat
one of nikon's sharpest mid range zooms

proudgeek

A used 28-70 f/2.8 may be a little out of your budget, but less so than others. Worth a look to see if you can find one.

tganiats

I find the 24-120 to be amazing, though I agree it's more expensive than you had hoped. I always suggest renting a lens before buying if you have any questions.

Golf007sd

How about getting the 85 1.8G. It is fantastic lens and well within your budget and it will be NEW...be it the focal length and lens! It is light and very sharp...all you have to do is use your feet as your zoom. It is my 3rd favorite lens (24-70 2.8 being number 1, followed by the 24 1.4G and the 85 1.8).

Happy shopping

heartyfisher

Since this is a hobby, why not just get a the cheap and versatile kit lenses. They are really the best bang for buck in the range you are looking for. Eg the 18-105 is less than 300 and you could sell that when you do finally go fx. And not lose to much money. If do really want FX then consider the tamron 28-75.. its a good lens but like almost all FX lenses in this range it does not have the VR that is in the kit lenses.

Msmoto

I think I sold my 18-105 for about $200.

And, I have the 24-120...here is a nice full size image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231/sizes/o/in/set-72157630044833773/

Godless

Tell you what: my walk around lens is whatever is on the camera. Most often a 24mm or a 85mm. Sometimes even a fisheye.

If you want to get a lens in between the 24 and 70mm, get the 35mm f/1.8 G or the 50mm f/1.8G.

They are both cheap and lightweight. And you get to shoot at large apertures, which may or may not be a revelation after you get the hang of it. And you can use a part of the rest of your budget for a Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 8mm fisheye. Which is a really fun, sharp lens.

My 0.002 eurocents.

donaldejose

Two for your consideration. Both are FX lenses so you can use them, along with your 70-200 f2.8, when you move to FX. You can research both and discover they are sharp. I have recently been shooting my old 35-70 f2.8 on 3/4 body portraits and it will show pores in the skin of the face. More than sharp enough. I don't have the 24-85 but I read is it sharp enough. If you used one of these as your mid-range walk around lens with your D7000 you would be ready for FX with a range from 24 or 35 to 200mm.

1. An old 35-70 f2.8. About $400.
2. A new 24-85 VR. About $500.

Below is an example (cropped to about half the original frame) of the old 35-70 f2.8 at f5.6 on a D600 set on Portrait Picture Control which blurs detail in the skin for smoother skin. Other Picture Control settings show far more detail but my wife always complains about wrinkles in her skin if I shoot her with anything other than Portrait Picture Control. When you enlarge this image to 100% you see far too many flaws on my old skin (much fewer on my wife's much younger skin) and you can easily see my wife's individual hairs. This is just an example so you can judge the sharpness of that old 35-70 f2.8 lens. It is AF but does not have the internal motor so it must be driven off the motor in the camera body and thus is slower to focus. It is also a "push-pull" type of zoom which I don't like as much as as "two ring" zoom.



Easter Sunday 2013, just back from Church.

Link to full size image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8611129763/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Golf007sd

@donaldejose: Very nice shot of you and your wife with the 35-70 2.8. Should you ever get the 24-70 2.8 you would be even more pleased. This is a perfect example of why we should all have a nice 2.8 lens in our bag.

It is good to put a face to the name behind the words I have been readying for so long. Thanks for sharing.

donaldejose

Golf007sd: I suppose I should have an avatar, just never took the time. Sometime . . . I do have the 28-70 also but not the 24-70 which I hear and read is the best of the lot. I was using my 28-70 for portraits but the 28 is too wide for the studio I just constructed in my house so I took it off and put on the 35-70. I am a believer in not using wide angle for portraits because they distort the face too much : make a big nose. 35mm seems to be the widest I want to go for faces.

Golf007sd

donaldejose: For those that do not know how to properly compose a portrait shot with a wide angle lens, I totally agree with your conclusion. However, in the hands of good photographer, a wide angle lens, specially at a fast aperture (1.4-2.8) it can yield an amazing shot...the 14-24 2.8, as well as, the 24 1.4G come to mind.

But, these are not "walk around lenses" as this topic is trying to address for Swame_sp. Walk around lenses should be light and easy to work with. For me, a prime lens is the best way to go; 35, 50 or 85mm 1.8's are the focal lents that come to mind. Which also fit within the requested budget.

spraynpray

I used to think that f4 would be enough of a max aperture for me and so that 24-120 f4 VR3 had my attention but if street photography (of people) is of interest to you, it is possible that the 24-70 f2.8 may be better for those times when you can't get a decent background and just want to throw the one you have further out of focus. The big problem for me is holding the camera still these days so the VR3 may clinch it though. C'mon Nikon, that 24-70 f2.8 should have VR for that money!

