If build really gets you (not a big deal as I have dropped kit lenses and they still work fine) get a 28-70mm. That is built like a tank. Ive also never been happy with any of the 16-35mm's I've tried. While they are optically good they dont have the impact of their 2.8's...

I've only had my 24-70mm f2.8 for a few weeks, but I cannot see any reason why should should not get this lens. Optically superb, excellent build quality, and not as heavy as some people say. I walked around with my D700 + 24-70 for several hours (with BR R strap) and never even felt it.

As for damage if it takes a fall, any lens could have that. I dropped my AF-S 300mm F4D a month ago and although it still works the hood is damaged and the filter thread it next to useless now. It's in for a repaire estimate right now.

Adamz,
I also owned, but sold the 17-55 F2.8. A FANTASTIC lens. However, I do not believe you can use it on FX body as vignetting will result.

Adamz,
I own both the 16-35 and the 24-70. Even though the 16-35 is great, the 24-70, imho is such a better range it pretty much stays on the D700.
I just returned from a three-day shooting trip and found I did not once switch to the 16-35. All my shots were with the 24-70, and the 70-200.
The 24-70 to me is built like a tank. I've shot in salt spray, pouring rain, sweaty jungles, tropical rain forests and have not had any problems whatsoever with either the lens, the D700, or my D300.
What you get all depends on your style of shooting. I'm also not an in your face kind of wide-angle person. And that's what a wide angle is for - not to stand back and get it all in.
That's just me talking though...
best,
J

@Bram - only this year I was servicing my 24-70 two times already - to be more specific only during the last 3 months.
Yes, 17-55 is a DX and it will not perform as good on FX as 24-70, I was only referring to it's build quality, that I wish the 24-70 had the same construction as 17-55. In Your case You doesn't have too much options. If You want to be in the 2.8 range than there's N24-70, if You can go a little slower than You have either 16-35/f4 or 24-120/f4.

Oh I just noticed the 17-55 is a DX lens, will that not be a problem?

adamz said:
@Bram - sorry I was asleep whenI wrote that post, what I mean is I have the 24-70 for some time and the image quality is really good - IMHO much better than this what You can get from 50mm/1.4, but apart from the image quality this lens have a one huge con. It's way to fragile for its class. Drop it 20cm on the ground and You have a lot of chances that it will either break apart, aperture will stop working or the whole zoom will get stuck. Servicing is expensive at Nikon.OTOH You have 17-55, which is build like a tank. No moving parts outside, fixed size.

Thanks for the clarification :) It's weird though, I read a review on photozone.de where they claim the mechanical quality of the 24-70 is superb. However I will consider the 17-55. What's that lens's IQ like in your opinion?

@Bram - sorry I was asleep whenI wrote that post, what I mean is I have the 24-70 for some time and the image quality is really good - IMHO much better than this what You can get from 50mm/1.4, but apart from the image quality this lens have a one huge con. It's way to fragile for its class. Drop it 20cm on the ground and You have a lot of chances that it will either break apart, aperture will stop working or the whole zoom will get stuck. Servicing is expensive at Nikon.OTOH You have 17-55, which is build like a tank. No moving parts outside, fixed size.

adamz said:
I have the 24-70 almost since it launch date and as much as I love the IQ out of it, than it's way too much fragile (like the 17-55 construction much more).
24-120/f4 - nice lens, but certainly not the same league as 24-70 - not robust enough
16-35/f4 - nice and wide, I've read a lot of good comments about it (even from ppl who sold their 24-70/2.8), although I've never found a good copy - tried 4 already and non of them could even touch the IQ from my 24-70; I like the fact that You can use ND filters on it w/o any problems for decent amount of cash :)
14-24/2.8 - nice if You like wide, not so nice if You like to use filters (ND especially, as I can't think of using polarizer on 14mm :))

IMHO: 24mm is not as wide on FX as one could think of.

I don't entirely get your first line, could you please rephrase?

While I haven't tried the 24-70 yet, I think 24mm is actually fine for me. I don't shoot huge overview shots or anything, and the distortion below 24mm probably wouldn't be good for photographing people anyway.

I have the 24-70 almost since it launch date and as much as I love the IQ out of it, than it's way too much fragile (like the 17-55 construction much more).
24-120/f4 - nice lens, but certainly not the same league as 24-70 - not robust enough
16-35/f4 - nice and wide, I've read a lot of good comments about it (even from ppl who sold their 24-70/2.8), although I've never found a good copy - tried 4 already and non of them could even touch the IQ from my 24-70; I like the fact that You can use ND filters on it w/o any problems for decent amount of cash :)
14-24/2.8 - nice if You like wide, not so nice if You like to use filters (ND especially, as I can't think of using polarizer on 14mm :))

IMHO: 24mm is not as wide on FX as one could think of.

sevencrossing said:
Regardless of what lens you use, a D700 is a big Camera. If I want to "blend in" I use a Spider Holster and when not in use, hide the camera under a large lose fitting jacket, this means no give away, camera strap round the neck . If you want to be inconspicuous, a tripod is a bit of a no no, so VR is a very big advantage

I know the D700 body isn't too low profile, however it makes quite a difference if you're using a 50mm prime or sticking a 24-70 in someone's face :)

Thanks for all your comments, I'd agree with kyoshinikon that 24mm on FX is probably wide enough for me. I wouldn't be using it to shoot landscapes or entire rooms, mostly just people really. I like how a wide lens allows you to get close and makes the viewer feel he's actually present in the scene. However I don't need absurdly wide, 35mm is actually quite good for me. Naturally I could go with the 35mm FX prime but it's about the same price as the 24-70 if I'm correct, and the latter will cover basically all focal lengths I use now.

