Regarding the Nikon 24-70

Hi everyone, after a long break I decided to continue learning and pursuing landscape photography, hopefully as a viable career in the future. I am currently considering between the Nikon 24-70 2.8G and the 24-120 F4 as my multi-purpose lens, I have owned the 24-70G previously and have encountered the stiff zoom ring problem, I recall the serial number on my 24-70 began with 6. I think I will likely buy the 24-70 again since it delivers much better corner resolution than the 24-120, which is quite important for landscape photography. I have read that corrections were made in newer batches of the 24-70 G lens which fixed both the stiff zoom ring issue and the fragile mount, does anyone have any reliable information regarding this supposedly unannounced "fix" in the newer batches of this lens? If so, what serial number should I be looking for to make sure the one I eventually receive will be the adjusted ones? I recall since Nikon is very unlikely to offer a fix for this issue even under warranty, is it a good choice if I buy this lens second hand or "grey"? Thanks!

 

I have another off-topic question, will Nikon eventually release a 16-35 F2.8 lens? The current 16-35 F4 has extremely terrible corner sharpness between 16-18mm for some very peculiar reason, so I am thinking of sticking to the new 18-35G lens which according to tests seem to perform better. I'm not sure if this is a good idea though, but since I will likely be hiking most of the times I would prefer to keep as lightweight as possible.

 

Thanks a lot everyone!

The 2007 version (announced along with the D3) of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S G is known to be better in the center but the quality drops off towards the edges. The newer version 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is better from corner to corner but not as great in the center. The problem with both of those lenses is that they are big and heavy, especially the VR version that uses 82mm filters.

 

For landscape photography where you usually don't need f2.8, I would get a slower and lighter lens.

 

I love the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S G lens for landscape. Again, it is light and fairly small.

The 24-70 is a great pro lens. Heavy and pricey. If you need to shoot at f2.8 and get good corner performance it's the way to go. I didn't. I get results that are just as good (once stopped down to f8) with my 24-85 f3.5-4.5 AFS. For landscape photography stick with primes. I love my 24mm f3.5 PC-E for landscapes, it's much better than the zooms.

I'll take another opportunity to say good things about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (I have the 2012 version; I don't know about the new one). It's not perfect, but I believe it's optically a match for either Nikkor 24-70, and it's much smaller and lighter - much closer to the 24-120 (to the extent that I tend not to bother bringing the latter with me most of the time). DxO sharpens it up quite nicely too. Other options are decent if you don't need f/2.8 - it's not that light.

 

I agree the tilt-shift options have merits for landscape; I have some off-brand ones, and may stretch to a Nikkor at some point. They really need a tripod, though, so if you're really concerned about the weight difference between a 24-120 and a 24-70, that's a bigger problem.

 

I always assumed the 16-35 was the "budget" compromise between the 14-24 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms, making me think it's unlikely to get an f/2.8 version. But I know nothing (Jon Snow). I really wish the 14-24 had less field curvature, though.

Hi everyone, after a long break I decided to continue learning and pursuing landscape photography, hopefully as a viable career in the future. I am currently considering between the Nikon 24-70 2.8G and the 24-120 F4 as my multi-purpose lens, I have owned the 24-70G previously and have encountered the stiff zoom ring problem, I recall the serial number on my 24-70 began with 6. I think I will likely buy the 24-70 again since it delivers much better corner resolution than the 24-120, which is quite important for landscape photography. I have read that corrections were made in newer batches of the 24-70 G lens which fixed both the stiff zoom ring issue and the fragile mount, does anyone have any reliable information regarding this supposedly unannounced "fix" in the newer batches of this lens? If so, what serial number should I be looking for to make sure the one I eventually receive will be the adjusted ones? I recall since Nikon is very unlikely to offer a fix for this issue even under warranty, is it a good choice if I buy this lens second hand or "grey"? Thanks!

