24-70mm lens .... Help!

[jessh]

Hello

I am looking to purchase a 24-70mm lens & have found two differing greatly in price.

One is f2.8 & the other f3.5-5.6. I suspect the f2.8 is the better of the two but can anyone tell me if there will be a massive difference that justifies price difference? What benefits would the f2.8 have?

I'm a total newbie by the way (if you couldn't tell !)

thanks, Jess

 

[jessh]

Re: 20-70mm lens .... Help!

Whoops - just realised I've put 20mm in title! Obviously meant 24, doh!

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Re: 20-70mm lens .... Help!

What you're paying for with the f/2.8 lens is how the maximum aperture does not decrease as you increase the focal length. This little bit of extra "magic" does not come cheap. With the other lens your maximum aperture will be f/3.5 and only at 24mm. As you zoooom in your lens will have a slower and slower maximum aperture.

What you have to ask yourself is, "Is the extra lens speed I gain across the zoom range, worth the extra money?"

And only you can answer that.

 

[98kellrs]

Cant comment of the f3.5 but I have the f2.8 and the sharpness is insane across all focal lengths and all apertures. Probably overkill for a beginner but its the kind of lens you would never grow out of, so if you can stretch, do it! Think of it as a photographic investment.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 10.1 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BackdoorArts]

The f2.8 is a highly regarded lens and one of the best that Nikon makes. That said, it's overdue for an upgrade to include VR, so if that's an important consideration then I might wait. Personally, I have the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 and it's plenty sharp for my needs, and probably most needs. It would help to know what body you're shooting with as well.

 

[jessh]

Thanks for the responses.

I have a D90! At the moment i'm not shooting anything in particular, just anything and everything whilst I learn and get experience. Eventually I would love to shoot events ie weddings, christenings, parties and shoot animals (obviously doing any of that professionally is a looooong long way off!!) but I would like lenses that would be suitable for that so I can really get to know them and how they work etc

 

[Disorderly]

One question you should ask yourself is whether you expect to improve your skill as a photographer. If you do, you'll probably end up upgrading your gear to match your improved abilities. That means dumping your consumer grade lenses. I have a bunch of cheap lenses I got before I knew the difference, and which I'll never use now.

It's a lot like buying a tripod. Most hobbyists get a cheap one early on and discover it isn't nearly stable enough for their camera, especially as both it and their lenses get better and more expensive and most importantly heavier. So they buy a better one, and repeat several times until they get that expensive carbon fiber tripod and ball head. So much cheaper over the long run to get the one that will last forever and will handle the gear they'll buy over time.

My advice is to get the 24-70mm. It's the lens that spends the most time on my camera body, and the quality of the images is amazing. If you think you'll want quality, and you can afford the high price, do it now. You'll save money in the end by avoiding the cheap stuff, and you'll be glad for all the better images you'll take with it.

 

[Marcel]

In my opinion, the 24-70 2.8 Nikkor is the best one but is made for full frame sensors (FX). But, for DX (cropped sensor d80, 90, 7000, 3100, 5100, 5200, 7100), the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 will give you better coverage for general use.

 

[eurotrash]

My opinion is this (take with a grain of salt since I'm on the cybernet, of course..)

If you don't already shoot weddings/events, don't buy it. Buy something cheap first, learn all you can and then upgrade.

Many would disagree with this, but I do think it's the best way to learn. With a question that asks, "why is 2.8 better than 3.5", my assumption can only be that you're very new to photography (not that there's anything wrong with that. I was a noob once too! A pro-ish zoom isn't going to MAKE you a better photographer or give you better pictures. Understanding the basics of photography, rules of 5/ths, 3rds, composition, lighting, composure, holding a camera, all that however, will. Get out there and shoot some photos with focal lengths that you need, and when you need to upgrade to something nice, you will know it.

 

[jessh]

Yeah I totally see where you're coming from. I mean I'm by no means expecting a good lens to make me a good photographer as of course that comes down to having the skills but I was kinda thinking well if this is the equipment I ultimately will be working with, is it a good idea to learn with it but you do make sense. I am very new to photography yes haha I mean I know the basic difference between the f2.8 & 3.5 I guess i was just saying is the drastic price difference really worth it ...thanks for the advice

 

[Marcel]

Yeah I totally see where you're coming from. I mean I'm by no means expecting a good lens to make me a good photographer as of course that comes down to having the skills but I was kinda thinking well if this is the equipment I ultimately will be working with, is it a good idea to learn with it but you do make sense. I am very new to photography yes haha I mean I know the basic difference between the f2.8 & 3.5 I guess i was just saying is the drastic price difference really worth it ...thanks for the advice

Maybe it could be wise to say that if you don't know if the price difference is worth it, then you don't need that lens.