How much better is a modern 24-70mm zoom than an older f/2.8 normal zoom?

With the D40, D3000 and D5000 you need the Nikon AF-S lenses and I think AF-I or something? And the equiv 3rd party lenses. Sigma is called HSM technology.

AF-I is the early in-lens motor used on exotic super-teles. I'd expect a D40, etc to work with these but they are not overly common now and are still mostly 4 figure lenses despite being close to 30 years old. Presumably, these function the same electrically as AF-S-the F4 predated AF-S lenses, but works fine with AF-S lenses(back in Nikon's early AF days, the F4 was the only one that could use AF-I, while the N8008, N6006, N5005, N4004, and N2020 couldn't use them).

The "new" lenses are AF-P, which is a stepper motor. These lenses manual focus "by wire." They are nearly silent without the whir associated with AF-S lenses, and also are very smooth focusing-they don't jerk like AF-S lenses. I've been told that they're better for video. I suspect AF-S is still faster, although in the smaller lenses where you usually find AF-P I don't see much difference comparing something like the ubiquitous 18-55mm DSLR kit lens.

Only the newest cameras can work with AF-P lenses. I have one-the 10-20mm VR, and love it as a little lightweight utlrawide. It's a DX lens, but works on FX cameras set to ~14mm and longer. I had to update the firmware on my D600 and D800 to get it to focus at all, while my Df and D500 worked out of the box. I also can't turn off VR on the D600 and D800, while I can on the D500(don't remember on the Df). Cameras older than ~2012 could presumably work with a firmware update, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

AFAIK, PC-E lenses are NOT AI-P since they are G lenses. G lenses can't be AI lenses since there's no aperture ring on which they automatically index. Of course, non-E lenses do keep the one key feature of AI-S lenses(as opposed to AI) which is that the aperture actuation is linear. This also doesn't apply to PC-E lenses, though, since there's no aperture lever.

To be fair to Nikon for once in all my ranting, you're quite right. :-) It would, of course, have been nice if they'd used some of the long sequence of letters in each lens to indicate truly orthogonal concepts so that we didn't have to reverse-engineer everything and then list the exceptions to whatever rule seemed to make sense. AI-P lenses were early enough that "electronic maximum aperture" would have been easy enough. On the other hand, I believe there's no obvious way to distinguish E aperture lenses which have a manual override (the first few PC-E) from the 19mm, which doesn't (I think); there's no obvious naming to suggest that the 70-300 FX has AF-P that's compatible with AF-S but the DX versions don't, and I still don't really understand why dSLRs can't control AI-S lens apertures in the same way that they do AI-P lenses...

I have to admit not realizing the Seiko 5 came in a non-date version, but them I'm not a big Seiko guy and the 5 has only come in about 100 million different variations. I do have one kicking around here, although rarely rare it since it annoys me that I have to sit and shake it, or wear it, for a few minutes before I can set it when I've let it run down. I rarely hand wind automatic watches(the winding mechanism usually isn't as robust as on a watch designed for hand winding-plus I miss the lack of a hard stop to know it's fully wound, even though I can usually feel the bridle slip) but it's handy if it's a watch you normally wear but skip a day, or if you've left it long enough to run down and want to get it started to set the time.

Oops, it's been a while. Having a "day/date" window is one of the "five" for which the Seiko 5 is named. Which doesn't stop you being able to select the option on the Seiko site and have no effect if you've already requested to look at Seiko 5s. I actually owe an apology (although probably not to every other watch site I looked at a few years ago, including many manufacturers); Searchable Seiko 5 Catalog actually does let you exclude features. Yay for third parties with imagination. Mine barely gets used, since I'm normally a smart watch person (RIP Pebble, or at least when the battery dies on mine RIP), but it's nice to have a mechanical option. I got enough into watches to appreciate some features, but stopped short of diverting my NAS money. Just as well, since a Patek would pay for the entire set of big Nikon superteles. (If you ever visit Taipei 101, the shopping centre floors contain increasingly preposterous watch retailers. Rolex is on the ground floor.)