I looked into this before buying mine, and didn't find a specific serial number range. Most of the problems you see described online seem to date back several years (especially issues with internal screws coming loose and jamming the zoom), but there are some more recent reports too. I suspect none of them are immune. On the other hand, as with most of these issues, probably only a small proportion are affected. It might be best to avoid storing it horizontally for long periods with the heavy barrel not fully supported (e.g. with the hood fitted, which will raise it at one end) - 'zoom sag' leading to internal distortion has been suggested as one culprit (mine sits vertically in its case when not in use). I don't know what the current situation is with fixing it under warranty - there are mixed reports about Nikon attributing this to 'impact damage' (it may depend on your local service centre). Since the UK warranty is pretty short anyway, I went with secondhand and checked the zoom action (and the filter ring, which can also apparently become loose) pretty carefully. For landscape I might go with something quite different (maybe a set of primes).

I'll second the advice to look at Tamron's SP VC 24-70 f/2.8 zoom if you feel the need for that type of lens. I've had mine for a couple of years and the zoom has the same feel and action as the day I bought it.

 

Prior to buying the Tamron I looked at several samples of 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor G zoom, both new and used. No two had the same zoom feel, and not one of them felt "just right". They ranged from loose and sloppy, through gritty and stiff, to downright seized up at 50mm - the latter was a new demo lens that I was expected to accept from Calumet at full price!

 

OTOH my Tamron 24-70 was ordered from the internet without prior handling and had a very acceptable zoom feel and action straight out of the box. Image quality also is very good wide open, to excellent across the frame and zoom range at mid apertures.

For the record, the zoom feel on my Nikon 24-70 is fine, neither loose nor stiff. I did actually look at some secondhand copies of this lens at Calumet, and the price was high for what looked like 'well-loved' condition. Got a good deal on some Fuji film, though.

Thanks everyone! What I had originally in mind was to get the 24-120 F4 as well, however after comparing corner resolution I decided to go for the 24-70, IF the zoom ring problems are fixed in the newer batches that is...One of the reasons I'm considering between these two lenses is because that they're both 77mm, all of my filters are 77mm and I believe all the other newer 24-70 lenses have moved on to 82mm but I don't feel like spending hundreds of dollars to getting new filters.

 

The stiff zoom ring on the 24-70 seems to be a really serious problem as Nikon usually refuses to fix it under warranty, this is the only concern that I have in mind for this lens, otherwise it would be perfect. I do know that it seems to be caused by internal screws coming loose which would jam the zoom mechanism, I really hope they fixed this in newer batches of the lens. Another cause for zoom grinding in this lens seems to be zoom barrel deformation, which could happen even if you store the lens horizontally due to its heavy weight...I wonder have anyone experienced the stiff zoom ring problem on newer batches of the 24-70 G? If so, what serial number is on the lens?

Corner sharpness of the 24-70 far exceeds the 24-120 F4 when stopped down as according to cameralabs testing, IMO this makes a big difference in landscape photography as in many cases the borders are reserved for framing elements. But then, if I get lucky maybe I'll get a good copy of the 24-120 with tack sharp corners, or maybe I'll try one by one in the store...Who knows.

Nikon 24mm f/1.8 G + Nikon 50mm f/1.8 + used Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro + filter stepping rings to 77mm.

 

All three together will cost less than one new 24-70 Zoom Nikkor. They'll blow away the corner IQ of the zoom at f/2.8 and put less strain on the camera mount than the unwieldy 24-70 with not much more total weight. Swapping lenses shouldn't be much of an issue for landscapes.

I have another off-topic question, will Nikon eventually release a 16-35 F2.8 lens? The current 16-35 F4 has extremely terrible corner sharpness between 16-18mm for some very peculiar reason, so I am thinking of sticking to the new 18-35G lens which according to tests seem to perform better. I'm not sure if this is a good idea though, but since I will likely be hiking most of the times I would prefer to keep as lightweight as possible.

 

Thanks a lot everyone!

 

Richard, it sounds like either you got a bad copy of the 16-35 f4, or mine is abnormally good. My copy is very sharp in the corners (actually, I see little difference between the corners and the center even at 100%) in the 16-18mm range. In fact, my copy is at its sharpest at the wide end through about 24mm, then at its weakest past 28mm, where even my 24-120 f4 outperforms it.. Now all of this is shooting at mid apertures, which is generally where I'm at shooting landscapes. I feel like the 24-120 is a great all-purpose lens, plenty sharp, great zoom range, with the benefit of VR.

will Nikon eventually release a 16-35 F2.8 lens?

They ought to - the "current" 17-35/2.8 oldie would deserve to be put out to pasture. A 16-35/2.8 is conspicuously absent from the Nikon lens lineup; perhaps Nikon thinks the 14-24/2.8 eliminates the need for it?

