Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, is it really that good for the price?

<p>I have a simple question for those that are using this lens, is it really truly worth the price tag that it carries?</p>

<p>I'm debating between getting this lens, or, a tripod setup with some monolights.<br>

I wouldn't mind getting a lens with this focal range, but I still have the lens that came with my D70 (18-70 kit lens).</p>

<p>Is the focusing dramatically faster with the 24-70 over the 18-70 on a D300?<br>

I would love to hear some first hand experience before going into the store and checking it out for myself.<br>

Thank you in advance.</p>

<p>It is definitely a top-notch zoom lens, optically better than the 18-70 (as it should be for the difference in price). But only you know whether it is worth it to you. For one thing, it is big and heavy. For another, it has less range, and is not really a wide lens on a DX system such as your D300.</p>

<p>It was worth it to me because I have an FX system.</p>

<p>I love the 24-70mm f/2.8G Nikkor...on the FX Nikons . It probably is overkill for what you seem to want to do with your camera.<br>

What will you be photographing? If it is people you might be better of with an 85mm f/1.8D Nikkor and thspending the rest on lights, stands, umbrellsa, etc --and a copy of "Light; Science and Magic".</p>

I've been researching 24-70/2.8's myself and there are a few.<br>

I've been waiting on the new Sigma version, myself.<br>

The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is a full frame lens and on the D300, it most likely would be a 36-105 f/2.8</p>

<p>Rent one for a weekend and see for youself. For me, it's way too heavy as I do most of my photography handheld. But if you normally use a tripod it would be an excellent optic for you. It's a current, recent Nikon professional zoom, so it has the latest coatings. Should be as good as a Nikkor zoom can get.</p>

<p>If you need to shoot regularly in low light conditions and/or want more control over bokeh, it is a worthwhile investment. Most would consider the 17-55mm f2.8 a better choice for DX but I actually prefer the zoom range of the 24-70mm. It really depends on what you are shooting. In any case, it is an excellent lens and certainly worth trying out if you feel you need it.</p>

<p>While I don't have this lens myself, I have used like 5 different copies and it is very good. On a DX body, I personally prefer the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX.</p>

<p>BTW, I udpated the thread subject line to make sure that there is no confusion about exactly which lens is in discussion here and also deleted several posts that do not directly address the OP's question.</p>

<p>Thank you very much.<br>

I'm kind of up in the air myself, between the Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX<br>

and the New Sigma 24-70 f2.8 with the HSM motor, which isn't in stores yet.</p>

<p>The Sigma HSM version is currently available from B&H.</p>

<p>I've been checking every day and must have missed that.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I have the older 28-70MM F2.8. It's worth every penny, probaby my most used lens.</p>

<p>I have the Nikkor 35-70mm AF-D. I also bought the Nikkor 24-70 AF-S two days ago. Had thought about the new Sigma HSM for quite a while. Then thought, man you are going to use the lens for10-20 years, maybe, why don't you go for the Nikkor for more reliability? Anyway, the tests so far have been done on the sharpness and handling. It seems superb. I also have the 50mm 1.4 AF-S to give you an idea waht I am talking about. Given the weight and size, however, I might still keep the 35-70mm for those times that want to be lighter. The way the 35-70 feels in the hand also is another good reason for me to keep it.</p>

<p>Great lens, the 24-70. Tack sharp and all. Only thing, focusing hunts quite a bit in low light like modeling lights in the studio. Sometimes, I will change lens because it gets really aggravating. I've not been able yet to figure out if they're all like that, or if it's only my copy.</p>

<p>Is it me, or does the 28-70 seem to focus faster than the 24-70? I tried out a 28-70 last week and was amazed at how quickly it focused. Probably the fastest I've seen a zoom focus.</p>

<p>There're only two things you can complain about the 24-70 f/2.8: 1) Its price, and 2) Its somewhat awkward zoom coverage on DX. Some may argure it's big and/or heavy. But I simply found it to be nothing more than "slender and long", as it's not really wider than any consumer zooms at its waist. It is not exactly light. But its exterior parts, down to the MF ring, are large comprised of metal. It is weather sealed (I once used it on a D300 in heavy rain and mud for over 6 hours, and nothing happened to it), nano-coated (there's not much ghosting), and has 3 aspherical and 3 ED elements. It probably has the fastest AF speed among all of the Nikkors I've tried: using it on a D300, it's significantly faster than the 18-70. (it's also faster than the screw-driver 50 f/1.8, and roughly on par with the 300 f/2.8 AF-S VR)</p>

<p>As far as its optical quality goes, there's not much to complain. It has only minimal distortion in its wider end on DX, and it almost has none in the telephoto end (on DX). There's not vignetting on DX. (Though I heard there's plenty on FX) The images it produces are sharp, pleasantly saturated, and sharp. Its out of focus rendering capability is also good. For me, this lens is the perfect candid portrait lens. As it provides me with a range of perspectives and compositional possibilities (for the candid and environmental stuff), yet has the telephoto reach of 105mm equivalent for the more formal portraits. Its hood's set-up if innovative for that it's effective throughout the lens' zoom range (the lens' front element goes backward as you zoom toward the telephoto end), and it clips onto the outter barrel of the lens; so the inner barrel that moves in and out won't get damaged as easily if the lens is dropped. (It's also a single cam zoom design, and it's not nearly as loose as the 18-70)</p><div></div>

<p>Well in all honesty, I do plan on getting an FX camera within a year or so.<br>

Plus I can always revert to my trusty F90X which I purchased in '98. lol<br>

But FX is coming down the pipeline eventually, fantastic responses.</p>

<p>I ran some tests a few weeks ago, basically photographing the graphics and fine print on the side of a box. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 to my trusty old 24-85 f/2.8-4. My D700 was mounted on a heavy tripod with a custom QR plate. I used flash to eliminate the effect of camera shake.</p>

<p>The 24-85 didn't look as bad as I expected, but the 24-70 was noticeably sharper at each of the focal lengths tested. Next I tested the 24-70 at 70mm versus my 70-200 f/2.8 VR. The 24-70 was sharper than the 70-200, previously the sharpest lens in my collection.</p>

<p>That said, I wouldn't use the 24-70 on a DX camera. I would prefer the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX or the new 16-85 DX. They're smaller, less expensive, and more useful at the wide end.</p>

<p>P.S. I used to own a D70 with the 18-70mm kit lens. It's not a very good lens, IMO but YMMV.</p>

 

<p>The 24-70 is my favourite zoom, never seen any better zoom in this range. Do you really want to have the best zoom in this range? If so, this is the choice. If you`re looking to improve your photography, I`d say that a tripod+lights could give you way more sharper images that any lens. Lately I`m using a cheap 50/1.8AFD to get almost the same results that I could get with the 24-70. A 24-70 will give you faster focus in certain cameras, higher resolution with a bit more beautiful bokeh, f2.8 shooting ability and of course zoom versatility but you can get this with many other lenses. Without a tripod and good illumination some images cannot be taken.</p>

<p>It is a great lens but it is a bit long for use on a DX camera, which is why Nikon having already a 28-70 in production came out with the 17-55mm f2.8 for its pro DX cameras. For landscape and group photography the 17-55mm is a better choice but for portraits the 24-70mm is better though an excellent and much less expensive option is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>I would second the suggestion to rent one and get a useful personal idea of it quality and size. I think its very different than your current 18-70mm which I had and liked. I sold it when I bought a D700 and then found a 28-105 to replace it.</p>