There are a number of mostly budget Canon lenses that didn't get the ultrasonic motor (USM) - the 50mm f/1.8 being a prime example (hoho). Canon didn't feel the need to indicate that the lenses were autofocus once you'd gone to the Eos mount, of course; something other than "S" in "AF-S" would have been better for Nikon, I feel (maybe "AF-E" - autofocus-electronic?), leaving the SWM branding alone. Canon also seem to have done a better job of compatibility with the STM stepper motors. Given that the FX 70-300 seems to be able to pull the "AF-P but looks like AF-S" trick, I'm curious whether it just has two protocols (and actually behaves differently depending on the body) or whether there's some subtlety that makes the other AF-P lenses incompatible.

The rule with the FTZ, and anything really, is never force what doesn't appear to fit easily. The only screw drive focus lens I have is a 20mm f/2.8 and I thought I'd try it. Mounts fine on other bodies, but didn't want to mount on the FTZ. So I didn't. It's not listed anywhere as a problem lens, so always be careful. I also have the AiS version and it mounts and works just great.

There's been a huge amount of talk about what the FTZ is lacking, and how you might make a more full featured version with motor and aperture coupling ring. Thinking about it a bit harder, those features would be nice, but their lack doesn't affect me much. I typically use aperture priority or full manual exposure, often letting auto ISO do its thing. With focus peaking and occasional use of magnification, I rarely have to open up a lens to focus. Most of the time I don't care what's in the exif data. The thing should work with 3rd party lenses, so that's a serious flaw, but I can see why Nikon did the rest of it the way they did.

That said, my main complaint is the FTZ is another thing that has to be kept track of and transferred from lens or camera in the field. Never enough flat space to set things, or there's a risk of dropping something expensive. If I were made of money, I'd have all Z mount lenses, but that's unlikely and not all the lenses I want are available yet.

Alright, visited the local camera store today, and they had a 24-70mm f/2.8(non-E) in nice shape for a price I couldn't pass up. I put a bit down on it and am going to pick it up on Friday, so hopefully I can compare it side by side with the 35-70.

Welp, now you've just doubled your reporting work.

We've (kind of) got the "NAI" convention for "not AI", but I've not really seen a good way of saying "AF-not-D" except by hoping people are paying attention.

I think NAI (or N/AI) stands for "Nikon AI", not "non-AI". At least, that is how i have seen that acronym used by third-party lens makers in the Ai days. I've never seen the acronym in another context.

Whenever i want to refer to screw-drive lenses, i do not say AF-D or AF non-D. I always say "screw-drive AF", since that avoids ambiguity. When i want to refer to lenses that do or don't communicate focus distance to the camera, i say D or non-D. I always assume people understand these distinctions until they prove otherwise.

Pre-AI or non-AI is sort of in common use for such lenses.

If I want to be pedantic about it, I'll sometimes call them "Auto-Nikkor" as that is what the trim ring typically says. As an example, in reference to one particular favorite non-AI lens, I might say Auto-Nikkor-S 5.8cm f/1.4.

And yes, the N/AI designation was by 3rd party makers to mark Nikon-mount lenses. Earlier non-AI lenses were often marked "N/F.' You'll also see, for example, "C/FD", "M/MC", "P/K", and "K/F" to mark 3rd party lenses(I'm sure I've missed a few, but those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head).

Ken Rockwell quoth:

I think I only picked it up when I saw someone else using it around here. But if "NAI" is causing ambiguity, I'll steer clear. I often say "pre-AI", but obviously it's marginally less concise. I'm a little wary of "pre-AF" as a catch-all for so long as Nikon theoretically still sell the manual 50mm f/1.2 (not that I've checked recently). Good thing we all know what we're referring to...

Alright, 24-70 and 35-70 are in hand. I hope to report soon, although it may be closer to the end of the week.

