dave lackey
Veteran
I did not even know there was a 20-35 lens!
I have seen this expensive lens, though I have never even touched either:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Lens / USA
I have seen this expensive lens, though I have never even touched either:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Lens / USA
Ronald M
Veteran
24/120 vr. Past 85 mm the edges are not the best, but I do use mine there. Carry a 70/210 vr2. The vr1 is a DX lens officially. at long end, the edges are wonky.
I use my 24/120 as a one lens set up also.
But if you want to save weight and have versatility, D7200 and the 18/140 is a nice combo. Don`t get hung on full frame.
I did a picnic Sunday with my old D40 and 18/70 zoom. When security is bad, go cheap. 18/70 is very small
I use my 24/120 as a one lens set up also.
But if you want to save weight and have versatility, D7200 and the 18/140 is a nice combo. Don`t get hung on full frame.
I did a picnic Sunday with my old D40 and 18/70 zoom. When security is bad, go cheap. 18/70 is very small
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
kshapero
South Florida Man
It's enough for me to keep track of focus, ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Focal length changes in a zoom lens is just too much for me. Primes for me.
kxl
Social Documentary
Thanks for that info..
How do you like the 17-35?
It is a great lens that's sharp and built like a tank. I've brought it with me on several trips. At its 17-18mm, there a little fall off in the corners when wide open, but still serviceable. There's also a little pincushion at 35mm. Those are very, very minor flaws, even with my D800e. When I need to shoot the 35mm FL, I switch to my 24-70mm.
For my use, I don't see the need to upgrade to the 14-24mm or the Tamron 15-30mm, but if I didn't already have the 17-35mm and needed that range, I'd probably look at the newer lenses first. Nothing against the old standard, but in this case, newer might actually be better.
kxl
Social Documentary
The 20-35mm was the predecessor to the 17-35mm. I had owned one for a short while until I upgraded to the 17-35mm (only because I wanted something wider).
If the relatively limited FL range works for you, then the 20-35mm is a great lens.
narsuitus
Well-known
Which lenses do you suggest?
For you, I suggest the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. Both are G lenses and will work on newer cameras but will not work on older cameras that need an aperture ring for exposure control.
Since I need my lenses to work on my older cameras and my newer cameras, I use the following fixed maximum aperture Nikon zoom lenses:
14-24mm f/2.8
20-35mm f/2.8
35-70mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8
The 14-24mm is a G lens that only works on my newer cameras. The other three are D lenses that work on my older and my newer cameras.
When I have to limit my photographic load to only two zoom lenses, I usually select the 20-35 and 80-200. Camera body (e.g. DX vs. FX), weight limits, and subject matter; however, may cause me to alter my selection of pairs.
Nikon Zooms by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
I can confirm that the 24-70mm G does work on the Nikon F4 as long as you are in Program or Program High or Shutter priority. Works pretty well actually; you just have to be more flexible in your use of the exposure compensation dial and perhaps spot metering with exposure lock. If you can get the humor, it makes a Pro version of the EM.
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Oh and the 14-24mm is a fat pig of a lens. So heavy and Awesome optics again I use this lens is used on production and the images have the potential to astound if used well. I thought it would be somewhat of a delicate lens but in truth it is quite durable and seems strong. I clean that lens sometimes 2-4 times a day (shooting close in greasy kitchens)and the cleaning takes a real trick. If you shoot Nikon you should at least rent and try, its a fun lens and at current prices is getting to be quite the bargain; Nikon made over 300,000 units which I find interesting.
dtcls100
Well-known
I presently have a Nikon D750 body, two F6 bodies, a FM3a body and a Fe2 body. The Nikon zoom lenses that I have are a 17-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8 VRII.
I got the 17-35 and 28-70 because unlike their successors (14-24 and 24-70) they have real aperture rings so that they can be used on older film cameras like the FM3a and Fe2. I also chose the 17-35 over the 14-24 because it has a more practical zoom range for me and also can mount filters. I also chose the 28-70 over the 24-70 because I got a mint used 28-70 for a fraction of the cost of the 24-70 and because the 28-70 apparently has significantly less distortion. While the 17-35 and 28-70 are older designs and reputedly are not as optically stellar as the newer 14-24 and 24-70, I find their optical performance to be pretty excellent and any optical differences not meaningful in real world photographic situations. The frank truth is that most optical differences between high quality lenses cannot be seen at all unless one is taking pictures of test charts/brick walls, etc., and magnifying them enormously.