At the moment I use an 18-105 VR kit lens.

heartyfisher

@donaldejose: Nice shot !.. I too have that old 35-70 F2.8 but i use it on my DX bodies its great for portraits and model shoots.. I have tried using it as a walkaround lens and I have had some nice shots from it but I get too frustrated with the lack of reach and slightly not wide enough on DX and flare. I have also used it on Film( FX :-) ) and its really nice as a walk around lens like you say. Some how its lack of reach and other flaws didnt bother me as much .. maybe bec it covers the normal range but also maybe on Film you do take your time a bit more to compose and frame ... dunno. I have been wanting to replace that 35-70 with something like a 24-70 F2.8 or the tamron 28-75.. but other lens priorities just seem to be higher ! :-) my walk around lens .. is the 18-200 VR.. and my new smartphone :-)

kyoshinikon

While my walkaround in the 14-24mm (on a D7000), I find my 35-70mm to be a great lens. You could also look at the hefty 28-70mm which is cheaper than the 24-70mm and wider than the 35-70 obviously. The 35-70mm f/2.8 additionally has the talent to go macro (really macro) which makes it somewhat nifty. I have both and use both frequently. As you are still Dx the 20-35mm f/2.8 may be the lens you are looking for as it is both low cost and a midrange for dx. While I don't own one I fid my 17-35mm to be very nifty and 35mm is a good mid lens focal length on Dx (the rough equivalent of 50mm).

Swame_sp

I already have 35mm f1.8 for low light, portraits. The reason to prefer a zoom is, I go to music nights, where my friends perform and having a zoom lens makes it easy. There won't be much time to use my feet as zoom.

Even if I use 35mm and crop it later, it just doesn't have the quality of an un-cropped file. Prime lens will not be a help here due to lack of time to move around.

Reason for not choosing kit lens, it's f5.6 at the far end. Want something with big aperture. Hope I'm not too greedy

spraynpray

Is using flash out of the question?

Swame_sp

Already have SB 800, which has been definitely helping a lot.

Golf007sd

Swame_sp: Your objective is obtainable, however, your budget is not for the lens needed.

You stated that you where looking for a "walk around lens" which to me usually has very favorable light conditions and setting. Now you are seeking a lens that will perform from a distance and the lighting is dark thus requiring a flash. The lens you are seeking in order to accomplish this task is in your bag: Hence, your 70-200 2.8. If you want to lighten the weight of that lens on yourself and use it as a walk around, then buy yourself a black rapid strap and have it connected to the lens vs the body. Problem solved.

TaoTeJared

I love the 24-120 f/4 but just as every other DX user usually finds, for walkaround I always wanted wider.

I sold my 18-200vr years ago and have been kicking myself every day since. That was the perfect walkaround/general use lens. It doesn't make the most unique shots for sure, but it does what it was made for really well. If I got another DX body, I would just get that one again. Used one's have dropped in price lately a great deal. It seems most are going for under $550 pretty regularly. If you are going to stick with DX at least for another generation, well worth consideration.

DaveyJ

I prefer the 18-200VR as a DX walkaround lens. The 18-105VR is also OK, but for the convenience and range the 18-200VR is awesome. @donalddejose: Very nice portrait all the way around! We would never sell ours. I do keep looking at FX Nikons and do wonder a little about the one Nikon piece of gear I did sell and that was the D700 which we sold because we had an offer that I thought was very high and it was not getting used as much as it should have been. I have to admit video seems to drive my son and grandson and I like the results we are getting with the D7000 and the D7100. However my new lens purchase, when they happen, will probably be FX capable. If I get a FX Nikon camera i would go for a D800 even refurbished, or a revised D600. But for now I still think the 18-200VR is my best walkaround lens

Swame_sp

I guess with sb 800, having an f4 aperture (or smaller) should not be an issue. I took few shots with 24-85 (d600 kit lens) with d7100, in a nearby camera shop. The place was very well lit and photos were sharp on the camera screen.

How is the bokeh effect at far end (f 4.5) on this lens?

How about 24-120 f3.5-5.6 lens?

I believe, 18-200 might be an overkill for what I'm looking at. I won't be using that since I have N70-200, the best lens that I have so far.

Thanks!

[Deleted User]

I sold all my lenses except the 18-200mm VR for my D300 vacation combo, saved longer for the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. The best step I ever did.

Now I mostly have the 50mm f/1.8 (170.- euro) on my D600, you can hardly shoot in the dark with that combo.

TriShooter

For a walk around general purpose lens the 18-200m VR is hard to beat and it gets my vote. But in a downtown area with buildings, and areas with large scenic views either the 24-70mm or the new 24-85mm is more useful to me for FX. No one talks about the 16-85mm very often, but for DX it is a wonderful walk around lens as well. For taking pictures of entertainers the 85mm F/1.4 ED is a magnificent lens, and relatively easy to focus in darker lighting conditions even the older manual focus AIS version.