I did have a bit of fun walking around with the 24-70 today. Without actually giving a critical look, the 35-70 is a whole lot nicer to carry, but the 24-70 offsets it by the super useful 24mm wide end.

I do not know the answer to your question.

 

I will share this with you. I have the Nikon 35-70mm that you have and the first version of the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. And I also own and use the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens. The one I use the most on my D800e, D810 and D850 is the Nikon 24-85mm because it is so much lighter than the 24-70mm f2.8. Also, I cannot discern any difference in images taken with it and my copy of the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Most of the images taken are in daylight where I am not using the f2.8 aperture. If I am inside or in lower light situations, I use a Nikon or Sigma prime lens.

 

When I did use my 35-70mm push pull zoom it was mostly on my D200 or D300. It always produced very good images. Right now it sits in my closet unused.

 

From the reviews I have read, it appears that the two best choices are the current Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and the current Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 Di VC. Why not rent one or both and test them against your 35-70mm?

You have had better luck with your AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5G ED VR than I have. Mine exhibits colour fringing severe enough to defy complete correction and untouched RAW images are pretty dreadful. Stopping down does nothing to improve the situation and actually f5.6 is the worst. I've had the lens gone through by Nikon and they tell me it is up to snuff, but it isn't even all that sharp at any aperture. I've borrowed (and will be buying) a 24-70 f2.8 (non VR) and the image quality is stunning - no CA, even wide open. The 24-85 didn't exactly get sterling reviews in tests. Not one of Nikon's better efforts IMHO and more jpeg snapshot quality than anything. I think I have greater tolerance to carrying the extra weight than the effort wasted taking images with the 24-85. They're good enough for website publication, but that's about it.

FWIW, I've had good luck with the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. It's not as good as say the 24-120 f/4, and my new 24-70 f/2.8 blows both away.

Still, though, I've used the 24-85 a whole lot both on my D600(which I no longer have) and my Df as a handy walk-around lightweight lens. It's sort of the FX equivalent of the ubiquitous 18-55mm, but a whole lot more practical for me since it goes a decent amount wider.

FWIW, I've had good luck with the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. It's not as good as say the 24-120 f/4, and my new 24-70 f/2.8 blows both away.

 

Still, though, I've used the 24-85 a whole lot both on my D600(which I no longer have) and my Df as a handy walk-around lightweight lens. It's sort of the FX equivalent of the ubiquitous 18-55mm, but a whole lot more practical for me since it goes a decent amount wider.

I really want to like the 24-85 as the range is really useful and it is handy to lug about. I still use it for website work where no one could possibly see its shortcomings. I figure the 24-70 f2.8 for anything that gets presented in a larger size and the 24-85 is adequate for the rest.

I really want to like the 24-85 as the range is really useful and it is handy to lug about. I still use it for website work where no one could possibly see its shortcomings. I figure the 24-70 f2.8 for anything that gets presented in a larger size and the 24-85 is adequate for the rest.

Hopefully sometime this week I can do a line-up of the 24-85 and 24-120 along with my new 24-70 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8. When I originally offered upthread to do it, I was planning on testing with my D800. Since then, though, I've made the plunge to add a back-up body in the form of a D810(or rather the D810 has enough I like that I will probably switch it over to primary duties). Since the D810 should in theory deliver SLIGHTLY sharper results assuming the lens is up to the task, and also has what seems to be somewhat better live view to make nailing focus easier, I think I can do a more fair comparison.

Hopefully sometime this week I can do a line-up of the 24-85 and 24-120 along with my new 24-70 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8. When I originally offered upthread to do it, I was planning on testing with my D800. Since then, though, I've made the plunge to add a back-up body in the form of a D810(or rather the D810 has enough I like that I will probably switch it over to primary duties). Since the D810 should in theory deliver SLIGHTLY sharper results assuming the lens is up to the task, and also has what seems to be somewhat better live view to make nailing focus easier, I think I can do a more fair comparison.

