DSLRUsers.com

I was just wondering for those of you who do this - what you think of using the 24-70/2.8 on crop?

I've got the Tamrom 17-50/2.8 currently but often find the 50mm (75 equiv) end a little short and was considering the 17-55 but I'm not sure that would do enough and am also concerned with yet another DX lens if I ever go FX (note - have no actual plans to go FX at the moment but who can say what the future brings). So with that in mind I've been percolating with the idea of getting a 24-70/2.8 instead (36-135 equiv) and wonder what those who shoot this on crop think?

Obviously this is a much larger, heavier, more costly walkaround lens. I'll also have to consider what happens with the loss of wide (25 to 36mm) (e.g. for group shots, indoors, etc) but I'll still have the 17-50/2.8 and 12-24/4 (and 8-16) which cover the wider view but I'd have to have the lens with me and change. I also would have preferred it to have VR (and maybe I'd wait till Nikon release a new version with VR or look at one of the off brands).

I use my 24-70 on my D200. Works beautifully. It is the lens that is most often on the camera. Though lately I have been shooting primes and am mainly using the 50 and 85.

Remorhaz wrote: I'll also have to consider what happens with the loss of wide (25 to 36mm)...
...cover the wider view but I'd have to have the lens with me and change

It does cover 24-36. Perhaps you mean 17-24
Whatever lens you use you will always run out of zoom range. Even the 18-200 has limitations here. You either use what you have or carry the extra lenses. .

For me, I would use the 24-70 most of the time, but carry the 12-24 for those wide shots. But yes the 24-70 is a big beast.

I do not own this lens, however have used it (Camerons) on a number of occasions, i find it to be a really perfect focal range for portraits, when using the 17-55 (for people) i have found I am more often than not at the 55mm end and wishing for more.

In terms of size it is not really that big, just long - and thats where it is a bit of a pain imo.

The lens is part of the golden three from nikon and really if you did buy it you would not be disappointed, however whether it will fit into your current lineup could be questionable, have you thought about the 24-120 f4? more compact, longer range, VR, FX...

Mr Darcy wrote:I use my 24-70 on my D200. Works beautifully. It is the lens that is most often on the camera. Though lately I have been shooting primes and am mainly using the 50 and 85.

Thanks Greg - this was what I was hoping for...

Remorhaz wrote: I'll also have to consider what happens with the loss of wide (25 to 36mm)...
...cover the wider view but I'd have to have the lens with me and change

It does cover 24-36. Perhaps you mean 17-24

Yeah I meant 25-36 (FX equiv) and yes 17-24 (DX)

biggerry wrote:have used it (Camerons) on a number of occasions, i find it to be a really perfect focal range for portraits, when using the 17-55 (for people) i have found I am more often than not at the 55mm end and wishing for more

Yeah - that was my feeling as well (with my 17-50)

The lens is part of the golden three from nikon and really if you did buy it you would not be disappointed, however whether it will fit into your current lineup could be questionable, have you thought about the 24-120 f4? more compact, longer range, VR, FX

Yep - that is a solid option I guess... I don't suppose then anyone regularly uses the new 24-120/4 on DX and can comment?

much to ponder...

"I've got the Tamrom 17-50/2.8 currently but often find the 50mm (75 equiv) "
The 17-50 is a true dx lens so the 50mm end is 50mm. A 50mm fx is equal to a 75mm on a crop body. PS I like the 24-70 on a crop body.

J.Davis wrote:"I've got the Tamrom 17-50/2.8 currently but often find the 50mm (75 equiv) "
The 17-50 is a true dx lens so the 50mm end is 50mm. A 50mm fx is equal to a 75mm on a crop body. PS I like the 24-70 on a crop body.

did you get the issue sorted with your D7000 and teh sigma lens? that would be a ball breaker for me.

J.Davis wrote:"I've got the Tamrom 17-50/2.8 currently but often find the 50mm (75 equiv) "
The 17-50 is a true dx lens so the 50mm end is 50mm. A 50mm fx is equal to a 75mm on a crop body. PS I like the 24-70 on a crop body.

The focal length stated on the lens is a physical measurement, so whether the lens is DX or FX has no effect on it. When a lens is marked DX, that means that it will vignette on FX.

So the Tamron 17-50 will still be 75mm equivalent when used on DX.

The focal length stated on the lens is a physical measurement, so whether the lens is DX or FX has no effect on it. When a lens is marked DX, that means that it will vignette on FX.

So the Tamron 17-50 will still be 75mm equivalent when used on DX.

yup thats what my exif data from the tamron shows as well.

lightning wrote:

The focal length stated on the lens is a physical measurement, so whether the lens is DX or FX has no effect on it. When a lens is marked DX, that means that it will vignette on FX.

So the Tamron 17-50 will still be 75mm equivalent when used on DX.

yup thats what my exif data from the tamron shows as well.

I love the 17-50 but it would be better if it was a 17-75mm f/2.8!!

I say for the 24-70 (I use it on a D300). I use it as a walk around lens and carry the 14-24 2.8 as well for my Manhattan meanderings. It is a superb lens and the one I use more than anything (after getting rid of all my DX lenses in anticipation of a D800 being released with improved low light performance over the D300).

I use the 24-70 on the D300 and found I used it most often as awalkaround lens when o/s last year. I have the Sigma 10-20 if I want wider but found the 24-70 was a great lens.