 

I have given up on mid-range zooms as the only options seem to be large and heavy f/2.8 zooms that have a rather limited range and smaller and lighter (in case of the 24-120 not really either) lenses with extended ranges but that are optically inferior to the f/2.8 versions. I owned the 24-85 VR, which wasn't overly convincing once attached to a 36MP body (the non-VR version already disappointed at 12MP). The one copy of the 24-120 I tried didn't win me over either; the extended range comes in a heavy package and the lens is rather weak above 80mm. Unfortunately, the Sigma 24-105 Art doesn't do any better.

 

I have now resorted to a 16-35/4, 50, 70-200/4 combo, augmented very recently by a Sony A7II with the new 12-24/4 (maybe the days of my Nikon 16-35 are now numbered?). Quite frankly, if landscape was my main focus, I'd have a very close look at the Sony A7RII (and the likely soon to be announced MkIII version). Sony now offers a nice set of f/4 zooms (12-24, 16-35, 70-200, and a rather weak 24-70). For more money and a resulting heavier pack, f/2.8 options are also available: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200). There's also a nice spread of fixed focal length lenses both from Sony and from Zeiss. If primes are an option, then Nikon offers a very nice set of f/1.8 ones too.

Thanks for the input guys! I'm actually looking to get the new D850 as the D810 greatly surpasses all other full frame cameras in terms of dynamic range, in which case the D850 will likely inherit this quality. Since the D850 will likely have a 42-46MP sensor, lens resolution would be a very important thing and thus the reason why I am considering the 24-70 even though the F2.8 isn't really needed.

 

I personally prefer zoom lenses as I found the conditions for landscape shooting very limiting most of the times, especially when your camera is mounted on a tripod. I also try to minimise the frequency of lens changing while outdoors to minimise the chance that I will drop my lens by mistake at the same time prevent dust from getting into the mirror(my current D7000 has a very dirty mirror).

 

As for the 16-35, see the links below:

 

Nikon 16-35mm f/4G AF-S VR Nikkor Lens Image Quality

 

Above is a comparison at F8 for the 16-35 against the 18-35 at F3.5. As you can see the extreme corners of the 16-35 remains mushy even stopped down to F8, and certainly a lot worse than the 18-35 wide open.

 

Nikon 16-35mm f4G VR review - Page 2 of 4 - Cameralabs

 

Above includes a large distance test conducted by cameralabs, while it appears that borders(not corners) of the 16-35 does not appear to be as bad as the corners in the close-range test shots, it is nonetheless unimpressive for an F4 lens. This corner blurriness that remains even when stopped down to F11 has been documented in many sources and appears to be a design flaw instead of individual differences

 

As for now I will likely decide to choose the 24-70 G and the 18-35, might add the 24-120 as a kit lens together with the D850 although it doesn't seem to have much of an advantage at anything apart from being slightly lighter, I haven't really decided yet. The problem is that if I buy it as a kit lens I probably won't get to exchange it if I get a lemon, which seems to be a common thing lately as all QC of the major Japanese camera/lens manufacturers seem to have slipped. I had originally intended to get the 24-120 however I was quite disappointed at the corners after comparison with the 24-70 G.

 

As for the zoom ring issue of the 24-70 G, lensrentals data from 2012 and onwards seem to indicate that the 24-70 G has a relatively low service rate compared to the 70-200 and 14-24, which both suffer from stiff zoom ring issues, although for some strange reason aren't as infamous as the "Nikon 24-70 zoom grind". I heard that the loose screw in the zoom mechanism has been fixed in newer batches of the 24-70 G lens, however it is still possible to jam your zoom ring by deforming the zoom barrel either by shocking or smacking the extended front tube or storing it in a way that allows gravity to bend the lens body due to its massive weight(although I have no idea if this even makes sense...).

 

I did consider the Tamron 24-70 VC, however decided not to go for it for three reasons: 1) 82mm filter instead of 77; 2) weaker corner resolution; 3) higher chance of focusing issues. The first two are my main concern as I am not willing to drop several hundred dollars to buying a new set of filters for a potentially weaker lens. The same goes for the Nikon 24-70 VR, despite having better performance it is simply too huge.