that is depends on each individuals, if ones don't mind the weight and cost, and he/she will find the lens is justifiable to have it on a DX body.Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
same dilemma. Had been looking ard nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, was quoted 2450 by iPhoto(lords) & 2534 by CP. Grey sets us about 2.2k+ & 2.4k+. Whilst iPhoto quoted 2250 for nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. Judging from the price alone, imho, personally, way too pricey for a dx len. Above all, read comments prime len is way much cheaper and , how often one fully make full use of the zoom on 17-55 or 24-70. Well, It perfectly make sense to me
Dilemma.....
Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
rye09 said:Does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is reasonable to buy for a DX Body camera?
GReddyZC76 said:same dilemma. Had been looking ard nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, was quoted 2450 by iPhoto(lords) & 2534 by CP. Grey sets us about 2.2k+ & 2.4k+. Whilst iPhoto quoted 2250 for nikkor 17-55 f/2.8. Judging from the price alone, imho, personally, way too pricey for a dx len. Above all, read comments prime len is way much cheaper and , how often one fully make full use of the zoom on 17-55 or 24-70. Well, It perfectly make sense to me
Dilemma.....
daredevil123 said:1.8 primes are cheaper. But if you need versatility and speed in your shooting flow, zoom will be better.
But once you go 1.4, prices soar.
After thinking thru, a wide angle zoom or prime, will suit me more than a 24 70 .
Hence, shelfing 24 70 for the time being, and considering 17 35 f/2.8 or 16 35 f/4 or 12 24 f/2.8. I understand if use on dx, it will not be 'wide'. But I forsee a fx body in future, and hence considering a fx len.
(thou I understand tokina 11 16 f/2.8 is best fit for dx, but if use on fx, there be vignetting and so?)
Ya thanks 4 ur replies
Yes u r right. The cheapest f/1.4 is afd 50mm or afs 50mm f/1.4(am I right?)
M using a 35mm f/1.8 dx and 85mm f/1.4 now, and getting use with these 2 lens. (hence letting go the tamron 17 55 f/2.8 di II).
But 35mm sometime quite tight, need and want shoot grp shot or scenario. After thinking thru, a wide angle zoom or prime, will suit me more than a 24 70 .
Hence, shelfing 24 70 for the time being, and considering 17 35 f/2.8 or 16 35 f/4 or 12 24 f/2.8. I understand if use on dx, it will not be 'wide'. But I forsee a fx body in future, and hence considering a fx len.
(thou I understand tokina 11 16 f/2.8 is best fit for dx, but if use on fx, there be vignetting and so?)
Dilemma..
Any sound advice any1?
Then let me help poison you more, get a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It's one of Nikon Trinity lens which I still lack. It will be wide enough at 21mm(35mm equiv) on the DX body and 14mm at its widest on the FF body.
Confirm vignetting, I tried it before after I converted from D300 to D3. I once own the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I remember when on the D3, the vignetting will be very obvious once u start zoom out to 15mm. At 16mm, it will see a lot less. That being said, if you often like to put in deliberate vignetting in your photos to create focal point in your subject, then using Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on FX will give you that effect optically. :bsmilie:
I do not see any vignetting at 16mm on the D700. A very slight and barely noticeable fall off maybe, but no vignetting.
Sample. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5291/5477852787_3229d7a187_z.jpg