Nikonos

Hi everyone, I have been a lurker for about a year now, but have enjoyed reading all the different posts. I would like an opinion on something that has been bugging me a bit. First of I am in no means a professional photographer. I just enjoy taking pictures of my travels, which I do quite a lot of. I have a D7100 with a complement of lenses ( 18-200, 10-24, 35). I really don't see myself upgrading to FX right away as I am still currently exploring this camera of mine and I also appreciate the smaller frame of DX cameras. Based on my readings, it appears that investing in lenses would be a wise move and since I may potentially move into FX, I think it would be prudent to purchase FX lenses instead of DX lenses. That way, when I do upgrade, I would not waste my hard earned dollars. I am thinking of buying the nikon 24-70 or the 105 mm. It seems that the 24-70 could be used as a good all around lens, but the 105 would be mainly be useful for macro work and portrait photography. If you were to choose one or the other, which one would it be? Sorry for the long rant, but I'd appreciate any input

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens is significantly more expensive than the Micro 105mm F2.8. In my personal opinion you would probably get more overall use out of it though. Should you develop a greater interest in macro work, the Nikon 105 is the standard by which all other macros are judged.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

The 24-70 F2.8 is a fine lens and one of Nikon's "holy trinity" of lenses. At 70mm it will be fine for portraits and be a lot more versatile than the 105. However if Macro is your thing, the 105 is the answer.

Here is an off the wall suggestion - a 28-105 AF-D F3.5-4.5 Micro Nikkor. It has zoom range almost as wide as the 24-70, matches the FL of the 105, does macro, is FX, will autofocus on your D7100 or any full frame Nikon body and is available used at around $200! I have one of these and it is an excellent lens both on my D90 and D610. Here is a link to a review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28105af.htm

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I have three GREAT lenses that cover ALL my needs. I just cannot get better glass.

the 24-70---the number 1 go to lens!
the 70-200 2.8 ---my mid range lens,
and the big baby the 200-400 f4

All great lenses. The 24-70 lives on my camera. It never fails to deliver superb images.
If I was to buy one lens---it would be the 24-70 no question.

amehta Loc: Boston

I do not agree with the "only buy FX lenses" meme, but rather to the "it depends" meme.

I also do not subscribe to the "Nikon holy trinity" meme.

The first question is, "Why do you need a new lens?" You have a superzoom, ultra wide angle, and a fast prime. What is missing?

Second, it would make sense to figure out what focal lengths you use. Look through your "keepers" and see if they clump into a few focal length ranges. If they do, then a prime or pro-level zoom (2x-3x zoom range) might make work well for you. But if you do not have "favorite" focal lengths, then you have to consider your options more carefully.

While FX lenses are usually appropriate for telephoto focal lengths, you are paying a lot extra for wide angle and ultra wide angle focal lengths. The most obvious example is
1. Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G, $600
2. Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX, $200
which are optically comparable on a D7100. With the zoom lenses which include the FX wide angle range like 24mm or 28mm, you are not really getting much wide angle functionality on a DX camera. The 28-300mm lens, for example, has a wide angle field of view like a 42mm lens (FX equivalent), so it starts as a "normal" lens and then covers a long telephoto range.

Nikonos

Amehta, thanks for your response. You do have a point there. If I follow your logic, then the 105 might be a better choice since I don't have any true macro lenses in the complement of lenses that I already have. Don't you think? I occasionally am tasked by my wifey to take some pics of jewelry that she sometimes posts on eBay. I use diopter lenses for that, but I guess it would be smoother with the 105.

Richard HZ Loc: Indiana, US

I have all kinds of Nikkor lens including Nikkor 24-70, Macro 105mm/f2.8, Macro 60mm/f2.8, wide 14-24mm, 70-200mm VRII, 200-400/f4, and newly expensive 800mm/f5.6. For macro work, 105mm is an excellent lens although 60mm sometimes is a must if space is limited. But 24-70 mm stays on one of my bodies (Nikon D7000, D800, D4S) almost all time. This should be the first lens to consider to buy if buy only one. Just my personal preference. --Thanks!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

On the other hand, if you are particular, you will notice a significant difference in quality between the 18-200 and the 24-70--perhaps not for web images but definitely if you view or print larger.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

If I had no lenses at all and more money my ideal kit would be:

14-24
24-70
70-200
200-400

But you already have lenses and assuming a real world budget...Its interesting that you want 24-70 when you have 18-200.

