where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
First of all- I love the d700 and my 70-200...yikes it is amazing.
I am debating between the next move now 14-24 or 24-70?
I have a 50 mm d1.4 my other favorite.
Sure your going to ask what I need it for-
I am shooting 6 or 7 weddings this summer, but darn it....I just love landscape. I am going to shoot lots of family portraits too.
I am a photojournalist but I can easily use the 70-200 or the 50 and be fine.
I am going to buy both lens at some point, but what next?
I was going to say, "14-24mm" because it is such a godly lens, but the 24-70mm will be far more useful for all your weddings. (the 24-70mm is also a godly lens. it's the best one available!)
When you finally end up with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 you will have the holly trinity of zoom lenses.
As someone who already blew the wad on a 14-24 I can say that of the three supposed "holy trinity" lenses I think that its the only one that Im going to buy. I only bought the 14-24 because it outperforms the 14mm prime. I also own the 50mm 1.4 and think that pairing it with a 85mm 1.4 would make me much happier than owning the 24-70. Not to mention that the cost of the pair is roughly equal to the cost of the 24-70. Down the road even further I hope to get the 24mm 1.4 and then I think I'll look at those three as the holy trinity and Ill start to think of my 14-24 as the big Buddah that never, ever leaves 14mm.
for landscapes go for 14-24, the 50mm should do the job on weddings
You could also consider new 16-35, it accepts filters and could be used from hands in lower light because of VR. Friend of mine got it for testing and it is really good from what I saw.
And not so ultra wide 16-35 could be used for photojournalism as well and with fast 50 and 70-200 could be even better trinity for some people.
I love my 14-24, it is amazing. I would tend to agree with Squamish on this one...
I would prefer 24-70mm if I have a fullframe body. This is only because I personally do not like the super wide angle that much.
The 24-70mm is more practical for portraits...
Or you could go 17-55 2.8. That would be better, since you have the 70-200, you won't miss 56-69mm all too much.
Just get the 24mm 1.4 since you're going to do 6 weddings this year. I've seen it advertised at $2000 already.
I find both the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8 more useful than the 24-70mm personally
Just get them both along with the 70-200 2.8. This will complete your bag.
NSXType-R said:
Sorry, meant 17-35.I always think in DX, since I don't own any FX bodies.
Right, but the topic is about lenses on full frame bodies. The 17-35mm would be nice if all you do is wide end photography, but to me the 24-70mm is more flexible, thanks to the reach, not to mention it is a nice lens to pair up with the 70-200mm, vs the 17-35mm, which leaves a 35mm gap in focal length.
PB PM said:
Right, but the topic is about lenses on full frame bodies. The 17-35mm would be nice if all you do is wide end photography, but to me the 24-70mm is more flexible, thanks to the reach, not to mention it is a nice lens to pair up with the 70-200mm, vs the 17-35mm, which leaves a 35mm gap in focal length.
Yeah, that would be quite a gap for FX. Not so much if you go the 17-55 route with DX.
hands down 24-70. . .
there is something AMAZING about that lens, almost like the 70-200 VR2, not sure if it's the updated coating, the magic juju they put in it, or WHAT, but it's a great all purpose length for a FF camera and will suit you FOREVER. . .
it's also not that heavy at all, not sure why people bitch about it. . .it's longer than the 17-55 DX, which makes it better balanced on a D700/D3 body. . .
With weddings I think you'll be better off with the 24-70/2.8. Since you won't use the 14-24/2.8 too much unless you need to whole area covered in one shot and you are in a really cramped place. With these overview photos I think overall detail might be less of a concern than when shooting the half or full frame shots of the wedding couple. So go for the 24-70/2.8 and get a cheaper (second hand) wide angle zoom till you have saved enough for the 14-25/2.8, that too is an amazing lens!
Both lenses are great for low light or heavy stray light photo's. I have used them both under extreme light conditions (concerts) and they give amazing results all the time. Just saving to get my Nikoor 70-200/2.8 now, need to replace my old Sigma because there really is a huge difference between the Nikkors and the Sigma when it comes to image quality now.
The 14-24 is in a class above all but perhaps the way more expensive 200 f/2.0.
If you are doing Group pictures, Landscapes, or Architecture, it is the lens to own.
However, for weddings I use my 28-70 more and would get the 24-70.
Another lense you might consider is a used AF-S Nikkor 17-35.
Because of the latest-greatest 16-35 f/4 VR, there is a glut on the market.
I picked up a used one on eBay (Mint)for $800,
compared it to the 16-35 and sent the 16-35 back to the store today.
Yes, even new I would choose the f/2.8 over VR
Have both. Rarely use the 14-24. The 24-70 ia a much more practical lens.
You must log in to post.
