Alternative(s) to Nikon 24-70 f2.8

[craig_shearman1]

<p>As someone who has carried around the weight of a dozen primes, I don't see how a 24-70 that replaces at least four lenses (24, 28, 35 and 50, and arguably a short substitute for the 85) can be considered big and heavy. Haven't gotten there yet but my ideal day-to-day outfit if I were still shooting every day would be the 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 plus a teleconverter. Might still need a macro for some closeups and the occasional really long glass for sports or wildlife, but that combo would cover 90 percent of what I've ever shot and -- unless you're into really low light without flash -- probably 90 percent of what most other people shoot. And it would be three lenses instead of a dozen.</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Having owned many lenses and shot 35mm up to 4x5 over 25 years , I've FINALLY come to the conclusion that for the serious photographer - aside from the awesome wide angle zooms such as the superior Nikon and Canon 20-35 AF-D and 17-35 type lenses - there are almost NO zooms worth buying over one or two single focal length lenses in the same zoom range.</p>

<p>This includes the 70-200 2.8 AFS (Better to save up and buy a 85 1.8 AFD and 200 F2.0 AFS VR)<br>

24-70 f2.8 (better to buy a mint 20-35, New 50 f1.8, and 85 1.8 (or even the 1.4 version of the 85mm), etc.</p>

<p> </p>

[keith_b1]

<p>The 24-70 is not all that big or heavy, but combined with a FX camera the whole apparatus is VERY big and bulky to carry around with you while doing other things. It'll require doubling the size of any small backpack if you want to be able to put it away. An alternative, something I found handy when in tourist mode: 24mm/28mm and your choice 105mm or 135mm. I like 135mm. </p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>I think Keith made my point. I happen to travel for business and taking pictures is a nice but hobby side activity I enjoy doing if I am in a place and I have some time. I already have my computer and all my business stuff. I still shoot slide film. Sometimes I am already loaded like a donkey and I keep only the tiny Yashica T4 in my pocket, others I add one of my SRLs with one lens. It means making compromises between quality, convenience, weight and flexibility. I cannot visit a customer with a photo gear bag and I won't feel comfortable to leave it in the trunk of a rental car. I can fit my SRL with one lens in a corner of my office bag.<br>

The 35-70 and the 28-105 have proven to be unbeatable to me. When I am on vacation, then it is a whole different story, here I can bring with me a whole bag with all I need.</p>

[rich_evans]

<p>I've not read over all the replies, so I'll just give my usual 2 cents worth of opinion....</p>

<p>I would echo Shuo's comment about weight: while the 24-70 is hefty, carrying the three others you referenced would easily reach that weight. Additionally, the 24-70 f/2.8 along with the older but equally super performing 28-70 f/2.8 are built like tanks. I've been using the 28-70 for weddings and other events now for the last 8 years or so, where I've got it mounted on one of my camera bodies almost all day and it hasn't gotten bothersome - but then I'm rarely known to travel light ;-)</p>

<p>I can't speak to the other lenses, so take this for what its worth.</p>

<p>--Rich</p>

[bob_moore2]

<p>I am a Canon shooter, so can't really comment on particular Nikon lenses. . . . but maybe you can relate to this. I found the most expensive part of all my thousands of dollars of camera equipment are the cheaper lenses I bought that just didn't work out. Probably a half dozen Canon lenses, a couple of Tamron and a couple of Sigma lenses that all promised to be as good or better than the Canon "L" series lenses. (Their top line)</p>

<p>Yes . . they are heavier and more expensive, but they are also faster focusing, sharper throughout the entire zoom and aperture ranges, and color, contrast and color balance are superb compared to all the others. I estimate if I had bit the bullet right from the start and bought "L" glass, I would have saved approximately $2,000 on what I lost getting rid of the "crap"</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>i think i'll be picking up a tamron 28-75 f/2.8 since i can't afford either the nikon 24-70 or 28-70 f/2.8. i imagine the tamron (a $350 lens) is not up to the standards of the nikkors, but i've heard it's pretty good. and it weighs a lot less than the nikon 24-70 - about 500g vs 900g.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Bob Moore makes a good point. I have wasted a lot of money on value" lenses, only to sell them later and at a big loss. Sigma and Tokina "pro" glass comes to mind. At least with the Nikkors, you can get quite a bit more for them.</p>

[acjtucson]

<p>I recently bought the Nikon 24-70F2.8. I've also joined a health club to start working out so that I can carry that around with the D700. That being said, it's a great lens and I wouldn't think about changing.</p>

[maravin]

<p>I used to shoot Canon since 1996 or so, and I noticed that most of my pictures that I liked were taken with a small 50mm f/1.8. At some point I bought a much bigger/heavier 17-55mm IS and I found that I stopped making so many pictures with this lens. Yes, zooms are more convenient, but I found the lightness and excellent quality of a 50mm to be the decisive factor. Plus, it was so cheap, that I did not care much about rain or dust etc. At times I felt like "Oh, if I had this lens, this could be such a great shot!", but well, there is a balance between carying a load of equipment and be tired and upset and carying a camera and a small lens but being more free in concentrating on making pictures. I am currently use 50mm 1.4 with a film camera when I travel just for the sake of simplicity. I get to carry it with me more often, and it is sufficiently light and attracts less attention. Good luck with whatever you decide to do!<br /> P.S. I would also agree not to get value lenses. I tried a few "cheaper" lenses in the past, and pictures I took with them just simply did not look so good. I do not know how to explain but they just did not feel right to my eyes...</p>

[noli_tan]

<p>Tend to agree with Yurii. When I had a Leica M6 even with just a 35mm and 50mm I took some of my best shots compared to the zoom lens I had on my Canon outfit.<br>