Are you dissatisfied with the 18-200?

My advice is to compliment what you already have instead of redundancy.

Go for the 105.

Joecosentino Loc: Whitesboro, New York

If you want fx lens look at the f 4's. 16 to 35. 24 to 120. 70 to 200. I switched last year. The 2.8's are for studio work now.

I would suggest renting a few lenses and see what you like and don't like

I rent from. Lens pro to go

CharlesA Loc: New Jersey

I also have the 24-70 and 105macro and like you, the former stays on the camera most of the time. If you're really into macro/close-up photography, you can't beat the 105 for all around performance, great colors and contrast, sharp as a tack. VR is sometimes useful, but a good flash system is more important for moving subjects.

One interesting thing about the 105. It came out maybe 6 or 7 years ago (not sure about exact date) and Nikon has yet to update this lens. So as the legacy lenses get their usual replacements, they obviously have not come up with a better element configuration for this one. That in itself tells you how good this lens is.

You might want to check eBay and save some money instead of buying new.

Charles

Nikonos

Joker, thanks for the advice. I really like the 18-200 and it stays on my camera most of the time, since I take a lot of pics in my travels. I just came from Turkey and I used the lens most of the time. I would switch to my 35 at night and use my wide angle for scenic vistas. I just thought that if I get the 24-70, I can make a "better" image and it will also be a step toward full frame in the future. Being quite new to this art form, I always thought I could push the limits of my d7100 by getting a "better " lens. From the other responses, it appears that the results won't be terribly different with the 24-70 as compared to the 18-200 on a DX camera. Anyway, if there is an 18-300 for an FX camera, that might also be another option.

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

If you think you may get really interested in macro then the 105mm dedicated macro lens would be the right choice. I personally have recently started in macro and love it as it is an exciting area of photography that is not easy but can be done in your own back yard at any time. It is also useful for other subjects too and very sharp. For macro you would probably want to buy a speedlight and diffuser as well. The macro group on this forum is the place for advice.

thefishlives

Hi, I can tell that I have been using the 24-70mm lens on my DX D300s & its fantastic, it's a true work horse & it will always stay on my camera. I didn't have the problem you seem to be having since I've had an older 105mm f 2.5 Nikkor lens since the early 80s plus the fact that I have been using my 80-200mm f 2.8 lens for a couple of years now for those times I need it & by the way it works fantastic on my DX format camera as well as the older nikkor lenses do. Your D 7100 should be able to accept the FX format lenses as well though they may have some restrictions which you should check the camera's specs on line.
The only reason I would get the 105 mm f 2.8 macro lens is if you intend on doing a lot of macro work then by all means get it but the 24-70 is the work horse go to lens for just about everything else.!!!
Good luck with which ever you choose!!!
Joe

amehta Loc: Boston

It seems a little bit that you are looking for a solution in search of a problem. Don't worry, we're all really good at that too. ;-)

I think you are looking at two distinct choices: improve the image quality of your shots, or take different pictures. The 105mm macro would open up the whole world of "close-up" photography, from life-size to about one-quarter life size. If that interests you, then it would be the easy choice.

For improving image quality, a 24-70mm f/2.8 FX lens is one way to go. Two other options are the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC, $800, or the Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G, $500. Both rate better than the 24-70mm on the D7100, among the best lenses available for the D7100 and among the least expensive for the quality they offer. Both are also f/1.8, basically a stop faster than the 24-70mm.

The worst thing to do would be to buy the 24-70mm because so many people like the lens. It's a great lens, and it's important that it works for them, but it's useless if it doesn't work for you. Again, look through your pictures. How many are shot in the 24-70mm range, or the 16-50mm range (for the "DX->FX" field of view factor)? If it is over half, and closer to 3/4, then the 24-70mm would be a good fit. But if your pictures go outside that range a lot, then buying the lens would "waste my hard earned dollars."