Are you familiar with the term "scope creep"?

Are you familiar with the term "scope creep"?

If you are implying what I think you are, I fully recognize it.

Hopefully sometime this week I can do a line-up of the 24-85 and 24-120 along with my new 24-70 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8. When I originally offered upthread to do it, I was planning on testing with my D800. Since then, though, I've made the plunge to add a back-up body in the form of a D810(or rather the D810 has enough I like that I will probably switch it over to primary duties). Since the D810 should in theory deliver SLIGHTLY sharper results assuming the lens is up to the task, and also has what seems to be somewhat better live view to make nailing focus easier, I think I can do a more fair comparison.

I look forward to your comparison. I've had many debates with myself on this question!

I'm still working up the results to hopefully post comprehensively, but here's a bit of a teaser.

I ended up testing the 35-70 f/2.8D, 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S, 24-120 f/4 VR, and 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S VR. I also threw in an ancient and much maligned lens-a 43-86 f/3.5 with a hack job AI conversion.

I hope I can get it all written up soon, but processing these in a way that makes sense is a lot of work.

These were done on my D810 with no sharpening and otherwise no PP. For now, I'm showing about 50mm(registered at 52mm on the "modern" lenses, the 43mm at the stop) and wide open. Pardon the motion blur in the fern. All were manually focused in live view on the pot.

First the 35-70 f/2.8D

Then 24-70 AF-S

43-86, first wide open

Then at f/8, where it actually wasn't terrible at least in the center

Yes, these will need to be redone. Hopefully at least the pot can show something.

It's amazing how tedious lens testing can be.

Yes, these will need to be redone. Hopefully at least the pot can show something.

 

It's amazing how tedious lens testing can be.

How about placing a few bottles each in varying distance from the camera (on a tripod). Focus on a fixed spot on the front bottle, first wide open(wide angle), then f/8. Then do the same with each lens. To measure the qualify of background bokeh, place an object somewhere at the background of the composition away from the bottles. The front bottle would provide feedback on sharpness. The subsequent ones on depth of field, the background item provides bokeh quality. The lines on the bottle would reveal barrel and pincushion distortions, if any... Then repeat with medium focal length such as 50mm;. Then at 70mm (if you are not sick and tired of testing by then).

How about placing a few bottles each in varying distance from the camera (on a tripod). Focus on a fixed spot on the front bottle, first wide open(wide angle), then f/8. Then do the same with each lens. To measure the qualify of background bokeh, place an object somewhere at the background of the composition away from the bottles. The front bottle would provide feedback on sharpness. The subsequent ones on depth of field, the background item provides bokeh quality. The lines on the bottle would reveal barrel and pincushion distortions, if any...

This sounds pretty good. I would only add that two more bottles, flanking the front bottle such that they wind up near the edges of the frame, would do much to reveal the degree of field curvature of the lenses.

Needless to say, all these bottles had better be beer bottles, and everyone knows that beer bottles recently emptied (within an hour of the test shoot, say) make the best test targets.

Yes, these will need to be redone. Hopefully at least the pot can show something. It's amazing how tedious lens testing can be.

Testing too many lenses at once is confusing to shoot and to compare. how about starting off with the two lenses that were discussed in the beginning of the thread?

For example:

1. 24-70 lens (4 shots):
   f/2.8 @24mm, @70mm
   f/8 @24mm, @70mm
    
    
   
2. 35-70mm (4 shots)
   f/2.8 @35mm, @70mm
   f/8 @35mm, @70mm
   

Alright, thank you for the suggestions on testing.

I'd be interested to throw f/5.6 into the mix since that tends to be my go-to walk-around aperture(diffraction can get viscious on high-res sensors with modern optics) but that would be easy.

I can't offer beer bottles as I don't drink, but can probably find some others to show :)

Also, I'd forgotten that Pnet lets me upload full-res uncropped originals. That means I don't have to go through the trouble of cropping to show 100%.