Im a sucker for wide lenses so I almost use my 14-24mm or 17-35mm. However the 24-70mm seems like a more practical lens and is wide enough on a Fx body...

Well having used the 12-24 on a DX body. I wouldn't go for the 16-35 on FX. It will be too wide for much use. You would really have to get in people's face to make the 16-35 usable where the 24-70 would give you some room to work with. IE I think the 24-70 is more usable and practical.

Bram said:
Kind of hard to blend in or sell yourself as a not so hardcore photographer :) I prefer not to impress my subjects too much.

Regardless of what lens you use, a D700 is a big Camera. If I want to "blend in" I use a Spider Holster and when not in use, hide the camera under a large lose fitting jacket, this means no give away, camera strap round the neck . If you want to be inconspicuous, a tripod is a bit of a no no, so VR is a very big advantage

I hadn't considered the 24-120 to be honest. I do work in low light mostly (don't really like using flash), but then again the DOF on fullframe at apertures wider than f/4 is too shallow for me oftentimes, so the 24-120 would probably still make a good candidate. Also the extended range is a plus of course, it would render my 85mm obsolete (albeit not in image quality obviously). The thing I do hate about these top quality full frame lenses is that they're so huge. Kind of hard to blend in or sell yourself as a not so hardcore photographer :) I prefer not to impress my subjects too much. But then again this is always going to be a trade-off: having to carry several high quality, small, lightweight primes, or one huge and heavy zoom lens that will cover the entire range...

iris chrome said:
It seems to me like you answered your own question right there :)

Bram said:
Hi guys,

I'm now looking to add a wide-angle zoom lens to my collection, but can't choose between the 16-35 and the 24-70. I don't think I'll be needing the very wide angle of the 16-35 that much, 24mm seems to be sufficient to me. I'll be using it for environmental portraits / documentary work mostly. The advantage of the 24-70 is of course that it extends to 70mm, making it perfect as a single lens to use for reportage/documentary work.

well, you seem to know what you want, therefore as Irischrome said , you answered your own question.

also, if this is what you want and you went ahead and purchased something else, you will never be happy.

'go with what you feel.

I use the 24-70mm which has great range. I don't find myslef having to change lenses as often. I agree with Kanuck that you will want to go wider at times, say if you are trying to show a full landscape or a mass of people or something on a grander scale, but then there is always the 14-24mm for that :) This will cover the full mid-range, great for your documentary work. You will still want a wide angle and a telephoto eventually, but for this type of work, you will be very happy with the 24-70mm. The thing I like too is that if you do get that 14-24mm and the 70-200mm you run the full range from 14-200mm with fantastic glass.

The 24-70mm is a much more useful focal range not to mention it is fast at 2.8 acts like a prime as it is so sharp throughout the range. Its only about $300 more than the also spectacular 16-35mm. 24 is pretty wide although you will find yourself wanting to go wider every now and then. However, not enough to justify buying it over the 24-70mm I think. Don't be fooled by the VR either a tripod for landscapes or other work takes care of that.

Have you looked at the 24 - 120, cheaper lighter and smaller than the 24 -70 plus VR. my "standard lens" ( "only" f 4 but unless you are shooting action in low light or need a shallow DOP not an issue)

I also use a 16 -35

To honest, I would not want to be without ether

Well I have both and for me each lens has its own purpose. Depending on the documentary work I would be leaning more towards the 24-70, I would think it would be a bit more flexable but again not in your shoes to see exactly what your shooting. The 16-35 is really good as well, it has VR so it might be able to handle low light still shots a touch better than the 24-70 even if it is a stop slower.

If your needing to catch any action in low light the 24-70 should win (I have not used either lens for low light action so this statement is just based on a nikon product book).

The ablity to shot with one lens all day and not have to change a lens means alot after a full day, plus not having to carry another lens would make me happy.

Bram said:
I don't think I'll be needing the very wide angle of the 16-35 that much, 24mm seems to be sufficient to me. I'll be using it for environmental portraits / documentary work mostly. The advantage of the 24-70 is of course that it extends to 70mm, making it perfect as a single lens to use for reportage/documentary work.

It seems to me like you answered your own question right there :) I've never used the 16-35 myself so I can't say anything about it but I can tell you about the 24-70 which is my favorite zoom lens. It's an awesome lens and you won't regret it ;)

Hi guys,

I bought a D700 a while back and am loving it since (naturally). Recently I've started using wide angle lenses more often, like my 35mm (a DX lens, so image quality isn't up to par entirely). I'm now looking to add a wide-angle zoom lens to my collection, but can't choose between the 16-35 and the 24-70. I don't think I'll be needing the very wide angle of the 16-35 that much, 24mm seems to be sufficient to me. I'll be using it for environmental portraits / documentary work mostly. The advantage of the 24-70 is of course that it extends to 70mm, making it perfect as a single lens to use for reportage/documentary work. However the sheer size, weight and price of the lens scares me. Same goes to a somewhat lesser extent for the 16-35 of course. What's your thought of these 2 lenses compared?