Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G on D7000

dlscott56

Just curious what you all think. I have a D7000 and am looking to purchase a new lens. Both the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 are great lenses and would be nice to have if I ever go to full frame. However, would they still perform well on the smaller sensor size of the D7000?

Pupator

I rented the 24-70 for my D7000 for a kids birthday party in a gymnastics facility. It performed fine on the sensor, but long-term I ended up buying (and loving) the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. That and two primes (28 & 35) have me covered in low light.

Qarik

It actually performs better on smaller sensor

dlscott56

Pupator, I also was looking at the Sigma lens but was worried about making an investment of that size that would have to be replaced later if I go to full frame. I seem to agonize over these decisions

Qarik, thanks. Are there any down sides to using it that way (other than it may be overkill)?

Pupator

I buy lenses for the camera I have now, not for the camera I think I might possibly have in the future. Often times I find that getting the right lenses for my current body completely removes the desire to upgrade bodies for quite a while.

Case in point, I used to think I was going to sell my D7000 and D300 to get a D700. I love my lens lineup so much I'm now more likely to sell the D300 and get a 4/3rds camera and a pancake prime.

dlscott56

Pupator wrote: »

I buy lenses for the camera I have now, not for the camera I think I might possibly have in the future. Often times I find that getting the right lenses for my current body completely removes the desire to upgrade bodies for quite a while.

Case in point, I used to think I was going to sell my D7000 and D300 to get a D700. I love my lens lineup so much I'm now more likely to sell the D300 and get a 4/3rds camera and a pancake prime.

Well, that is a good point. I do tend to over think these things sometimes. I know that there won't be a new camera body in my line up for quite a while. Also, lenses seem to hold their value pretty well. Something else to think about anyway. Thanks.

Icebear

The 24-70 Nikkor is a fabulous lens. I love it on my full frame (D700) and crop (D300) bodies. I doubt you'll ever think you wasted your money. I think a 50-150 would be a bit long for normal use on a D7000.

dlscott56

Icebear wrote: »

The 24-70 Nikkor is a fabulous lens. I love it on my full frame (D700) and crop (D300) bodies. I doubt you'll ever think you wasted your money. I think a 50-150 would be a bit long for normal use on a D7000.

Thanks Icebear. I have heard lots of good things about it.

Pupator

Icebear wrote: »

The 24-70 Nikkor is a fabulous lens. I love it on my full frame (D700) and crop (D300) bodies. I doubt you'll ever think you wasted your money. I think a 50-150 would be a bit long for normal use on a D7000.

It depends on what "normal use" is for you. It's absolutely perfect for me. I can carry the 50-150 and a 28 or 35 f/1.8 and cover everything I need. The 24-70 isn't long enough for my "normal use."

Musetek

I don't have the 24-70mm (yet) but I do have the 70-200mm and use it with DX cameras. You can't go wrong with it, I promise - fantastic lens.

The only possible downside is also a plus: because of the crop factor with the DX sensor, you get 105-300mm in effect. Although this is great on the long end, if you want to use this lens for something at the wide end it becomes less wide than it would be with an FX camera. (That's a really clumsy way to say it, but I think you know what I mean.)

Otherwise, you will love this lens. And no, it's not overkill with the D7000. It might be overkill if all you ever do is take holiday snaps...! But if you shoot sports, wildlife, anything that needs fast glass with some reach, you will love it.

ARKreations

If you do decide to buy the 24-70, you will not regret it for one second. In terms of every day and specialty use, it's the best money I've ever spent on equipment - every penny of it. The ONLY think Nikon could possibly do to improve that lens (not that there is much room for improvement) is to add VR. But I wouldn't let that stop me from buying it all over right now.

Jamesbjenkins

Dave, I have both lenses and the D700 and D7000. The main difference when you switch to full frame is that you're seeing all the way to the edge of the len's field of view, instead of just a center crop.

Both the 24-70 and 70-200 are sharp, contrasty gorgeous lenses on both crop and full frame. The difference on full frame with both lenses is that they get a tiny bit soft in the corners, and the vignetting on the 70-200 is kinda bad on the edges at 200mm. Also, the barrel distortion at 24-28mm on the 24-70 is pretty bad. Thankfully, all these issues except the soft corners are VERY easy to fix in post. Let me be clear, both lenses are outstanding. There's a reason they're both industry gold standards for their focal ranges.

The reason I don't own any third party lenses is IMO, they don't measure up in build quality, durability or optical quality. In a head to head match up in almost every category, the genuine Nikon wins.

You'll pay more for the Nikon, but like almost anything in life, you get what you pay for.

dlscott56

Thanks everyone. I originally had both Nikon lenses on my 'wish list' but started doubting myself because of the cost. Think I'll hold off until I can afford what I really want - Nikon 24-70/f2.8 and Nikon 70-200/f2.8 VRII. Sounds like a little extra waiting will pay dividends. Thanks again for all your input.

Jamesbjenkins

dlscott56 wrote: »

Thanks everyone. I originally had both Nikon lenses on my 'wish list' but started doubting myself because of the cost. Think I'll hold off until I can afford what I really want - Nikon 24-70/f2.8 and Nikon 70-200/f2.8 VRII. Sounds like a little extra waiting will pay dividends. Thanks again for all your input.

From what I've read here, that's the best choice for you.

Cheers!

Mitchell

My most used lens on both DX and FX bodies. A must have lens in my mind.

dlscott56

Mitchell wrote: »

My most used lens on both DX and FX bodies. A must have lens in my mind.

Thanks Mitch! I can't wait to try it out. Hopefully soon.

Bryce Wilson

I'll give you another option that has worked out well for me.

Lacking the 1800.00 but wanting a mid range zoom for portraiture, I purchased a used Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D for 325.00. I couldn't be happier. It is certainly a pro lens both optically and build wise.

If I were a full time photojournalist or shooting action, I most likely would get the 24-70 2.8. Since I mainly shoot portraiture and the performance I get from this 35-70mm 2.8 for portrait photography is nothing short of spectacular, at one fifth the price, it was a no brainer for me.

On the plus side, if I ever decide I want to get the 24-70, I can rest assured I will always be able to get the 325.00 back out of this lens after I'm done with it.

dlscott56

I'll look around for the Nikon 35-70mm 2.8D. Will definitely check it out and I appreciate the tip.

Thanks Bryce!

r3t1awr3yd

The 24-70 and 70-200 are both trash lenses. (ignore my signature...)





Joking aside, I'd die without these lenses. I love them on my D7000, even with the crop. You won't be disappointed. (I avoided the 24-70 for a long time and didn't understand the hype till I bought one...)

dlscott56

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

The 24-70 and 70-200 are both trash lenses ....

Yep, that's what I hear.

Thanks Wally

jasonstone

I have the D7K too but ended up getting a 17-50 f2.8 as 24mm (36mm on D7K) wasnt wide enough for my everyday use - keep that in mind... But optically obviously it's a killer lens

dlscott56

Thanks Jason, I'll keep that in mind as well.