Quote (CitizenScuba @ Jan 19 2011 12:30am)

You're the best prime for my Nikon.

Quote (Antichrist- @ Jan 19 2011 01:12am)

hard to say between 24-70 and 24-105. 24-105 lets 1 stop less light in, but it has at least 2 stop IS(at times it can even help 3 stops) and you can get higher magnification. 24-70 has slightly better iq, but a good copy of 24-105 has nearly the same iq. 24-70 has bit better build quality, but what i find really annoying with it is that it gets long when you use the wide angle and gets short when you use the longer focal lengths(pretty weird huh?). 24mm isnt all that wide on 1.6 crop sensor, so id rather go with 18-50 2.8 IS, unless i had some ultra wide angle with it.

whether you should stick to primes or not depends if you need a zoom or not. personally if i had a 1.6 crop camera i would most likely go with 18-50 2.8 IS, 28-30mm prime(canon 28mm 1.8 or sigma 30mm 1.4), 85mm 1.8 and 70-200(canon f/4 IS or sigma 2.8). if i went with the 70-200 2.8 sigma i would most likely drop the 85mm off since 200mm 2.8 is good for portraits too.

Quote (Antichrist- @ Jan 19 2011 12:30pm)

that sigma doesent have real macro, real macro is 1:1 magnification, sigma(and canon) is just closer than usual focus thats called macro just to mislead people to buy the product. i bet sigma 70-200 magnification is about same as canon 24-105. sigma focuses to 1m and canon to 45cm.

imo 24mm isnt wide enough for walk around lens on 1.6 crop camera, also both 24-70 and 24-105 are quite damn big lenses for a small dslr, imo they are both pretty poor choices if you are using 1.6 crop camera.

Quote (lithfkn @ Jan 19 2011 02:33am)

Stick to primes dude

Quote (3Dimensional @ Jan 22 2011 06:27am)

This

Quote (kratos @ Jan 19 2011 02:46am)

I'm thinking..

24-70 2.8
24-105 4
70-200 2.8

Should I even bother getting the 24-105? There's that extra f stop, but I could always just shoot up a step in ISO..

Or, should I just stick to primes?

Quote (Phil. @ Jan 22 2011 08:03am)

take some pictures first.