Well, optics of the Leica are very good in my opinion- that could also explain the picture quality.<br>

Nonetheless, lots of good valid info on this forum-- appreciate it guys--keep it coming.</p>

[paulrowe]

<p>Noli..you won't suffer any buyer's remorse with the 24-70mm. As well as build, the image quality is outstanding. On a D700 you'd be pleased. Examples of the 24-70mm here<br>

<a href="http://paul.rowe.co.uk/p904298085">http://paul.rowe.co.uk/p904298085</a></p>

 

[noli_tan]

<p>Hi Paul, wow, the images on your portfolio are darn sharp!! nice !! looking forward to owning one in the future.</p>

[sam_johnson5]

<p>The 35-70/2.8 is an excellent lens with just a 62mm front filter size. This was the pro mid range zoom before the 24-70/2.8 came out. I think it even predates the 20-35/2.8. They are readily available on the used market. It is a push/pull zoom so watch for internal dust and be sure to get one that holds its position when extended and pointing upward (no zoom creep). </p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>If this is about image quality, stick with the crown jewel 24-70 even though it will be a bit heavy to lug around all day. If you want to save a little weight at the expense of focal length, the 35-70 is a winner.</p>

<p>If weight or money is a primary concern, the best lens probably is the faster 24-85 version, f/2.8-4. Not only nearly half the weight of the 24-70 but it also has more reach and a 1:2 macro feature. Overall, a pretty neat kind of travel lens at less than half the cost of the 24-70.</p>

<p>But of course, it also has drawbacks. You lose the f/2.8 before 30mm and it drops like a rock to f/4 so be prepared to trade off the great features with one stop and a lens that is far less well built. The weight savings seems to come primarily from the use of plastic in the 24-85. No right or wrong here, just about compromises and trade offs and deciding what is most important to you.</p>

<p> </p>

[alexander mandl]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I would never ever give my 24-70 away... it is brilliant, sharp - and solid... In combination with the 14-24 and 70-200 you would have a perfect coverage of focal length. I am travelling a lot - with heavy gear - but never found that my 70-200 or other lenses are to heavy to take with me...<br>

Comparing the 3 fixed focal lenses with the zoom - makes not realy sense for me, since the fixed ones are IMO for a different kind of usage. I also have an 85 1.4 - great lense - but never take it with me on an expedition. One of the major reasons for me is: I do not want to change lenses often in the field - not only getting dust into the camera - but I always have the wrong lense on the Cam - when I need it - So I have to boddies - one with the 70-200 and the other with eiter 14-24 or 24-70 - this works well for me...<br>

cheers<br>

alex</p>

[curt_hagenlocher]

<p>I, too, wish for an equivalent of Canon's 24-105 f/4. I'd probably buy it even without the VR.</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>I'm with you on the weight issue, Alexander.<br>

This past Saturday I spent 5 hours with a D700, vertical grip, 70-200 2.8 and an SB800 hanging off my wimpy body.<br>

It was windy and cold. No fun.<br>

But...priorities. You gotta do what you gotta do.</p>

[hernan_navarro]

<p>I read that the 24-70 is as heavy as 3 primes. True, but the 24-70 is heavier when attached to the camera. I had a 70-200. It was the best lens I never used. Too heavy and big. I now go with with a 35, 50 1.4 and 180. Much happier. Total weight is not the whole story.</p>

 

[noli_tan]

<p>problem with primes i forsee is dust and other elements getting into the body when changing lens.<br>

otherwise, primes are nice way to go as well which i why i have considered them.</p>

 

[tuyen_tran]

<p>Those of you who love primes (24/35/50/85) and also have the 24-70: is the zoom a satisfying experience? I know this is a vague question... but I'm also struggling with this decision and I have hard time convincing myself that the 24-70 will be as satisfying as the primes.</p>

<p>The 35 and 85 especially have great sharpness (especially at 2.8) with great transition to the out-of-focus areas. The 50/1.8 is sharp, almost too sharp for people, but I don't like the bokeh at most apertures. </p>

<p>And it just so happens that a 35/2.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.4 is exactly the price (at the current time) of the 24-70. I'm just afraid I'm giving up "satisfaction" for convenience...</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>I had the same decision problem and went for the 24-70. With hood on it measures (on my D700) 10 inches rear of camera to end of hood. Some size. Now I wish I had gone for primes. If I had I would wish I had gone for the 24-70.<br />And heavy !<br>

The 105 2.8. Love it.<br />You pays your money and takes your choice.</p>

[noli_tan]

Which compliments the 24-70 f2.8 better, the 85 1.4 or the 105 2.8 VR Micro ?

[brooks_lester]

<p>Don't worry about the weight. As a documentary sound mixer, I've spent the last 20 years carrying a 30+ pound mixing rig on my body and wrangling a boom mic over head. My cameraman colleagues have been carrying equally heavy and heavier cameras on their shoulders and though we're all not as pristinely put together as when we started, we're still mixing sound and shooting film and video into middle age. Yeah, my D700 is heavier than my old D300 and D50, and the 24-70 that I've ordered will be heavier than my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, but I won't be making any compromises for the majority of focal lengths that I shoot.<br>

We're only talking about a total of what, 5 pounds? That seems really light compared to wearing my 30 pound mixing rig... maybe that's another reason why I like to take pictures when I'm not mixing sound - the stuff weighs less than what I wear in the office.<br>

As an additional point, tha someone else has already posted, it costs more to buy mid-grade and then sell and move up to top-grade than it does to simply buy top-grade in the first place. <br>

I do like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 AF XR Di (did I get that right?), but, I'm losing pix due to the slow autofocus and the yellow-ish cast of the Tamron glass is bothering me more and more as I add more Nikon glass to the kit. </p>