13 replies to this topic

[pete2878]

Hi folks

I recently bought a D7500 to start my photography journey and am enjoying it.

I'm really looking to get a new lens which will enhance what I already have.

My interests are wildlife, landscape, working dogs, dog portraiture and my current lens collection is:

2.8 70 - 200 Nikkor lens
50mm 1.8
Sigma 150 - 600 Contemporary

I feel that my wildlife and action needs are pretty much catered for and am thinking a 24 - 70 would be a solid investment BUT should I be looking at something like a 17 - 55 be more appropriate for a crop frame?

Thanks for any help.

Pete

[nbanjogal]

That really depends on your style for landscape (I'm focusing on landscape here because your portraiture, wildlife, and action needs seem to be well covered already). With a crop frame, some photographers might feel that 24mm isn't wide enough if they want a really wide angle. I have the Nikon 24-70, and it is my workhorse lens--it may be my most frequently used lens. It seems wide enough for me, but I am using a full-frame sensor. And the quality is fantastic--such a good lens. One other thing to keep in mind is whether you might someday wish to move to a full-frame sensor. The 17-55 is a DX (crop sensor) and to use it on a full-frame camera, you'd have to put your full-frame camera back into crop-frame mode to avoid vignetting.  

 

I'm sure Peter and some others will have some good advice and other things to consider--hoping they'll chime in here!

[Merco_61]

I would go with a 24-70, simply because both the current, very expensive E VR and the earlier G lens are such wonderful lenses with a much softer background blur than the 17-55. The latest version from Tamron shares this nice blur, the previous version was busier, more like the 17-55.

 

The 17-55 is nice, but the optical design shows it's age today. It is, after all about two lens generations earlier than the first 24-70. It was introduced when the D1X and D100 were the pro's tools with their 6 MP sensors. The first 24-70 was presented together with the D3 and D300 over 4 years later.

 

One nice thing about the 24-70 is that you won't have a gap in your available focal lengths right where you want to be for canine portraits.

 

As you have gone for optical excellence so far, getting a 24-70 now and perhaps an ultrawide at a later date when the need appears and you need wider than 24 mm.

 

The UWA as a landscape lens is a bit of a strange idea as they are very difficult to use well without the results getting boring. Lots of the memorable landscapes that hang in museums and have sold well in prints are made with a lens that is between 0,8X and 1.2X the film diagonal and that is right where a 24-70 on DX lands at the wide end. (It is 0.8X to 2.45X)

[nbanjogal]

 

The UWA as a landscape lens is a bit of a strange idea as they are very difficult to use well without the results getting boring. 

 

This is very true--I have tried to use my 14mm for landscape and it is not at all my favorite lens for that. I end up using it only for landscapes that include the night sky, and that's because I want to get as much of the Milky Way in as possible. Even then, I have to be careful about getting a  boring, flat foreground. Someday we'll have to chat about good uses for UWA--I've seen you use it to good effect on your "One week" challenge, but it's such a quirky thing that I don't find it too useful.

[ScottinPollock]

I often use wider to exaggerate perspective...

 

[Ron]

The problem I see with UWA's is having some foreground interest. Without that most UWA photos fall flat. And, you really have to get close which increases the chance of distortion ruining the photo. 

 

In most cases, 24mm is going to be about as wide as you'll need. I have zero experience with the high end Nikkor lenses Peter and Nicole are referring to but I do know some working pros who seem to have them glued to at least one of their cameras so they must be pretty good. 

 

In my own case, I still use a bulky Nikkor 24-120D lens and it's still one of my favorites despite it's weight and size. 

 

--Ron 

[fallout666]

i would go with 24-70 too. since working dogs, dog portraiture shots i would say 70-200mm but that will not work since give way longer shots for landscape and wildlife but not reach you need for working dogs, dog portraiture. i love my first gen 70-200mm nikon lens and my main lens. 

  

[nbanjogal]

The 24-70 is a lovely lens. Get it if you can. 

 

Now I'm sorry, but I'm going to hijack the thread a little bit here. ScottinPollock--how are you keeping your lines so straight with those UWA shots??? Are you doing much tinkering in post? 

[ScottinPollock]

The 24-70 is a lovely lens. Get it if you can.

Now I'm sorry, but I'm going to hijack the thread a little bit here. ScottinPollock--how are you keeping your lines so straight with those UWA shots??? Are you doing much tinkering in post?

Hi Nicole...

Nothing geometrically. These were all taken with the old sigma 10-20mm. I just try to keep the lines defining the perspective in the center (top to bottom) of the frame. Even if they're diagonal, I try and thread them through the center.

[TBonz]

I'm on the 24-70 bandwagon as well as it will definitely compliment your current gear.  I use mine on both my DX and FX bodies quite often...

[dcbear78]

I'm going to throw a spanner in the 24-70mm love here. But if I was shooting a DX camera that 16-85mm would be a definite on my list. No, it's not constant aperture. Yes the 24-70mm has superior image quality. But how amazingly convenient is that focal range?

For me 24mm on DX just isn't quite wide enough if doing landscapes. 24mm on FF is great so ideally I'd be looking for that 16mm equivalent focal length.

Wonder why they never made it a constant f4 as it is basically a DX 24-120mm?

[Ron]

One of my main considerations in purchasing the Nikkor 16-85mm was that extra mm on the wide end. But, I do wish the lens were a bit faster and a constant aperture would be nice. 

 

Thom Hogan frequently calls Nikon to task about their DX lens deficiency, particularly on the wide end.

 

--Ron

[leighgion]

Wide is great fun, if it's your thing. It's mine.

 

Neopan Pass by Leigh, on Flickr

 

But, that is the question for the OP: Do you in any way feel you need wider angles? The widest lens you own is a 50mm and you seem quite content. 

[fallout666]

we for got to mention one thing on 24-70. you know will have to add mm to it since your dx body. so if at 70mm you will be about 105mm and 24mm will be about 47mm so keep that in mind when using 24-70mm on dx body. i have to do that for my 50mm and first gen 70-200mm i have recall extra length of lens when shooting. might want to get dx version or learn how to use 24-70. so when you go to full frame you know how to use the lens