The 70-200 VRII is really excellent with beautiful bokeh.
That said, my zoom lenses are rather big and heavy, being very solidly built lenses. One can probably get other Nikon zooms that also have excellent image quality and that are much lighter and perhaps much cheaper, for a tradeoff in build quality. Build quality may not matter, depending on how you intend to use your camera.
I did recently use a cheap Canon Rebel T3i and its plastic kit zoom (which is quite sharp) in a heavy rain for about 30 seconds and wiped it off immediately. However, due to the cheap build quality, water had seeped into the lens and actually pooled behind the front mounted UV filter! I have used various older OM Zuiko and Vivitar Series 1 lenses (with much better build quality) in heavy rains for far longer and never had this problem. But I did manage to dry out the inside of the Canon kit zoom and it seems to work OK. This is what cheap build quality will get you. But most folks don't typically use their cameras in rain storms so this might be a worthwhile tradeoff for a much cheaper and lighter lens whose optical performance is still very good.
I got the 17-35 and 28-70 because unlike their successors (14-24 and 24-70) they have real aperture rings so that they can be used on older film cameras like the FM3a and Fe2. I also chose the 17-35 over the 14-24 because it has a more practical zoom range for me and also can mount filters. I also chose the 28-70 over the 24-70 because I got a mint used 28-70 for a fraction of the cost of the 24-70 and because the 28-70 apparently has significantly less distortion. While the 17-35 and 28-70 are older designs and reputedly are not as optically stellar as the newer 14-24 and 24-70, I find their optical performance to be pretty excellent and any optical differences not meaningful in real world photographic situations. The frank truth is that most optical differences between high quality lenses cannot be seen at all unless one is taking pictures of test charts/brick walls, etc., and magnifying them enormously.
The 70-200 VRII is really excellent with beautiful bokeh.
That said, my zoom lenses are rather big and heavy, being very solidly built lenses. One can probably get other Nikon zooms that also have excellent image quality and that are much lighter and perhaps much cheaper, for a tradeoff in build quality. Build quality may not matter, depending on how you intend to use your camera.
I did recently use a cheap Canon Rebel T3i and its plastic kit zoom (which is quite sharp) in a heavy rain for about 30 seconds and wiped it off immediately. However, due to the cheap build quality, water had seeped into the lens and actually pooled behind the front mounted UV filter! I have used various older OM Zuiko and Vivitar Series 1 lenses (with much better build quality) in heavy rains for far longer and never had this problem. But I did manage to dry out the inside of the Canon kit zoom and it seems to work OK. This is what cheap build quality will get you. But most folks don't typically use their cameras in rain storms so this might be a worthwhile tradeoff for a much cheaper and lighter lens whose optical performance is still very good.
J enea
Established
i use very few zooms on my nikon cameras. But when I do I use the 35-70 2.8d and 14-24. great shots with those lenses.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Funny, I thought it was just me that felt that way.
I've tried them but they open up too many options. It lessen the spontaneity, had me second guessing myself, was that really the best focal length to choose?
It's weird that I enjoy a zoom on a P&S as much as primes, thought I find myself more at both ends of the zoom over 95% of the time.
I'm still happy with a triplet of primes and a tele-converter.
Perhaps a nice mid range (28-85) would make me change my mind.
Let us know how you make out Dave and if your back holds up (dang they look big!).
Mudman
Well-known
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that I use all the time. I'm sure the Nikon 24-70 is superior, but I can buy 3 of the Tamrons for one of the Nikons. I bought the Tamron as a stopgap lens when I switched to full frame in 2013, and I've never felt the need to upgrade. I also use the 17-35 (great lens) but have had two copies where the bushings have worn out. Any of the 80-200 f2.8s or 70-200s are great lenses. I'm just getting the latest 70-200, haven't used it yet. I love my 80-200 afs lens, and an old 70-210 f4 af jobber. Very sharp, and minimal distortion for my uses. I only got the 70-200 afs II because I was given it in non-working condition. My repairman got it going for $65 I pick it up tomorrow hopefully.
I pick it up tomorrow hopefully.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
They seem like such a great idea, and Nikon has been committed to making zooms for a long time.
But for so very long I just used a 50. And old habits, and more importantly expectations are just hard to shake.
Anytime I have bought a new system, I have picked up a couple of wides, a zoom and my old standbys, a 50 and something in the 100mm range, and I only end up using the 50.
I just feel so comfortable with a 50.
Before and after the exposure.